City Council Agenda Packet 08-09-1993AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, August 9, 1993 - 7 p.m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Patty Olsen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held July 26, 1:93.
3. Citizens comments/petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow commercial storage
contained entirely within a building in a B-3 (highway business) zone. A
variance request to allow no curbing or hard surfacing of the off-street
parking and driveway areas. Applicant, Glen Posusta.
5. Consideration of a conditional use request which would allow open and
outdoor storage as an accessory use in an 1-2 zone, and consideration of a
conditional use request allowing a reduction in the parking lot design
requirements. Applicant, Standard Iron.
6. Consideration of a request for an extension to a conditional use permit.
Applicant, David Hornig.
7. Consideration of a variance request which would allow construction of an
accessory building with a floor area in excess of 1,000 sq fl, and a variance
request to allow an accessory building to he built with a metal siding wider
than 12 inches and a roof covering material not consistent with other
building structures in the area. Applicant, Randy Ruff.
N. Consideration of adapting development agreement for the Oak Ridge
residential subdivision.
9. Consideration of approval of final plat of the Oak Ridge residential
subdivision.
10. Consideration of rezoning area encompassed by the Oak Ridge subdivision
from R -PUD to R-1 uses.
11. Consideration of construction of pond outlet for the Briar Oakes
development.
Agenda
City Council Meeting
August 9, 1993
Page 2
12. Review of six-month financial statement for liquor store.
13. Consideration of final payment to Astech Corporation for Sealcoat Project
SC 93-1.
14. Consideration of calling a public hearing to review an amendment to the
city ordinance which would establish a storm sewer utility fee system, and
call for a special meeting for August 16 at 4:30 p.m.
15. Consideration of a resolution calling for a public hearing on the Hart
Boulevard storm sewer improvement.
16. Consideration of purchasing two additional bleachers for the baseball
complex.
17. Adjournment.
IYIINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, July 26,1993 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brad Fyle, Patty Olsen
2. Consideration of aunroval of minutes of the reeular meetine held
Julv 12. 1993.
After correction of a spelling error noted by Councilmember Anderson, a
motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Brad Fyle and
unat,imously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held
July 12, 1993 as presented.
3. Citizens anmments/Detitions. reauest. and complaints.
The City Council was presented with petitions requesting that the City conduct
an in-house feasibility and cost analysis for possible improvements of the alleys
within the Blocks 34, 35, and 52 in the downtown area. It was noted by the
Public Works Department that the City may have to obtain additional
easements for the alleys if the City was to conduct any improvements outside
of the alley surface but a low cost feasibility study could he prepared outlining
any deficiencies within the alleys and also to cover possible storm sewer
improvements if needed.
Motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Patty Olsen and unaninously
carried to authorize City staff to complete an in-house feasibility study and
cost analysis concerning potential improvement3 to the alleys within Blocks 34,
35, and 52.
4. Consideration of allowing temporary disulav of a United Wav sittn on the
exterior wall of the Chamber of Commerce building.
Mr. Carry Nolan, representing the United Way campaign, requested a permit
to allow the United Way to display a sign on the exterior wall of the Chamber
of Commerce building located on the corner of Highway 25 and Broadway.
Mr. Nolan noted that the sign would be a professionally designed sign and
would be updated to show the level of contributions received from their fund
raising activities.
Motion war. n-.ade by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Clint Herbst and
unanimously carried to grant a permit allowing the display of a temporary
United Way sign to the nonprofit organization on the exterior wall of the
Chamber building for a period of up to 30 days.
Council Minutes - 7/26/93
Consideration of renewine 1994 contract for Citv Assessor
For the 1993 assessment year, the City hired Mr. Jerry Kramber of Montrose,
Minnesota as the City's Assessor. For the 1994 assessment year, Mr. Kramber
has requested an increase in the compensation from the present $5.25/parcel
to $5.75/parcel. Mr. Kramber requested the additional increase to cover recent
changes in the assessing law which may create additional record keeping
responsibilities for the Assessor and to compensate for the additional time and
labor required to update a second set of field cards and records for the City
files.
In regard to the assessing duties, Councilmembers questioned the number of
parcels that are actually viewed by the City Assessor on an annual basis and
whether the parcels are viewed internally or just from the exterior. Building
Inspector Gary Anderson suggested that the Assessor be required to provide
monthly reports and supply the Certificates of Real Estate Value on a monthly
basis from the County Assessor's office. It was noted by the Administrator
that he did not feel obtaining the Certificates of Real Estate Value would be
a problem and that he has been presented with various reports in the past and
could obtain monthly reports if desired. In addition, councilmembers felt the
contract for services should require a report on the actual properties inspected
internally compared to the total parcels examined in an assessment year.
After further discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by
Brad Fyle and unanimously carried to approve renewing an assessing contract
with Mr. Jerry Kramber of Kramber and Associates as the City Assessor for
the year 1994 provided the contract was amended to require: monthly reports
as determined by the Administrator, monthly Certificates of Real Estate Value
provided to the City, and the inclusion of an annual report which would outline
the parcels actually inspected and the number of properties were an internal
inspection was completed.
Consideration of adominc rgsolution anprovine plans and specifications and
authorizine advertisement for bids --Hart Boulevard Storm Sewer.
City Engineer Bret Weiss reviewed with the Council the recently prepared
plans and specifications for construction of a storm sewer outlet from Hart
Boulevard to the Mississippi River. Mr. Weiss noted that the storm sewer
project is now being planned in conjunction with the expansion of the hospital/
clinic facility as the storm sewer would be constructed within the proposed
parking lot expansion for the clinic.
Administrator Wolfsteller noted that the City staff would be investigating
options for financing this improvement and will provide suggestions on
developing a policy that could be applied to this project and other storm sewer
Page 2
Council Minutes - 7/26/93
projects in regard to assessment for improvements of this nature. A public
hearing will be scheduled for August 23, 1993, for the Hart Boulevard storm
sewer project and a potential cost estimate and assessment role would be
available at that time.
After further review of the plans and specifications, a motion was made by
Brad Fyle and seconded Shirley Anderson and unanimously carried to adopt
a resolution approving the plans and specifications and authorizing
advertisement for bids for the Hart Boulevard storm sewer project.
SEE RESOLUTION 93-25.
Review of bids for refurbishment or reolacement of second stage digester cover
at the wastewater treatment plant and consideration of award of contract.
Bids for the replacement and/or replacement of the second stage digester cover
were received on Friday, July 23, 1993, as follows:
CONTRACTOR NEW COVER BID REFURBISH BID
Moorhead Const. $228,432 no bid
Robert L. Carr $189,300 no bid
Lysne Const. $210,000 no hid
Gridor Const. $168,600 $169,400
Mr. John Peterson, Project Manager for the City Engineer, reviewed with the
Council the bids that were received and noted that Gridor Construction would
be the low bidder for both the new cover replacement and the refurbishment
of the existing cover. It was noted that although the City could possibly save
$30,000 . $40,000 by refurbishing the existing cover, a new cover would
probably last longer and provide better service to the City in the future and as
such recommended the City consider the new cover. The low bidder, Gridor
Construction, also would deduct $5,000 from their base bid of $173,600 if they
were allowed until June 1, 1994, to complete the project. The reduction would
mainly he due to lower cost for painting the cover during nicer weather.
After further discussion on the bids, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and
seconded by Shirley Anderson and unanimously carried to award the contract
for the digester cover replucement to Gridor Construction Company of
Plymouth in the amount of $168,600 which included a $5,000 deduction for
allowing completion extension until June 1, 1994.
Consideration of nan(oval of annual evaluajion and planning survev for the
Minnesota pollution Control Aeencv regarding the sanitary sewer collection
system and wastewater treatment facility.
The City of Monticello along with PSG, Operator of the Wastewater Treatment
Page 3
Council Minutes - 7/26/93
Plant, recently took part in the MPCA planning process for an annual
evaluation and survey. The City and PSG were asked to be part of a pilot
program that the PCA was using to help develop the survey that will become
a requirement for all communities next year. The main purpose of the surveys
in the future will be to hopefully open up communication between the
wastewater treatment plants, city councils, and the MPCA and should
facilitate planning for future needs of wastewater treatment plants.
Public Works Director John Simola reviewed with the Council the annual
report the City and PSG had completed and noted that the PCA was asking for
approval by the City Council to acknowledge that the report had been
reviewed.
Motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by Patty Olsen and
unanimously carried to adopt the annual evaluation and planning survey as
drafted and authorize the submittal of the pilot evaluation to the MPCA.
SEE RESOLUTION 93-24.
9. Consideration of advertisine in Fall Parade of Homes booklet --Suburban
Northwest Builders Association.
The City was recently contacted by the Elk River Star News which produces
the Suburban Northwest Builders Association Parade of Homes magazine
requesting that the City consider advertising in the magazine. It was the
Council consensus that most of the model homes included in the fall Parade of
Homes would probably be in the Elk River area. They did not see any reason
why the City should at this time consider advertising or promoting the City of
Monticello as a location for new home building.
A motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Shirley Anderson and
was unanimously carried to not authorize advertisement in the fall Parade of
Homes booklet at this time.
10. Annroval of hills.
A motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Shirley Anderson and was
unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of July as presented.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Rick Wolfsteller
City Administrator
Page 4
(a
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
a. Consideration of a conditional use reagest to allow commercial
storage contained entirely within a building in a B-3 (highway
business) zone. A variance request to allow no curbing or hard
surfacing of the off-street narking and drivewav areas. ADDlicant.
Glen Posusta. W.O. )
Following is the supplement provided to the Planning Commission regarding
this case. For the sake of efficiency, you have been provided with the same
supplement.
Planning Commission tabled making a recommendation pending additional
information on the potential problems created by requiring paving of the mini -
storage drive area prior to roadway and storm sewer improvements being made
to Dundas. The Planning Commission may approve the variance request if it
can be demonstrated that paving prior to completion of Dundas will create
drainage problems. I am checking with Bret on this question.
Planning Commission has scheduled a special meeting prior to the Council
meeting for the purpose of forming a recommendation in time for the Council
meeting.
C®
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93 ��
s. Continued Public Hearing --A conditional use reauest to allow
commercial storage contained entirely within n bnilding in a B-3
(highway business) zone. A variance reauest to allow no curbing or
hard surfacing of the off-street narking and driveway areas.
Aoolicant. Glen Posusta. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Glen Posusta requests that the City grant him a conditional use permit
which would allow development of a commercial storage facility in a B-3
zone. As you recall, this item was discussed in some detail at the previous
meeting of the Planning Commission. Formal consideration of this item
was delayed pending establishment of the proper alignment of Cedar Street
Subsequent to the previous meeting, Glen Posusta has acquired additional
property to the east of the original site, which has allowed him to shift the
storage facility to the east and also allowed Cedar Street to be aligned in a
position approximately 250 ft east of Highway 25. This is the best
alignment possible, and Posusta should be recognized for working with the
City to provide the land necessary to create this alignment.
Posusta will also benefit by the new alignment in that he will own the
valuable property between the frontage road and Highway 25. All in all,
the Cedar Street alignment that will be established with the Posusta
conditional use permit is the best alignment possible, provides enough room
for development of commercial uses between the frontage road and Highway
25, results in a relatively straight alignment which enhances traffic flow,
and it provides for establishment of parcels without irregular shapes and,
therefore, will result in an efficient use of land.
MINI.STORAGE SITE PIAN REVIEW
Unfortunately, I do not have a completed site plan at this point. Most of
Posusta's efforts have been focused on creating the proper alignment and
obtaining the land necessary to place the mini -storage facility farther to the
cast. At this point, he is working on finalizing the site plan that will he
presented at the meeting. I do know, however, that the site plan does not
include paving or application of curb and gutter as required by ordinance.
It is my understanding that all other aspects of the site plan will comply
with city standards.
Associated with this conditional use permit request is the request for a
variance to the hard surface and curbing requirements. Posusta is
requesting a variance to these requirements due to the fact that Dundas
Road currently is not paved, and it does not make sense to Posusta to
require paving of the mini -storage facility if Dundas Road is not paved.
Posusta also notes his strong efforts to work with the City to realign the
y1
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
roadway, and he believes that the City can help him out by granting a
variance to the hard surfacing and curbing requirement at least for the
short-term. Posusta also has noted his intent to pave and curb the site per
city ordinance at such time that Dundas Road is paved.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
DECISION I
IA. Motion to approve conditional use permit allowing commercial storage
based on the finding that commercial storage is an allowable use in
the B-3 zone. It is, therefore, consistent with the comprehensive
plan. The conditional use permit is contingent on the following:
1. The development must meet city standards with regard to
paving, curbing, and landscaping, or a variance to these
standards must be obtained..
2. A grading and drainage plan must be prepared and approved
by the City Engineer.
3. Posusta must provide the City with a roadway easement as
proposed on the site plan at a cost not to exceed the market
value.
4. No outside storage or parking of vehicles is allowed under this
conditional use permit.
113. Motion to deny conditional use permit.
Planning Commission should select this alternative if Posusta is not
willing to comply with one or more of the conditions required by the
Planning Commission.
DECISION 2
2A. Motion to approve the variance request allowing no curbing or hard
surfacing of the oft -street parking and driveway areas. Motion is
based on the finding that granting the variance does not impair the
intent of the ordinance because of the following reasons:
1. At the present time, Dundas Road is not paved, and it does not
make sense to require hard surfacing until Dundas Road is
paved.
Planning Commission Agenda - 813/93
2. Posusta's efforts to work with the City to establish the proper
alignment of Cedar Street call for special efforts by the Cit; to
bend the ordinance to make it easier for him to develop his
facility.
3. Posusta has agreed to pave and curb the parking area at such
time that Dundas Road is improved.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission finds that the
situation is sufficiently unique to warrant a variance and that a
precedent has not been established by allowing the development to
occur without meeting city standards.
2B. Motion to deny the variance allowing no curbing or hard surfacing of
the off-street parking and driveway areas based on the following
finding:
There is nothing unique about the situation.
A. There is no hardship demonstrated that would justify
granting a variance in this case. To grant a variance in
this situation would, therefore, set an unwanted
precedent.
B. The fact that Dundas Road is not paved is not relevant
to this situation. It is likely that Dundas Road will he
paved relatively soon. From an engineering standpoint,
it is possible to establish the proper elevations for the
curb and pavement of the mini -storage facility in
anticipation of improvements being made to Dundas
Road.
2. The fact that the applicant has worked well with the City in
establishing the alignment is very commendable: however, this
does not mitigate the precedent that would be set by allowing
him to develop the site without paving and curbing.
I have been contacted by the operator of another mini -storage
facility in the community who has indicated that it would be
unfair to his business to allow Posusta to develop his property
without meeting city standards. From an economic standpoint,
waiving the requirements would result. in Posusta having an
unfair advantage over the competition.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends and fully supports granting the conditional use
permit; however, we believe that the variances associated with this request
should be denied. Although the applicant has worked well with the City
and has made significant efforts to create the best alignment for Cedar
Street, this reason and other reasons are not applicable criteria when
evaluating whether or not to approve the variance request. It is our view
that a sufficiently unique situation or hardship has not been demonstrated;
therefore, the variances should be denied.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan; Excerpts from the zoning ordinance; See criteria for
evaluating variance requests.
�T/
-';�i� ,�'; .....a-�--.+;`--'�..� ems-+- ' _ �:f_Y_11
rlF
L
CERrIFICAM OF SURVEY
f.,
GLeNpo5usrA
L,(1tfg1Q NQN'i
Foil iul00440
U4(lonct 24L6
0
CELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
23-9:
23/1
)record upon the effective date of this ordinance or that by
reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of a
specific parcel of land or lot, the strict application of the
terms of this ordinance would result in exceptional
difficulties when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner
customary and legally permissible within the district in which
said lot or parcel is located, or would create undue hardship
upon the onwer of such lot or parcel that the owner of another
lot or parcel within the same district would not have if he
were to develop his lot or parcel in a manner proposed by the
applicant. Should thF �' +^^ rnees+n{as{on find that the
conditions outiicly to the nrenoaed tet er
qed )eret tnra enfrom the
str ct a?pp7 cat on O t a ordinance so as
to relieve -such
U1111cultri or narasnips to the degree considered reasonable,
prov101nc� sucn relief. ma* e
inteAE of this zonfnc Ord nance.,
APPEALS: The PlAnning Commission, serving as the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals, shall, after receiving the written
report and recommendation of the City staff, make a finding of
fact and the
applicant that error ke a ihas on ooccurred in any order, req i en aeals where It is alled ment,
decision, or determination made by the Building Inspector in
the enforcement of this ordinance. However, said appeal shall
reports and recommendations to the Planning Commission serving
as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals from the City staff
CYSu�S +Q
shall be entered in and made part of the permanent written
record of the Board's meeting.
23-3:
FINDING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF: In considering
all requests for variance or appeal and taking subsequent
action, the City staff and the Planning Commission, serving as
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall make a finding of
fact that the proposed action will not:
[A] Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property.
[BJ Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public
street.
[CJ Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public
safety.
D] Unreasonably diminish or impair established property
values within the neighborhood or in any other way be
contrary to the intent of this ordinance.
23-4:
N -ECONOMIC HPtpSq - The Planning Commission, serving as
e Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall, after receiving
he written reports and recommendations of the City staff,
ake a finding of fact and decide upon requests for a variance
by approving or denying the same, in part or in whole, where
it is alleged by the applicant that a non -economic hardship in
the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property exists.
A hardship that by some reason of narrowness, shallowness, or
shape of a specific parcel of property or lot existing and of
L,(1tfg1Q NQN'i
Foil iul00440
U4(lonct 24L6
0
CELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
23-9:
23/1
)record upon the effective date of this ordinance or that by
reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of a
specific parcel of land or lot, the strict application of the
terms of this ordinance would result in exceptional
difficulties when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner
customary and legally permissible within the district in which
said lot or parcel is located, or would create undue hardship
upon the onwer of such lot or parcel that the owner of another
lot or parcel within the same district would not have if he
were to develop his lot or parcel in a manner proposed by the
applicant. Should thF �' +^^ rnees+n{as{on find that the
conditions outiicly to the nrenoaed tet er
qed )eret tnra enfrom the
str ct a?pp7 cat on O t a ordinance so as
to relieve -such
U1111cultri or narasnips to the degree considered reasonable,
prov101nc� sucn relief. ma* e
inteAE of this zonfnc Ord nance.,
APPEALS: The PlAnning Commission, serving as the Board of
Adjustment and Appeals, shall, after receiving the written
report and recommendation of the City staff, make a finding of
fact and the
applicant that error ke a ihas on ooccurred in any order, req i en aeals where It is alled ment,
decision, or determination made by the Building Inspector in
the enforcement of this ordinance. However, said appeal shall
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
S. Consideration of a conditional use n muest which would allow open
and outdoor storage as an accessory use in an 1-2 zone. and
consideration of a conditional use request allowing a reduction in the
parking lot design requirements. Applicant. Standard Iron. (J.O.)
Following is the supplement provided to the Planning Commission regarding
this case. For the sake of efficiency, you have been provided with the same
supplement.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the requests per alternatives
#IA and #2A.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
4. Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use request which
would allow oxen and outdoor storage as an accessory use in an I-2
zone. and consideration of a conditional use request allowing a
reduction in the Darkinq lot design reauirements. ADDlicant,
Standard Iron. (J.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Standard Iron of New Hope, Minnesota, is requesting two conditional use
permits. One would allow open and outdoor storage as an accessory use,
and the other would allow a reduction in the parking and drive aisle design
standards.
Standard Iron is a metal fabricating company that has been in business
since 1930. The facility proposed for Monticello will employ approximately
85 people. Currently, Standard Iron operates facilities in New Hope,
Alexandria, and Sauk Rapids. I understand that the shop developed in
Monticello will become the new home for their corporate headquarters as
well as being a manufacturing facility.
Site Plan
The site plan galls for development of a 32,000 sq ft warehouse and
manufacturing building along with a 2 -story office building. The 2 -story
structure will contain approximately 20,000 sq ft of office space. Although
Standard Iron purchased both Lots 7 (5.2 acres) and 8 (5.2 acres), the initial
development will occur only on Lot 8, with Lot 7 being reserved for future
expansion.
The site plan has been reviewed for consistency with city setback
requirements. It has been found that the plan meets code.
The area proposed for outside storage is located behind the warehouse and
office building. The total area included in outside storage amounts to
67,600 sq ft, or 1.55 acres. As you will note in the site plan, the area
proposed with this initial phase of development for outside storage may
some day become the site of a future building expansion. If tl-.:a occurs, it is
likely that the outside storage would he shifted to another location on site.
The area proposed for outside storage will be screened in the front by the
office building and the warehouse building and on the sides by an opaque
cyclone fence. The rear of the storage area will be screened with either a
fence or perhaps a berm.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
The site plan calls for development of 114 parking spaces, which is an
amount that is greater than the minimum requirement for this type of
facility. The number of parking spaces was based to a large extent on the
company's previous experience. It is the view of staff that the number of
stalls provided will be adequate.
The design of the parking area for employees and customers is designed to
meet code. The conditional use permit request does not apply to the
employee and parking area, which is all located in front of the office
building and in front of the manufacturing facility.
Outside Storare Conditional Use Permit Reouest
Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use is allowed by ordinance
provided that 1) the area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring
residential uses, 2) storage is screened from view from the public right-of-
way, 3) storage area is grassed or surfaced to control dust, 4) all lighting
shall be hooded or so directed that the light source shall not be visible from
the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences.
A review of the site plan reveals that the proposed site plan meets the
requirements mentioned above. The outside storage area will be completely
enclosed by either an opaque fence or by adjoining structures. The outside
storage area will he grassed or surfaced to control dust. At this time, I am
not certain exactly what type of material will be used to control dust in the
areas that will not be grassed. According to the Public Works Director,
class V gravel is not a good material for controlling dust, and a crushed
granite surface is probably the best type of material to be used for
controlling dust in this area. I will be checking with Standard Iron
regarding this aspect of the site plan and will report, on this topic at the
meeting.
Drive Aisle Desien Conditional Use Permit
As you may recall, a few years ago the City adopted an ordinance
amendment that allowed a reduction or "lessening" of the parking lot and
drive aisle design requirements under special circumstances. This
particular development is well suited to this provision in the ordinance, as
there are relatively large areas that will be utilized by company vehicles on
an intermittent basis, and most of the area is within the screened -in storage
areas; therefore, to pave these areas does not make sense from an economic
standpoint.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
As stated earlier, all of the drive aisle and parking areas used by employees
and by clients will be developed in accordance with the strictest standards
of the ordinance. As you will note in the site plan, areas that will receive
relatively low traffic levels and areas designated for future expansion are
those areas that will not be paved and/or will not be curbed.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Two Decisions:
IA. Motion to approve the conditional use permit allowing outside storage
in an 1-2 zone under the condition that the site plan meets the
requirements as noted by ordinance.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is satisfied that the
outside storage as proposed meets the requirements of outside storage
areas in an 1.2 zone and that development of this outside storage
area will not result in a negative impact on adjoining properties in
the 1-2 zone.
113. Motion to deny conditional use permit allowing outside storage in an
1-2 zone.
Planning Commission should select this alternative if it is not
comfortable with the level of outside storage at this location or if the
developer is not willing to apply a surface that will adequately control
dust.
2A. Motion to approve conditional use permit allowing construction of a
parking lot and drive aisle with less than the minimum standards
under the condition that the site plan meets the requirements as
noted by ordinance.
Planning Commission should select this alternative if the applicant
su(liciently meets the requirements of the conditional use
requirements as outlined by ordinance.
213. Motion to deny conditional use permit allowing construction of a
parking lot and drive aisle with less than the minimum standards.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that both conditional use permits be awarded. The
applicant has demonstrated a willingness to meet or exceed the
requirements outlined by ordinance with regard to both the outside storage
and the parking lot conditional use permit. In terms of the outside storage
conditional use permit, the combination of the screening fence and the
placement of the building will result in the outside storage area being
completely screened; therefore, the outside storage area will be in
compliance with the minimums noted by ordinance.
Staff also recommends that the conditional use permit allowing the
lessening of the parking lot requirements be approved. As noted earlier, the
ordinance amendment providing for a conditional use permit allowing a
lessening of parking lot design standards was actually designed for this type
of case in mind. In this situation, all of the areas used by the public will be
completely paved, and curb will be applied following the strictest
requirements of the ordinance. Areas that receive a relatively small level of
traffic that are separated from the public areas will not be paved.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan; Excerpts from the ordinance—driveway design conditional
use permit --open and outdoor storage as an accessory use in an 1-2 zone.
ws. r, eco. o0
E
iyAt
' }I
C
r i rAWIL---J �
a r �
IMrii MAR/AVW/, /V/�� I
'l w I
1
111114 A I I
1 4"1 Ulm
xo. 00
PLWOA! AnAO
sootE• /, - .eon
Olebl"A-N cE- EXCEkPT'
EXCEPTIONS: See D. 9 (s) Stall Aisle aua
Driveway Design Conditional Use Permit.
(s) STALL AISLE AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT:
Stall aisle and driveway design requirements
as noted in (k) Surfacing, (o) Curbing and
Landscaping, and (r) Curbing, may be lessened
subject to the following conditions:
i. Any reduction in requirements requires
completion of the conditional use permit
process outlined in Chapter 22 of this
ordinance.
ii. Final approval of parking and driveway
drainage plane associated with
conditional use permit request shall be
provided in writing by the City
Engineer. Engineering expenses greater
than portion of building permit fee
allocated for engineer plan review shall
be paid_by applicant prior to occupancy
of structure.
iii. A surmountable "transition" curb or
cement delineator must be installed as a
boundary between an outside storage area
and a parking or drive area.
iv. Development of a curb along the boundary
between a parking area and an area
designated on site plan for future
parking is not required if said curb
line is not needed for drainage purposes
as determined by the City Engineer.
V. Exceptions to the standard curb
requirements do not apply to any parking
or driveway perimeter that rune roughly
parallel to and within 20 feet of an
adjoining parcel.
vi. This conditional use permit is allowed
only in I-1 and I-2 sones.
vii. Drive areae that are secondary and not
used by the general public and not used
for routine delivery of goods or
services do not require hard surfacing
or curb unless hard surface and curb is
needed for drainage purposes as
determined by the City Engineer. Access
to such drive areas may be restricted by
a gate which must be closed after each
use. At such time that routine use is
noted, the drive area shall be paved.
(1192, 7/9/90)
ORDIMUCC EXCERPT
(DD) Wholesale business and office establishments.
15B-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted
accessory uses in an "I-1" district:
(A] All permitted accessory uses as allowed in the "B-4"
district.
158-4: CONDITIONAL USES: The following are conditional uses in an
"I-1" district: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon
procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this
ordinance).
[A] Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided
that:
1. The area is fenced and screened from view of
neighboring residential uses or, if abutting a
residential district, in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
2. Storage is screened from view from the public
right-of-way in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control
dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that
the light source shall not be visible from the
public right-of-way_or from neighboring residences
and •shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (H], of this ordinance.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
[e] Open or outdoor service, sale, and rental as a principal
or an accessory use and including sales in or from
motorized vehicles, trailers, or wagons provided that:
1. Accessory outside service, sales, and equipment
rental connected with a principal use is limited to
thirty (30) percent of the gross floor area of the
principal use.
2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from
view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting
residential district in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (G], of this ordinance.
3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that
the light source shall not be visible from the
public right-of-way or from neighboring residences
and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (H], of this ordinance.
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
6. Consideration of a request for an extension to a conditional use
permit. ADDlicant. David Hornig. 1J.0.1
Following is the supplement provided to the Planning Commission regarding
this case. For the sake of efficiency, you have been provided with the same
supplement.
Planning Commission recommended approval of the request per alternative ill.
Foit�'Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
s. Consideration of a request for an extension to a conditional use
permit. ADplicant. David Hornia. 1J.0.1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Dave Hornig of Hornig Companies requests that the City consider granting
an extension to the conditional use permit issued on 8/10/92 which would
allow development of a multi -family complex located across from Kmart on
7th Street. Hornig needs an extension to his conditional use permit because
he will not complete the project within one year of obtaining his original
conditional use permit. He was also granted a variance to the 20 -foot
setback requirement along the northern property line.
In conjunction with the request for the extension of the conditional use
permit, Hornig has provided an updated site plan which reveals no
substantial changes to the original plan in terms of site density, setback,
landscaping, parking, etc. Therefore, there is no need to require that
Hornig obtain a new conditional use permit since the site plan changes that
have been made do not materially affect the use of the land or result in any
new or intensified impacts on adjoining property.
The modifications to the site plan result in an overall improvement on the
plan approved last year. For instance, the new plan calls for attached
garages versus detached garages as shown on the original plan. The new
plan also places greater emphasis on the architectural styling of the
buildings, which will result in a nicer looking facility. The base rent has
also increased to $570 per month, which includes utilities.
Overall, the site plan meets or exceeds the site standards that were
approved with the original conditional use permit.
B. ALTERNATIVE, ACTIONS
Motion to grant extension to the Hornig conditional use permit
allowing development of a multi -family housing facility in a PZM
zone. Approval is subject to conditions as noted with the original
conditional use permit.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission is satisfied that the
new site plan is consistent with the plan approved in 1992 and,
therefore, the City is justified in granting an extension to the
conditional use permit.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
Motion to deny an extension to said conditional use permit request.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Planning Commission select alternative #1. Our
recommendation is based on the conclusion that no substantial changes
have been made to the original plan in terms of site density, parking,
setbacks, etc. In addition, nothing has occurred that would cause the City
to consider denying the original conditional use permit; therefore, staff
recommends that Planning Commission select alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Letter from Dave Hornig requesting extension of conditional use permit;
Copy of site plan; Copy of City Council minutes approving original site plan.
L)
f
P.01
THE HORNIG COMPANIES
3101 IRVING AVENUE SOUTH, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55408 • (612) 8247503
Mr Jeff O'neil
City of Monticello
Bat 295-4404
July 28, 1993
R8: Conditional Use Permit
We are requesting a 90 day extension for the conditional use
Permit issued by the city for our townhouse development. We
are in the final stages of preparation and we anticipate
construction to start within 60 days.
Shank you for your consideration.
David A. Bornig
MAMAGBNT a DEVELOPMENT a BROKERAGE
o®
o '
mz a
_ Lw �U•=
A e H.t
i t A �� 1
'ir`' =neo-�--
I A _�:� n .� --_- - 9 aoc- ".+GG'- A A
'Fri
oil
z
A - 1'
r_ _ FFIIWN�NIO Wit.+-
°iol-Oil
I�
SIM1.1111IMME'moi IMMUR
UNIT
I
Council Minutes - 8/10/92
8. Consideration of a conditional use request to allow 13 or more
dwelling units in 2 apartment conditional,
on an unplatted tract
of land. Aoolicant, David Horniq.
Assistant Administrator, Jeff O'Neill, reviewed the site plan
which called for development of 15 three-bedroom apartment
units on 1.64 acres of land located directly across from the
Monticello Kmart. O'Neill also noted that included in the
request for a conditional use permit is a request to draw new
boundary lines between the proposed site and the parcel
containing apartment units to the north of the property that
will be the site of the new development.
O'Neill reviewed the requirements of the city ordinance and
noted that the proposal meets all requirements except for a
side yard setback requirement. O'Neill stated that Hornig
will be requesting a variance to this requirement at an
upcoming meeting of the Planning Commission.
O'Neill also explained that the area containing standing water
and cattails on the site, although small, does qualify as a
wetland according to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.
This area is only 3,000 sq ft. However, it meets the
definition of a wetland and, therefore, the wetland must be
maintained on site or an area not already a wetland in the
city must be identified as such and developed as a wetland at
some point in the future.
City Engineer, Bret Weiss, noted that some communities are
identifying future storm ponding areas as wetland replacement
areas. In trio case, since it is such a small wetland, it may
make sense for the City to allow a portion of a future storm
water ponding area to be dedicated as a wetland area.
Shirley Anderson wondered if apartment units are overbuilt in
the community and was concerned that the additional units
would increase current vacancy rates. Gary Anderson noted
that currently in town there are 500 apartment units. An
increase of 15 units will not have a significant impact. In
addition, the apartment units are three-bedroom units, which
are very unique in Monticello and will be satisfying a
specific demand.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill noted that the property is
properly sorted for this type of use and there is probably
insufficient cause to legally deny the conditional use permit;
however, conditions can be placed against the project that
will mitigate impacts on adjoining properties.
Page 3
ii
Council Minutes - 9/10/92
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Pyle and seconded
by Clint Herbst to approve the conditional use permit allowing
construction of a multi -family development in a PZM
(performance zone mixed) zone based on the finding that the
conditional use permit and site plan are consistent with
requirements of the zoning ordinance and will not depreciate
the area in which it's located. It is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and consistent with the geography and
character of the area. Motion to approve the conditional Use
permit request is subject to:
1. Developer obtaining a variance of 10 ft to the rear
yard setback requirement or developer amending the
site plan to conform with setback requirements.
2. Grading and drainage plan must be approved by the
City Bnginser.
Motion includes approval of a plan to mitigate the wetland
lost with the development by constructing a wetland of equal
size as part of a future storm water improvement project.
Utilizing a city storm sewer project for replacement of a
wetland is allowable in this case due to the fact that the
wetland was determined insignificant in size and no feasible
alternative exists for maintaining the wetland on site.
Motion carried unanimously.
V
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
Consideration of a variance request which would allow construction
of an accessory building with a floor area in excess of 1,000 so ft, and
a variance request to allow an accessory building to he built with a
metal siding wider than 12 inches and a roof covering material not
consistent with other building structures in the area. AonUcant,
Randy Ruff. W.OJ
Following is the supplement provided to the Planning Commission regarding
this case. For the sake of efficiency, you have been provided with the same
supplement.
Planning Commission recommended denial of the request per alternative #2.
00,
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
3. Public Hearinv—A variance request which would allow construction
of an accessory buildinv with a floor area in excess of 1.000 so ft.
and a variance reauest to allow an accessory building to be built
with a metal siding wider than 12 inches and a roof coverinv
material not consistent with other building structures in the area.
Aoolicant. Randv Ruff. W.O. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Randy Ruff requests permission to build a 2,600 sq ft accessory
structure/garage that exceeds the maximum square footage (1,000 sq ft),
and he requests that this building be allowed to be constructed with metal
siding. Under our present code, structures built accessory to the principal
residential use in residential areas shall not be allowed to have metal
siding.
The structure that Ruff proposes to build will be for storage of items
accessory to a residential use such as for storage of boats, recreation vehicle,
etc. This storage building will not be used in conjunction with the Ruff
Auto enterprise.
As you know, the adjacent Ruff Auto operation has been allowed to
construct storage buildings which were built to house items that were
previously stored outside. Randy Run's proposal is different because the
storage building will he used to house articles that are accessory to a
residential use. Although the proposed swrage building will be located near
the auto salavage area and may in a sense blend in with the local area, the
proposal should be reviewed in terms of the zoning district rules and
regulations as they apply to development of accessory buildings in (PZM)
residential areas.
It also should be noted that the proposed structure will actually be built on
a parcel that is separate from the principal use (Randy's home). Ruff has
been informed that an accessory use cannot be constructed separate from a
principal use; therefore, he will need to eliminate his lot line and combine
the parcel on which his home is located with the parcel on which the
storage building will he located. Ruff indicated that he has no problem with
combining the two parcels. In conjunction with combining the parcels, the
easements between the two parcels will need to be vacated.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/3/93
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to approve a variance request which would allow construction
of an accessory building with a floor area in excess of 1,000 sq ft, and
a variance request to allow an accessory building to be built with a
metal siding wider than 12 inches and a roof covering material not
consistent with other building structures in the area. This
alternative could be based on the finding that the proposed storage
building is consistent with the character of the area and that the
existing criteria for granting a variance do not apply in this case.
Under this alternative. the Planning Commission could be setting a
precedent that would enable property owners in residential zones to
build similar structures.
2. Motion to deny a variance request which would allow construction of
an accessory building with a floor area in excess of 1,000 sq D, and a
variance request to allow an accessory building to be built with a
metal siding wider than 12 inches and a roof covering material not
consistent with other building structures in the area.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make the finding
that there is no hardship or unique situation that would warrant
granting of the variance. To grant the variance would impair the
intent of the ordinance and, thereby, set a precedent that would
enable development of similar structures in other residential zones.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the variance request he denied. Although at first
blush it may make sense to allow the variance to be granted because the
structure proposed is fairly consistent with the area and the neighborhood,
it must be kept in mind that the nature of the area results from operation
of a non -conforming use (auto salvage yard), and the intent of the zoning
ordinance is to gradually over time bring the area in compliance with the
PZM zoning district regulations. Therefore, the request should be analyzed
in terms of its consistency with the city standards and not in terms of
consistency with the area in which it's located. Staff is concerned that
granting the variance based on the fact that the proposed structure will he
consistent with the area will set a negative precedent for the rest of the
residential zones in the community and will work against the long-term anal
of preparing the Ruff Auto area for residential uses.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan to be presented at the meeting; Excerpts from the zoning
ordinance.
A,j UP
e��tiwr ioorrmr • a1
N, aNaO tl'w. tra.at }
1X `
!y f !
t
Rj
CHAPTER 2
RULES AND DEFINITIONS
SECTION:
2-1: Rules
2-2: Definitions
2-1: RULES: The language set forth in the text of this ordinance
shall be interpreted in accordance with the following rules of
construction:
[A] The singular number includes the plural and the plural
the singular.
(B) The present tense includes the past and the future
tenses, and the future the present.
[C] The work "shall" is mandatory while the word "may" is
permissive.
(D] The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter.
2-2: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, wherever they
lw� occur in this ordinance, shall be interpreted as herein
defined:
[AA] ACCESSORY BUILDING OR USE: A subordinate building or
use which is located on the gAmQ Lot on which the main
building or use is situated and which is reasonably
necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary
use of such building or main use.
(AB] ADDRESS SIGN: A sign communicating street address only,
whether written or in numerical form.
(AC] ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT: A temporary permit granted by
the Zoning Administrator, after City staff approval,
without a public hearing, granted to a specific
individual at a specific location, to address those
requests and proposals for .specific uses that are not
allowed under the strict provisions of this ordinance,
but that present no apparent conflict with the intent of
this ordinance. An administrative permit may be renewed
indefinitely but cannot, under any circumstance, be
transferred to another person or location. An
administrative permit may be revoked upon ten (10) days'
written notice when and if the use evolves into a use
determined to be in violation of this ordinance.
MONTICELL0 ZONING ORDINANCE
2/1
Q,
measurements of such area or width are within
seventy-five (75) percent of the requirements of
this ordinance.
4. Except in the case of planned unit development as
provided for in Chapter 20 of this ordinance, not
more than one (1) principal building shall be
located on a lot. The words "principal building"
shall be given their common, ordinary meaning; in
cage of doubt or
on any quezticn cr interpretation,
the decision of the Building Inspector shall be
final, subject to the right of appeal to the
Planning Commission and City Council.
5. On a through lot (a lot fronting on two (2)
parallel streets), both street lines shall be front
lot lines of applying the yard and parking
regulations of this ordinance.
(D) ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT:
1. An accessory building shall be considered an
integral part of the principal building if it is
connected to the principal building either directly
or by an enclosed passageway.
2. No accessory building shall be erected or located
within any required yard other than the rear yard.
3. Accessory buildings and garages shall not exceed
fifteen (15) feet in height and shall be ten (10)
feet or more from all side lot lines of adjoining
lots, five (5) feet or more from the rear lot line,
shall be ten (10) feet or more from any other
building or structure on the same lot, and shall
not be located within a utility easement.
4. No accessory building or garage shall occupy more
than twenty-five (25) percent of a rear yard, nor
VOJ��A{Q exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet of floor
�uaaa, area.
5. No permit shall be issued for the construction of
more than one (1) private accessory structure for
each dwelling. Each applicant for a building
permit to construct any dwellings shall be required
to provide off-street parking space for at least
one (1) automobile per family to be housed in
addition to any garage space to be used.
(7/22/91, #211)
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/5
1. Any person desiring to improve property shall
submit to the Building Inspector a survey of said
premises and information on the location and
dimensions of existing and proposed building,
location of easements crossing the property,
encroachments, and other information which may be
necessary to Insure conformance to City ordinance.
2. All buildings shall be so placed so that they will
not obstruct future streets which may be
constructed by the City in conformity with existing
streets and according to the system and standards
employed by the City.
3. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of
E'Iisp this ordinance in a residential district which does
not meet the requirements of this ordinance as to
area or width may be utilized for single family
detached dwelling purposes provided the
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/_4
3. The following architectural controls shall apply in
R-1, R-2, R-3,
and PZ -R Districts:
(a) Minimum building width of 24 feet.
(b) Minimum 3:12 roof pitch with minimum six (6)
inch soffit.
(c) Building must be anchored to a permanent
concrete or treated wood foundation.
(d) No metal siding shall be permitted wider than
12 inches or without a one-half (1/2) inch or
more overlap and relief.
(e) Minimum floor area shall be 1,000 square feet.
(f) All dwellings shall meet all regulations of
the Minnesota Uniform Building Code.
^
In all gj&t k^!, all buildings shall be finished
1
} on all sides with consistent architectural quality,
materials, and design.
5. In all residential zoning districts, all single and
two-family dwelling units constructed after
July 22, 1991, must include development of an
attached or detached garage. Minimum size
requirement for garage floor is 400 sq ft with a
minimum garage door opening of 16 ft.
(07/22/91, #212)
(10/15/91, #213)
[Cj PLATTED AND UNPLATTED PROPERTY:
1. Any person desiring to improve property shall
submit to the Building Inspector a survey of said
premises and information on the location and
dimensions of existing and proposed building,
location of easements crossing the property,
encroachments, and other information which may be
necessary to Insure conformance to City ordinance.
2. All buildings shall be so placed so that they will
not obstruct future streets which may be
constructed by the City in conformity with existing
streets and according to the system and standards
employed by the City.
3. A lot of record existing upon the effective date of
E'Iisp this ordinance in a residential district which does
not meet the requirements of this ordinance as to
area or width may be utilized for single family
detached dwelling purposes provided the
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/_4
k,
. _'_ _-11 11.:C4.1- nil WL4--.,...
reports and recommendations to the Planning Commission serving
as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals from the City staff
shall be entered in and made part of the permanent written
record of the Board's meeting.
23-3:
FINDING OF PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF: In considering
all requests for variance or appeal and taking subsequent
action, the City staff and the Planning Commission, serving as
the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall make a finding of
fact that the proposed action will not:
IA] Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property.
]BI Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public
street.
IC] Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public
safety.
D] Unreasonably diminish or impair established property
values within the neighborhood or in any other way be
contrary to the intent of this ordinance.
23-4:
N-ECONOMIIQ HARDSHIP:, The Planning Commission, serving as
he Board of Adjustment and Appeals, shall, after receiving
he written reports and recommendations of the City staff,
ake a finding of fact and decide upon requests for a variance
by approving or denying the same, in part or in whole, where
it is alleged by the applicant that a noneconomic hardship in
the reasonable use of a specific parcel of property exists.
A hardship that by some reason of narrowness, shallowness, or
shape of a specific parcel of property or lot existing and of
G���fRjQ NTICELLO
ZONING ORDINANCE 33/1
FoR Eualu4{�
VQ�ioinCl� Itt�
S'�'
record upon the effective date of this ordinance or that by
a
reason of exceptional topographic or water conditions of
the strict application of the
specific parcel of land or lot,
result in exceptional
terms of this ordinance would
difficulties when utilizing the parcel or lot in a manner
customary and legally permissible within the district in which
create undue hardship
said lot or parcel is located, or would
such lot or parcel that the owner of another
upon the onwer of
lot or parcel within the same district would not have if he
proposedbythe
were to develop his lot or parcel in a manner
ind
applicant. Should the1 11 ^^ (n:m^i a9ign _the
'• �o h nrgo^�"� int or
conditions outlined heret fora sr
- s..innra frgID aha
C�: •
ads Pian l,na eg may
str ct lication of this ordinance so as to relieve such,
d1r11cult�es or narnshles to the degree co�n�sidYrreasonable,
'
prov.iding such relief me, be granted w Q
intent o this zonfnc3 ordinance.
23-5:
APPEALS: The Planning Commission, serving as the Band of
after receiving the en
Adjustment and Appeals, shall,
report and recommendation )f the City staff, make a finding of
by the
fact and make a decision on appeals where it is alleged
in any order, requirement,
applicant that error has occurred
determination made by the Building Inspector in
decision, or
the enforcement of this ordinance. However, said appeal shall .
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
a. Consideration of adoptins development agreement for the Oak Ridge
residential subdivision. W.O.1
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this memo is to review important aspects of the development
agreement between the City and Tony Emmerich governing the Oak Ridge
residential subdivision. This memo focuses un certain issues within the
development agreement and is not a comprehensive review of the agreement
itself, so please review the agreement for more detail.
It also should be noted that the City Attorney has not reviewed the agreement
in detail; therefore, the final fimm of the agreement could change. The
agreement is intended to provide a format for reviewing content. It is expected
that any later changes that the City Attorney would make to the agreement
would affect the form of the document and not content.
Before launching into a review of the development agreement, I would like to
update Council on a few issues affecting the project.
STORM SEWER/DITCH 33 ISSUE
As you know, after further review of the grading plan, it was found that the
net effect. of the grading plan on ditch 33 will actually result in a slight
reduction in water entering ditch 33. Due to the fact that there's no impact on
ditch 33, the County took no action on the matter, as no County decision was
necessary.
In response to Emmerich's request for a grading permit, City staff agreed to
grant the permit as long as Emmerich accepted all risk associated with
conducting grading activity prior to City adoption of the development.
agreement and prior to City approval of the final plat. In addition, Emmerich
provided a $10,0(x) deposit which would provide the City with funds necessary
to restore any wetlands impacted by the grading and would allow the City W
conduct grading and erosion control activities in the event the project is
abandoned. These requirements mitigated the risk associated with granting
the grading permit prior to final City approvals and gave the developer the
opportunity to move forward on the project.
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
UTILITY PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Storm Sewer Plan
As noted above, the grading plan as proposed will close an outlet that
discharges water to ditch 33. It will also remove the method of escape that
water has followed when the long pond between Meadow Oak and Briar Oakes
has become full. Due to the fact that this outlet is being closed, development
of a previously -planned storm sewer system connecting the long pond to the
Meadow Oak pond is now necessary. This is an improvement that was
originally planned to coincide with development of phase 11 of Briar Oakes. The
total cost to complete this connection is estimated at 4,
City staff plans on contracting with the contractor completing the Oak Ridge
project to have this work completed. The cost to complete this improvement
will be paid to the developer as a credit against City expenses associated with
the project. It should he noted that a portion of the Oak Ridge plat drains to
the area served by the Meadow Oak storm sewer system. Emmerich has
agreed that he will pay the Oak Ridge share of both the cost to connect the
long pond to the Meadow Oak pond, and he will pay the Oak Ridge
development share of the ultimate cost to connect the Meadow Oak pond
system to the Mississippi River.
Water Main
The water main system includes provisions for oversizing and looping that do
not directly henefit. the Oak Ridge subdivision and do not directly benefit
adjacent, property owners. It is proposed that the developer's Contractor install
water main necessary for looping and that both the added looping expense and
the oversizing he paid to Emmerich as a credit against City expenses. Water
main looping and oversizing costs will he available at the meeting.
Outlot A Restoration
As you know, the bulk of Outlot A will Ix; used for storm water retention and
as a wetland mitigation area. The developer has agreed to restore the areas
disturbed by the grading activities by seeding the area with a mix of vegetation
recommended by the Army Corps of Engineers.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REVIEW
The agreement provided in your packet is modeled alter an agreement between
the City of Big Lake and Tony Emmerich Homes, Inc. Included in the following
review are significant provisions that Council needs to pay special attention to.
Council is asked to review the development agreement in detail and bring up
tiny other issues or items of concern that may cutch your attention.
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
DETERMINE NECESSARY FINANCIAL GUARANTEES
Public Versus Private Proiect Context
City Council is asked to review the method by which the project is being
financed and determine what level of financial guarantee the City needs to
assure that the project is completed. As you know, this "private" project is
quite different than recent major residential developments because the total
cost tdl install all public improvements is being paid entirely by the developer
with no financial involvement from the City. This is as opposed to the
Cardinal Hills residential subdivision which was financed entirely by the City.
Under the Cardinal Hills finance plan, the City installs all public
improvements and spreads this cost evenly against all the lots as an
assessment. The risk to the City is mitigated under this plan by the developer
providing the City with a letter of credit in the amount of 40% of the cost to
complete the project. The City can draw on this letter of credit if the lots do
not sell and assessments are not paid. Under the Cardinal Hills approach,
there is no risk to the City in terms of guaranteeing proper completion of the
public improvements because the City's contractor is doing the work.
Under the Oak Ridge finance plan, the developer, not the City, is responsible
for installing find paying for all improvements. If the project goes as planned,
there is no assessment against any of the lots, and the developer shoulders all
the risk associated with selling the lots on a timely basis. Under this program,
there is less long-term financial risk to the City; however, there is less control
over the project at the front end and a slightly greater risk associated with
guarantee of timely and proper completion of the utilities.
Pavment of Cit.v Exuenses Assured
The developer has agreed to pay all projected City expenses associated with
reviewing and approving the plat and managing the construction project, which
includes legal fees, engineering fees, cost of inspection, installation of street
signs, etc. These expenses will he paid in advance prior to placing of City
signatures on the plat. At the time that the developer requests City
acceptance of the utilities, the City expenses will he finalized and the City will
either write it check hack to the developer or obtain nn additional amount from
the developer to cover City expenses in excess of the estimate. This
arrangement for paying City expenses is actually latter than the meth(A used
under it public project. When the City does it project., the City soft costs are
actually included in the +assessment against each lot: therefore, payment of
these expenses become it long-term liability and are only covered by the 401.4
letter of credit.
Council Agenda - W9/93
Proiecl, Comnletion Assurances
As noted during previous discussions, some cities require a letter of credit in
the amount of 100'4 to 125/ of the total project cost in order to assure the City
that the project will be completed in a manner consistent with the final plat.
This letter of credit protects the City in the event that the developer would
abandon the project. Once the project is abandoned, the City could simply
draw on the letter of credit to complete the improvements as originally
envisioned. A number of communities have been re-evaluating this
requirement due to the financial burden that this requirement places on
developers. As Emmerich has noted, requiring a letter of credit in the amount
of 100',1 of the project cost essentially doubles the amount of money that he
must tie up to complete the project. Emmerich has noted that from a business
standpoint, it does not make sense for him to tie up twice the money he needs
to complete a project. He would rather have the money available to use on
other projects.
Council is asked to review the entire context under which this development is
being proposed, determine potential risk associated with the project, consider
issues of precedent., and then make at decision as to what level of financial
guarantee the City needs to assure that the project is completed. Following
are options that the Council may wish tai consider.
Personal Guarantee
This is the option selected by the City of Ramsey, Minnesota. Under this
alternative, the City of Itamsey accepted it personal guarantee from Tony
Emmerich and his partner, Gary Goram, which guaranteed that the
partnership would complete the public improvements. Under this alternative,
it 1wrsomal guarantee covers the full cost to install utilities. This alternative,
when applied to future projects, would weed out developers thatmight not
have the financial strength to complete a project.
The negative side of this alternative is that it is not likely to !m supported by
the City Attorney, as it persnnal guarantee is very difficult, and time consuming
to draw on. In addition, staff is not trained to he able to adequately review
personal financial statements of the developer providing the personal
guarantee. The City runs the rink of taking it personal guarantee from a
developer without the personal assets to complete the project. In this case,
City staff has not had the oppua1unity Ua review Emmerich's financial
statement. Emmerich has noted that he will provide his financial statement
and will provide a personal guarantee if requested to do so by the City Council.
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
Letter of Credit Raneine from 10% of Proiect Cost to 1001/, of Proiected Proiect
Coat
As noted earlier, the City of Big Lake required that Tony Emmerich provide
a letter of credit in the amount of 10%. of the projected project cost. If the
project is not completed, the agreement states that the City can complete the
project and assess the expense against the platted lots. The funds obtained
through the lOS4 letter of credit would be used to reduce the assessment
against each lot.
Emmerich has already indicated that he is willing to provide HYX or more of
the project cost in the form of a letter of credit; however, he noted that the
10014, requirement reduces his ability to be competitive when developing in
Monticello and could impact on his ability to complete future developments in
the community. The positive side of the letter of credit is that it is easy to
draw on and all or a portion of it can he used to hack up the one-year warranty
on the improvements.
Factors Miticatine Risk
In determining what level of letter of credit should be required, Council should
take the following into consideration:
Emmerich appears to he committed tw) completing the project. He owns
the property. He has made a major investment in both land and
engineering. According to Emmerich, there is a significant demand for
the homes that he and the builders that he brings with him are
proposing to construct. The economy is relatively stable with interest,
rates al. an attractive rate. According to Emmerich, there is nothing on
the horizon that would cause him to abandon the project.
Even under the worst case scenerio, it is likely that it major portion of
the grading and perhaps a portion of the improvements will he
constructed before the project, could he halted or abandoned. If
abandonment occurred and the City was forced to complete the project,
the project cost would he less than a standard assessment.
3. City Council could view the situation as an opportunity for the City to
take advantage of the willingness of a reputable developer W construct
it high-quality development in the community and that positive aspects
of encouraging development of the type of housing that Emmerich
proposes far outweighs the potential risks associated with the somewhat
remote chance that the project would he abandoned at mid -stream.
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
4. Requiring a large letter of credit makes Monticello a less desirable place
for a private developer to conduct business, which could result in
Emmerich and other developers focusing efforts on other communities.
5. Under both the personal guarantee requirement and the letter of credit
requirement, Emmerich proposes W pay all City expenses up -front. As
noted earlier, this is a positive factor in that all out-of-pocket City
expenses are paid even before the City incurs these costs, as opposed to
a public project where such costs are imbedded in the assessment
against each lot and are only paid if lots are sold.
B. Emmerich has requested that the City allow issuance of building
permits prior to completion of utilities. Obviously, the worst case
scenerio is that a number of builders get started on homes but are not
able to occupy the structures because the developer has abandon the
project. In order to mitigate the risk to the City, the developer has
agreed to require that any builders requesting permits prior to
acceptance of public improvements must sign a waiver acknowledging
that the City makes no guarantee that the public improvements will he
installed and that the builders will not request occupancy prior to City
acceptance of utilities.
PRECEDENT
As noted during previous discussion, the City Council, in 1988 in a
development agreement between the City and Kent KjOlherg, required that
Kjellherg provide it letter of credit in the amount of 125'k of the project Cost.
As you know, this project never materialized. Two other private projects
occurred recently, h oth of which skirled a letter of credit requirement by
providing the City with assurances that funds necessary to pay the contractors
were locked in place by local bunking institutions.
It is the view of City staff that the track record of it developer can play a part
in determining the letter of credit requirement. In this instance, although staff
has not directly reviewed the financial statement of the developer, we have
contacted communities such its Conn linpids, Ramsey, and Ilig Irlke, and have
found that the developer produces it good product, keeps his promises, and
pays his hills. Information about the developer should play a significant role
in anulyring risk factors and allow determination of the proper letter of credit
coverage on it case -by -Case hasis.
10
Council Agenda - 9/9/93
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to adopt the content of the development agreement with the
provision requiring a mrsonal Guarantee from Tony Emmerich that the
improvements will he constructed as outlined in the project plans. Final
format of the agreement is subject to review by the City Attorney.
2. Motion to adopt the content of the development agreement with
provisions requiring a letter of credit in the amount of 10-20�k of total
project cost. Development agreement format is subject to City Attorney
review and modification.
:i. Motion (A) deny adoption of development agreement.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
This project has it number of positive aspects. The developer is very
experienced, and the experience has shown in his ability to design it project on
it parcel of land that is particularly difficult to develop. The housing market
that this subdivision will tap is not presently served by the existing
subdivisions within the city. For those that would like closer linkages to the
metro area, this project brings in builders from the metro area and makes
stronger links with the metro market, thus increasing the chance for luster
growth.
The developer is reputable. In my contacts with all cities that have dealt with
Tony Emmerich, I have heard nothing but positive comments. In his
negotiations with City staff, he has demonstrated a concern fior Moth City needs
and the long-term needs of those that huy his homer. In terms of the letter of
credit requirement, City st.af believes that requiring 11111A of the total project
cost places an undue burden on the developer given the potential risks and
given the impact of this requirement on the ability of the City to remain
competitive with other communities. It is stiffs recommendation that the
letter of credit should he closer to the Big I-Aoke requirement. and no higher
than 201;;. Finally, requiring it relatively small letter of credit dopes create a
precedent.: however, we feel the City Council is not obligated to provide the
same deal with every developer in the future. It is our view that a letter of
credit requirement can he adjusted on an individual project-hy-project basis
based on an analysis of the track record of the developer, the economic climate,
the size of the protect, etc.
1). SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of development agreement
I
DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT
OAK RIDGE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of ,
1993, by and between the CITY OF MONTICELLO, a municipal corporation
organized under the laws of the state of Minnesota (the "City"), and TONY
EMMERICH CONSTRUCTION, INC. (the "Developer").
RECITALS:
R1 The Developer has asked the City to give final approval to a plat to he known
as Oak Ridge (the "Subdivision"). The land is legally described as set forth in
Attachment A attached hereto and made a part, hereof ("Property").
R2 The Monticello City Council, by resolution adopted August 9, 1993, granted
final approval to the Subdivision on the following conditions:
A. That the Developer enter into this Developer's Agreement.
That the Developer provide the necessary security in accordance with
the terms of this Agreement, guaranteeing compliance with the terms of
this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERAT!ON OF THE PREMISES AND THE
MUTUAL PROMISES AND CONDITIONS HEREINAFTER CONTAINED, IT IS
HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
Reureseniation of Developer. The Developer hereby represents and warrants
to the City, as inducement to the City's entering into this Agreement and as
inducement to the City's approval of the Subdivision, that the Developer is the
fee owner of the Property and that the Subdivision complies with all city,
county, state, and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited to
subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances, and environmental regulations. If
the City determines that the Subdivision d(xxs not comply, the City may, at its
option, refuse to allow any construction or development work in the
Subdivision until the Developer docs comply. Upon the City's demand, the
Developer shill cease work until there is compliance.
2. Develooment Exhihi(.s. The Developer shall develop the Subdivision in
accordance with the plans shown, where applicable, on the following descrihed
exhibits which are hereby incorporated by reference its if fully set Furth herein.
If the exhibits vary from the written terms of this Agreement, the written
terms of this Agreement shall control. The exhibits are:
OAKRIIKIF,.AGIt: 8/4/93 Page I
4'
Exhibit A -- Subdivision Plan/Final Plat
Exhibit B -- Utility Plans, Grading Plan,
Wetland Mitigation Plan
3. Improvements. The following described improvements shall be constructed and
installed in compliance with the terms and conditions hereinafter contained,
and in accordance with the plans, specifications, and preliminary engineering
reports to be approved by the City's Engineer and the City Council prior to
commencement of construction of said improvements, and in accordance with
all City standards, ordinances, and requirements.
A. Street grading, graveling, and stabilizing.
B. Permanent street surfacing, including curbs, gutters, and driveway
approaches.
C. Street name signs at all newly opened intersections, stop signs and
other such traffic control signs, and street lighting within the
Subdivision as determined to be necessary by the City.
D. Storm sewers, including all necessary catch basins, and appurtenances.
E. Water main, including all appurtenances.
F. Sanitary sewer, including all appurtenances.
G. Setting of lot, and block monuments.
H. Surveying and staking.
I. Outlot. A - grading of north -south connecting pathway.
J. Site grading consistent with grading plan. Outlot A restoration and
seeding in compliance with Army Corps of Engineer permit.
The City will, at the City's discretion and at Developer's expense, have the City
Engineer and a soil engineer inspect the work on it full-time hasis. The
Developer or his engineer shall schedule it pre -construction meeting at a
mutually agreeable time at the city hall with all parties concerned, including
the City Engineer and other staff as necessary, to review the program for the
construction work.
The Developer shall instruct its engineer to provide adequate field inspection
personnel to assure un acceptable level of quality control to the extent that the
Developer's engineer will he able to certify that the construction work meets
with the approved City standards as a condition of City acceptance. Within
thirty days alter the completion of the improvements and befom any security
OAKHIDGE.ACH: 8/4/93 Page 2 �.
as hereinafter required is released, the Developer shall supply the City with
a complete set of reproducible "AS BUILT" and "DEVELOPMENT PLAN'
plans in a firm acceptable to the City Engineer.
4. Restrictive Covenants. The Developer agrees to convey restrictive covenants
on all properties located within the Subdivision as deemed necessary by the
City Council.
5. Time of Performance. All improvements in the Subdivision shall he completed
no later than July 1, 1994.
6. Estimated Cost of Improvements. The estimated cost of the improvements
shall be determined by the City Engineer prior (A) the commencement of
construction of any part thereof.
7. Ownership of Improvements. Upon the completion of the improvements
required to he constructed by this Agreement and the acceptance thereof by the
City, the improvements lying within the public casements and public right-of-
ways as shown on the final plat of the Subdivision approved by the City shall
hemme the property of the City without further notice or action.
N. 1 aspect ion and Approval of Improvements. Construction and installation plans
and activities shall he reviewed by and subject to the approval of the City. The
Developer shall muse its contractor to furnish the City with it schedule of
proposed operations at least five 151 days prior to the commencement of the
construction of each type of improvement. The City shall inspect all
improvements during and after construction for compliance with approved
specifications and ordinance requirements. The Developer shall notify the City
Engrineer at such times during constniction as the City Engineer requires for
inspection purposes.
9. Minimum Floor Elevations. All dwellings constructed within the Subdivision
shall comply with all soil/water table requirements and conditions as shown
on the Development flan.
10. Deposit fir Cost of Imurovements and fork Fees. The Developer shall, upon
execution of this Agreement, deposit with the City ten percent (101 ) of the
City Engineer's estimated costa of construction of the improvements; this ten
percent. 110'61 deposit may ho used by the City to complete public
improvements as deemed necessary to pay other out-of-pocket expenses the
City may incur and shall he in effect until The
deposit may be in the form of a letter of credit.
In addition, the Developer Shull deposit with the City a certified check, cash,
or money order in the amount. of $ for the following which
represents City expenses minus various credits as noted below:
OAKRIIXIE.AGI(: 8/4/99 Page 3
Expenses
A.
Park dedication = $
B.
Street lights = $
C.
Street signs = $
D.
Engineering fees = $
E.
Engineers inspections = $
F.
Attorney's fees = $
C.
Oak Ridge share of cost to
link long pond to M.O. pond = $
Total Expenses $
Credits
A. Storm Sewer (long pond) _ $
R. Water main looping/oversize = $
C. Pre -paid platting fee = $
I). Pre -paid grading permit = $ 10,000
Total Credits $
Expenses minus credits $
If engineering fees/inspections are greater than the amount deposited by the
Developer, the Developer shall reimburse the City within thirty (30) days after
being notified. If engineering fceslinspections are less than what the Developer
has deposited, the City shall reimburse the Developer within thirty (30) days.
11. Erosion Control. The Developer shall provide and comply with erosion control
plan requirements as prescribed by the City. As the development progresses,
the City may impose additional erosion control requirements if, in the opinion
of the City Engineer, they would he useful. The Developer shall comply with
the erosion control plans and with such additional instructions it receives from
the City. The parties recognize that time is of the essence in controlling
erosion.
12. License. The Developer hereby grants the City. its agents, employees, officers,
and contractors, it license to enter the Subdivision to perform all necessary
work and/or inspections deemed appropriate by the City during the installation
of the improvements. 'rhe license shall expire after the public improvements
installed pursuant to this Developer's Agreement have been installed by the
Developer and accepted by the City.
13. Clean Un, The Developer shall properly clear any soil, earth, or debris on
City -owned property or public right-of-way resulting from construction work
by the Developer, its agents, or assigns.
OAKRIL)GE.AGR: 8/4/93 Page 4
14. Insurance. The Developer shall cause each contractor engaged in the
construction and installation of any of the improvements to furnish the City
with evidence, acceptable to the City, showing insurance coverage (including
workers' compensation, liability, and property damage) in such amounts as are
required by the City, and which shall name the City, the City Engineer, and
the Developer's engineer as an additional insured thereon.
15. Faithful Performance of Construction of Improvements. The Developer will
fully and faithfully perform the installation and construction of the
improvements set forth in this Agreement in accordance with all the
requirements specified herein and city ordinances at no expense to the City.
The Developer hereby guarantees and warrants the workmanship and
materials respecting such improvements for a period of one year following the
City's final acceptance of the improvements, or for such additional period of
time following the City's final acceptance of the improvements so as to comply
with the City's guarantee and warranty policy in effect at such time of
commencement of the construction of the improvements ("Guarantee Period").
The Developer shall repair or replace as directed by the City and at the
Developer's sole cost and expense and at no cost and expense to the City, any
work and/or materials that become defective, in the sole opinion of the City,
within said guarantee period even though notice thereof he given by the City
after said guarantee period. The Developer, or Developer's amtractors, shall
post maintenance bunds or other security acceptable to the City to secure these
warranties.
16. City Acceptance. The City shall accept, at, no cost to the Developer, ownership
of all impmvemenls within thirty (30) days following receipt by the City of
notice from the Developer that such improvements, have been completed,
provided that such improvements have been constructed in compliance with
the terms and conditions herein and all city ordinances, and provided that the
Developer is in compliance with all other terms of this Agreement, and has
reimbursed to the City all the City's costs and expenses incurred in connection
with the approval of the Subdivision and the construction of the improvements.
17. Security for Developer's Performance. No work shall be commenced under this
Agreement until the Developer has filed with the City Administrator it cash
deposit, it bond with corporate surety acceptable to Lite City, an irrevocable and
unconditional letter of credit in it form approved by the City, or any other
financial commitment acceptable to the City, in an amount to he determined
by the City prior to commencement. of construction.
The smurity provided in accordance herewith shall he released following the
City's acceptance of said improvements, Lite expiration of the guarantee period
specified herein, and the performance of work required pursuant to said
guarantee, if tiny. The City may, in its discretion, release all or part of the
securily provided following acceptance of the improvements if the City
determines Lite entire amount is not necessary to secure the City for the
OAKRIDGE.AGK: 8/4)IJ(1 Page 5
guarantee period as specified in this Agreement, or if the City approves
alternative security to be provided by the Developer following City acceptance
of said improvements.
18. Certificate of Occuoancv. No certificate of occupancy for construction in the
Subdivision shall he issued by the City until the City has accepted construction
of the improvements therein. In expansion thereof, and not in limitation, if the
Developer fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, the
City may refuse to issue a certificate of occupancy for any lot or parcel in the
Subdivision until the Developer is in full compliance with all requirements
herein.
19. Responsihilitv for Costs.
A. The Developer shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in
conjunction with the development of the Subdivision, including but not
limited to construction of improvements, legal, planning, engineering,
and inspection expenses incurred in connection with approval and
acceptance of the Subdivision plat, the preparation of this Agreement,
and all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the City in
monitoring and inspecting development of the Subdivision.
D. The Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees
harmless from claims made by itself and third parties for damages
sustained or costs incurred resulting from Subdivision plat approval and
development. The Developer shall indemnify the City and its officers
and employees for all costs, damages, or exlwnses which the City may
pay or incur in consequence of such claims, including reasonable
attorneys fee's.
C. The Developer shall reimburse the City for its costs incurred in the
enforcement of this Agreement, including engineering and reasonable
atillrneys fees.
Il. The Developer shall pay in full all hills submitted to it by the City
within thirty (30) days after receipt. If the hills are not paid on time,
the City may halt all plat development work until the hills are paid in
full.
E. The Developer recognizes that the City plans on constructing it storm
sewer system that will connect. the Meadow Oak/Briar Oakes/Oak Ridge
pond system to the Mississippi River. The timing of this project is not
known; however, it is expected that the project will he completed within
two years. The portion of the cost to complete the project attributed to
henefiting lots in the Oak Itidge subdivision shall he paid directly by the
Developer at such time that the acts are known.
OAKRIDGE.AGR: W4193 Page 6
` 1,
20. Developer's Default. In the event of default by the Developer as to any of the
work to be performed by it hereunder or as to any of the other requirements
set firth herein, the City may, at its option, peform the work; and the
Developer shall promptly reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the
City, provided the Developer is first given notice of the work in default not less
than 48 hours in advance. This Agreement is a license for the City to act, and
it shall not he necessary for the City to seek a Court Order for permission to
enter the land. When the City does any such work, the City may, in addition
to its other remedies, assess the cost in whole or in part.
21. Maintenance of Swales. All swales and other drainage measures for the
Subdivision required by the plans and specifications, gradingplan, engineering
reports, and/or soil erosion control plan, as approved by the City Council for
the Subdivision and located within the utility/drainage easements dedicated
to the public pursuant to the plat for the Subdivision, shall not be disrupted
and shall he maintained as designed. If such swales or other drainage
measures arc disrupted, changed, or not maintained such that the swale or
other drainage measures no longer function according to the original design,
the City shall have the right at any time to enter upon the public
utility/drainage easement to reconstruct the swale or other drainage measures
so as to ensure property surface water drainage as originally designed.
Further, in the event such corrective work becomes necessary, the City shall
not he liable for any costs necessary to re -landscape the disrupted soils located
within said drainage and utility easements.
22. Maintenance of Roads Before Acceptance. The Developer shall, at its expense,
prepare any streets located in the Subdivision for snowplowing and other
maintenance that the Developer wishes the City to undertake prior to formal
acceptance by the City of such streets. This preparation shall include, without
limitation, ramping any manholes as necessary so as to not damage snowplows
or other vehicles used in the maintenance of the streets. Should any damage
occur to snowplows or other vehicles during the course of snowplowing or other
maintenance procedures prior to the formal acceptance of the street by the
City, the Developer shall pay all such damages and shall indemnify and hold
the City harmless for all such damage, cost, or expense incurred by the City
with regard thereto.
27. Miscellaneous.
A. This Agreement shall he binding upon the parties, their heirs,
successors or assigns, as the case may he.
11. 11reach of the terms of this Agreement by the Developer shall be
grounds for denial of huildiug permits.
C. I f any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph, or phase
of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Agreement.
OAMUDGEMR: 8/4193 page 7
1). No one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued on
either a temporary or permanent basis until sanitary sewer and water
lines have been installed, hooked up, tested, and approved by the City.
E. The action or inaction of the City shall not, constitute a waiver or
amendment to the provisions of this Agreement. To he binding,
amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the parties, and
approved by written resolution of the City Council. The City's failure
to promptly take legal action to enforce this Agreement shall not be a
waiver or release.
F. The Developer represents to the City to the best of its knowledge that
the Subdivision does not, require an Environmental Assessment
Worksheetor an Environmental Impact Statement. However, if the
City or other governmental entity or agency determines that such a
review is needed, the Developer shall prepare it in compliance with legal
requirements. The Developer shall reimburse the City for all expenses,
including staff lime and attorneys fres, that the City incurs in assisting
in the preparation of the review.
G. Future residents of this Subdivision shall not he deemed to he third
party beneficiaries of this Agreement.
H. The Developer shall take out, and maintain, until six (6) months after
the City has accepted the public improvements, public liability and
pro1wrly damage insurance covering personal injury, including death,
and claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's
work or the work of its subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly
employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury or death shall not he
less than $500,000.00 for one person and $1,(X)0,000.1)0 for each
occurrence: limits for property damage shall not he less than
$200,000-INI for each occurrence. The City shall he named as an
additional named insured on said lx)licy, and the Developer shall file a
copy of the insurance coverage with the City prior to the City signing
the plat for the Subdivision plat.
The City shall issue building permits prior to Cit.v acceptance of the
improvements provided that the party applying for the building permit
agrees to withhold requests foroccupancy until necessary improvements
have been installed. Necessary improvements include operational and
tested sewer and water systems and roadway development sufficiently
complete to supe ort access by emergency vehicles, snowplows, and
garbage trucks.
24. Notices. Required notices to the Developer shall be in writing and shall be
either hand delivered to the Developer, its employees or agents, or mailed to
the Developer by certified or registered mail at the following address: Country
Ridge Partnership. 2619 Coon liapids Ikwlevard, Cam Rapids, MN 55433.
OAKHIWE.AGIt: 8/4/93 Page 8
25. Recording Develouer's Agreement. The Developer shall, at its expense and at
no expense to the City, record this Developers Agreement with the Office of
the Wright County Recorder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have signed this Developer's
Agreement the day and ,year first written above.
CITY OF MONTICELLO CITY OF MONTICELLO
Ken Maus, Mayor Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
STATE OF MINNESOTA 1
1 SS.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT 1
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1993, by Mayor Ken Maus and by City Administrator Rick
Wolfsteller of the Citv of Monticello, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of
the corporation.
Notary Public
TONY EMMERIC;H CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Anthony d. Emmerich, President
STATE OF MINNESOTA 1
1 SS.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT 1
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1993, by its partner, of Country
Ridge Partnership, u
Notary Public
This instrument drafted by:
THE CITY OF MONTICELLO
250 EAST BROADWAY, PO BOX 1147
MONTICELLO, MN 55.162
OAKRIDGE.AGI(: 8/4/93 page 9
l �,
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
Consideration of approval of final plat of the Oak Ridge residential
subdivision. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
If the City Council and Tony come to agreement on terms associated with
the development agreement, then Council needs to proceed with approval of
the final plat. As of the preparation of this memo, the final plat has not
been completely reviewed. It is expected, however, that it can he reviewed
and adjustments made to it prior to Council approval on Monday.
At the time that the preliminary plat was approved, there were a number of
contingencies that needed to be resolved prior to approving the final plat.
The contingencies that have been resolved are as follows:
1. The plan was modified by changing the name Meadow Oak
Drive to Oak Ridge Drive.
2. rhe City Engineer has approved the development plan and
utility construction design.
3. Adoption of the development agreement and establishment of
associated final guarantees have been accomplished per the
previous agenda item.
4. The Army Corps of Engineers has approved the wetland
mitigation plan.
5. Council gave preliminary approval of the wetland mitigation
plan. No changes to the plan were proposed by the Army
Corps of Engineers; therefore, there is no reason to update or
modify the plan, and it stands approved unless otherwise noted
by Council.
6. The County Engineer has granted verhal approval of the plans.
Written approval has not been provided.
7. Preparation of a document recorded against each lot along
Outlot A stating that Outlot A will Ix maintained in its natural
state and will not he mowed by the City.
12
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
The developer has requested that this item not be placed as a
deed restriction against each lot but rather be included in the
documentation and advertising materials submitted to
prospective buyers. City staff is willing to accept this
arrangement, as it appears to meet the spirit of the Council's
request, which was to put people on notice that Outlot A will
he a nature area and not a manicured park. Council should
review this concept and determine if it is acceptable.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve final plat. Recording of City signatures on the plat
is contingent on 1) developer signing development agreement and
providing associated financial guarantees and cash deposit, 2) final
approval of construction plans by the County Engineer and subject to
review by the County Surveyor, 3) City Council must rezone the
property from a planned unit development to R-1 per a previous
agenda item.
2. Motion to deny approval of final plat.
l
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative 111.
1). SUPPORTING DATA:
Council minutes from 3/8/93; Copy of final plat to he presented ai. `he
meeting.
13
Council Minutes - 3/8/93
4. Consideration of auProval of the Preliminary Plat of the Oak Rid5ze residential
subdivision.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the plat design, which called for
development of 80 lots in two phases, the first phase consisting of 62 lots and
the second phase 18 lots. The original planned unit development for Lite area
called for development of approximately 160 lots in the same area.
O'Neill went on to review the preliminary plat and focused specifically on
discussion of the options for ownership of a 12 -acre outlot. The outlot consists
of a combination of wetland, storm water detention area, and usable park
space. O'Neill stated that both the Parks Commission and Planning
Commission agreed that the outlot is a natural amenity that should be
preserved for public use as a low -maintenance nature area. Under this
alternative, public facilities would consist of a simple woodchip trail system
with no mowing of native grasses in the area. He went on to state that the
Parks Commission felt strongly that the area should remain accessible for the
public to enjoy given the strong support for hiking and biking facilities noted
in the community survey.
O'Neill went on to outline Ute other option for ownership of Outlot A, which
would require that Lite property stay in the hands of adjoining property
owners. Under this alternative, Uhe property owners are responsible for
maintenance of the outlot. If storage of public nuisance items occurs on the
ouUut, the City can remove Lite material and assess the cost back to the
properly owners.
Clint Herbst believed that the area should remain accessible to the public and
maintained as a low -maintenance nature area.
Brad Cylo was concerned L haL the local residents that ultimately live adjacent
to Lite outot will request a higher level of maintenance of Lite oudoL. The City
may end up having to mow the property. O'Neill reaponded by saying that Lite
development agreement will require that a docuutent be recorded against each
lot that identifies the outut as a low -maintenance nature area, thereby
providing this information to aren residents prior to purchase and development
of individual lots adjacent to the outlot.
I�yle was also concerned that Lite development could poLenLially impact
ditch 33, which could be a problem fur downstream property owners. City
Engineer, Bret Weiss, indicated that the developer has been directed to develop
a storm water plan that will maintain the existing level of run-off from the site
into ditch 33. Specific plans and associated storm water run-off calculations
have not been prepared by the developer at this time; however, they must be
prepared and reviewed by the City and the County Engineer prior to final plat G
approval. 7
Council Minutes • 3!8193
After discussion, a motion was made by Patty Olsen and seconded by Clint
Herbst to approve the preliminary plat of the Oafs Ridge subdivision as
submitted and grant preliminary approval of the wetland mitigation plan, with
final plat approval contingent on the following:
1. Plat should be modified by changing the name Meadow Oak Drive
to Oak Ridge Drive.
2. Approval of development plan and utility construction design by
City Engineer.
3. Adoption of development agreement and developer providing
associated financial guarantees.
4. Approval of wetland mitigation plat by Army Corps of Engineers.
5. Final approval of wetland mitigation plan by the City of
Monticello.
6. Approval of plat and associated construction plans by the County
Engineer.
7. City Council approval of request to rezone property from planned
unit development to R•1.
8. Preparation of a document recorded against each lot along
Outlot A stating that Oudut A will be maintained in its natural
state and will not be mowed by die City.
Voting in favor of the notion: Patty Olsen, Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson,
Ken Maus. Opposed: Brad Fyle. Fyle indicated that lie supports development
of the plat as proposed except for the inclusion of OuUot A being owned and
maintained by the City.
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
to. Consideration of rezoning area encompassed by the Oak Ridge
subdivision from R -PUD to R-1 uses. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you know, the original Meadow Oak design called for development of a
planned unit development in the area encompassed by the Oak Ridge
subdivision. The original development conceived of much higher density of
housing, which would have produced significantly more stormwater run-off
and associated problems. The Planning Commission reviewed the rezoning
request in conjunction with the preliminary plat review conducted this
spring and made a recommendation to approve the rezoning as proposed
based on the finding that the Oak Ridge subdivision design and density is
consistent with the original planned unit development. As you know, the
planned unit development called for development of park systems on the
north side of the Meadow Oak PUD with trail systems linking to park
areas. The development as proposed includes an off-street trail system that
will link into the system envisioned under the original plan.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve rezoning of the Oak Ridge residential subdivision
from R -PUD W 11-1 based on the finding that the zoning designation
and associated plat are consistent with the original PUD design,
consistent with the character of the area, and said rezoning is
consistent with the comprehensive plan for the city.
2. Motion to deny rezoning of the Oak Ridge residential subdivision
from R -PUD to R-1.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION;
Staff recommends alternative H1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA;
None.
14
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
i i . Consideration of construction of pond outlet for the Briar Oakes
develoument. US.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The ultimate storm sewer design for Briar Oakes includes interconnection of
the three ponds located in that subdivision, including an outlet from the
northeast pond to the large Meadow Oak pond. During the first phase of
Briar Oakes, the southeast pond and northeast pond were interconnected.
The interconnection of the third pond and the outlet for the northeast pond
to the Meadow Oak pond were to he completed with phase II. These ponds,
in addition to handling the water from Briar Oakes, will also take in a
"portion" of the storm water from the fourth addition of Meadow Oak Lots C
and 1) owned by the City, a portion of township property, and the new Oak
Ridge development.
Elevations of the water in the long northeast pond have remained somewhat
stable, although high. The pond has not as of yet overflowed; however, it
has come very close on occasion. Should the northeast pond overflow, most
of Clio water would travel northward, and some of it will find its way onto
private property. Since the pond appeared to stabilize itself before
overflowing, we were not concerned with this issue; It was recently
determined, however, that the pond would not overflow, as there was an
outlet from the southeast pond in Briar Oakes through the Oak Ridge plat
to ditch 33. The outlet, which consisted of a man-made drainage Swale, is
proposed to be filled in with the Oak Ridge development. This is not of
significance in our overall design of our storm sewer system since all of the
studies in the past did not account for water leaving the Briar Oakes ponds
through the Oak Ridge development area. It will, however, now cause the
long pond in Briar Oakes to overflow, and it may he prudent to install the
storm sewer outlet from the long pond to the Meadow Oak pond at this
time.
It is it relatively small project consisting of a couple hundred feet of 12 -inch
diameter concrete pili, a manhole, some flared -end sections, and some
riprap. The total estimated cost of the project, using prices from the
contractor doing the Oak Ridge work, would he $7,874. Adding in OSM's
cost of $2,000+ to prepare the engineering drawings brings us to a total of
$9,874. Based upon the benefit to the four areas within the city previously
noted (totaling 39.28 acres), the following is the cost to he paid by each
development.
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
Benefited Area 14, of Benefit Cost
Briar Oakes 61.94 $6,115.96 a
Meadow Oak 4th Add. 9.62 $ 949.88
Oak Ridge 20.65 $2,038.98
City LAAS C & D 7.79 769.18
100.00% $9,874.00 Total
It is proposed that Tony Emmerich and the Oak Ridge development up -front
the cost for the installation of the storm sewer and receive credit for the
portions to be charged to the other areas. The City will hold these amounts
until the second stage of Briar Oakes is developed, the 4th Addition of
Meadow Oak is developed, and Lots C and D are developed.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to call for a public hearing on August 23 based
upon the above costs and proposed assessments.
2. The second alternative would be to order the improvement and delay
any assessment until Briar Oaks second phase and Meadow Oak 4th
Addition are completed.
3. The third alternative would he to do nothing but let the pond
overflow onto private property. This docs not appear to he a good
option for us at this time since it is highly likely that this could occur
yet this year.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and City
Administrator that the Council call for a public hearing on the project and
notify the property owners benefiting from the project and hold a public
hearing on August 23.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copies of maps of the various ponds; Plan sheet prepared by USM.
16
JG 06 '93 11:51 OS+t MPl.S. r•vr
00 2001
IN FEET
Grown Syr Drawing Title Comm. No.
coo 9oA.I•n .ssa.,s
4e� *.nt r BRIAR OAKES ESTATES
t. x �. om61A.4"` STORM WATER OUTLET �wu e
• - • -- •'u"�7.Ow�Or1.'llb�il..Afdti�ddr'MtYii►+�+"'
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
12. Review of six-month financial statement for liauor store. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND 13ACKGROUND
Enclosed you will find copies of the first six-month financial report for the
liquor store operation with comparisons to the first six months of 1992.
Manager Joe Hartman will be in attendance at the meeting along with myself
to review the report with the Council.
Sales for the first six months were down slightly over last year's same period
by approximately 1 1/2%, or $10,000. Although the sales are slightly lower,
the gross profit is higher than last year by over $9,500, resulting in a gross
profit of $164,16.3 for the first six months. This results in a gross profit
percentage of 24.31h, which is in the neighborhood that we were expecting.
With the gross profit showing an increase of approximately $9,500, the result
is also an operating income level that is over $12,000 higher than last year at
$6.5,956. In comparing expenses from last year to this year, it should he noted
that the audit report charge of $2,600 has not yet been paid in 1993, which
would lower the operating income by another $2,500 when comparing year to
year. Overall, the operating income at approximately 9 1/2% is reasonable and
within our target of 914 to 10''6..
ALTERNATIVE. ACTIONS:
After review of the report with Joe and myself, the Council can accept
the report as presented.
1). SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of six-month financial report.
17
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30, 1992 AND 1993
1992 1993
YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE
AMOUNT AMOUNT
SALES
Liquor
184,203
187,219
Beer
413,385
395,210
Mine
64,349
66,946
Other Merchandise
22,901
25,183
Misc Non -Taxable Sales
660
977
Discounts
----------
----------
TOTAL SALES
685,498
675,536
COST OF GOODS SOLD
(530,915)
----------
(511,373)
----------
GROSS PROFIT
154,582 22.55%
aea_==ao3c
164,163 24.30%
acaaa�a=.a
?NERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE
Personal Services
salaries
49,808
51,758
PERA
1,862
1,911
FICA
3,166
3,916
Insurance
5,522
5,504
Unemployment Benefits
----------
----------
TOTAL PERSONAL SERVICES
60,997 8.90%
63,089 9.34%
supplies
Office Supplies
112
379
General Operating supplie
3,769
3,059
Other Supplies
709
----------
40
----------
TOTAL SUPPLIES
4,590 .67%
3,478 .51%
L
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
REVENUE AND EXPENSES
COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30, 1992 AND 1993
1992 1993
YEAR-TO-DATE YEAR-TO-DATE
AMOUNT AMOUNT
Other Services & Charges
Professional Services
3,225
-
Maintenance Agreements
Communication
497
567
Travel -Conference -Schools
Advertising
1,398
2,705
Insurance
10,650
10,554
Utilities, Electric
4,026
5,293
Utilities, Heating
715
813
Utilities, Sewer & water
185
6
Utilities, Refuse
Maintenance, Equipment
3,040
857
Maintenance, Building
1,326
937
Maintenance, Other
213
74
Depreciation --Acquired As
9,548
9,286
Other Misc Expenses
397
465
r
TOTAL OTHER SERVICES & CH
35,314
5.15%
31,640
TOTAL GENERAL & ADMIN EXPENS
100,901
14.72%
98,207
TOTAL OPERATING INCOME
53,681
aaaaaaaaaa
7.83%
65,956
aaaa0aaaaa
Other Income (Expense)
Interest Income
32,660
6,756
Cash Long/short
(107)
69
sale of Property
----------
----------
TOTAL OTHER INCOME {EXPENSE)
32,552
4.75%
6,826
NET INCOME (EXPENSE)
86,234
11.58%
72,871
aaaaaaaaaa
0.0aaaaaaa
Transfers In/Out
`DJUSTED NET INCOME (EXPENSE
86,234
72,871
.000000000
aaaaaaaaaa
4.68%
14.54%
9.76%
L
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
GROSS PROFIT BY PRODUCT
COMPARISON FOR THE YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30, 1992 AND 1993
1992
1993
YEAR-TO-DATE
YEAR-TO-DATE
AMOUNT
AMOUNT
Liquor Sales
184,203
187,219
Discounts
Cost of Sales
138,363
136,112
----------
GROSS PROFIT - LIQUOR
----------
45,840
24.89%
51,108
27.301
Beer Sales
413,385
395,210
Cost of Sales
333,260
317,494
----------
GROSS PROFIT - BEER
----------
80,125
19.38%
77,716
19.66%
Mine Sales
64,349
66,946
Cost of Sales
45,802
43,627
----------
GROSS PROFIT - MINE
----------
18,546
28.82%
23,319
34.83%
.,isc sales
22,901
25,183
Cost of Sales
10,351
10,898
----------
GROSS PROFIT - MISC TAXABLE
----------
12,550
54.80%
14,286
56.73%
NisC Non-taxable sales
660
977
Cost of Sales
642
528
----------
GROSS PROFIT - MISC NON -TAXA
----------
18
2.73%
449
45.96%
TOTAL SALES
685,498
675,536
TOTAL COST OF SALES
528,418
508,658
TOTAL FREIGHT COST
2,498
2,714
TOTAL GROSS PROFIT
154,582
naaaaaaaae
22.55%
164,163
no aaaaaaae
24.30%
MONTICELLO MUNICIPAL LIQUOR
BALANCE SHEET
30Jun93
Current Assets:
Cash
Change Fund
Investments
Accounts Receivable
A/R - NSF Checks
Inventory
Prepaid Insurance
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS
Fixed Assets
Land & Parking Lot
Buildings
Furniture & Equipment
less: Accumulated Depreciation
TOTAL FIXED ASSETS
TOTAL ASSETS
Liabilities
Accounts Payable
Due to EDA Fund
sales Tax Payable
Salaries Payable
Accrued vacation/Sick Leave
Other Accrued Expenses
TOTAL LIABILITIES
RETAINED EARNINGS
'OTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
141,625.49
1,500.00
251,168.09
(100.40)
199,543.50
13,133.98
606,870.66
46,591.03
199,285.65
75,993.73
(187,739.38)
------------
134,131.03
------------
741,001.69
aannanaaaaan
78,934.13
115,000.00
5,258.61
1,166.26
11,561.90
(9,548.73)
202,372.17
538,629.52
741,001.69
ananaonaaaes
(ia
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
13. Consideration of final navment to Astech Corporation for Sealcoat
Proiect SC 9&1. (J.S.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The 1993 sealcoat project has been completed. Sealcoa ting of 67,220 sq yds
on city streets was performed by the Astech Corporation at a cost of
$34,618.30. We had a couple of problems this year with the sealcoat project.
One was that the oil content used to stick the rock to the street surface was
slightly less than that which was specified. We have a concern that there's
a possibility that stripping of the aggregate or rock could occur in the
future, possibly over the winter period during snowplowing operations. In
addition, it rained approximately 7 hours after the completion of the
sealcoat project, and a small amount of oil washed off the streets and
stained the curb and gutter. The Astech Corporation has hired a
subcontractor out of the Twin Cities area to clean the curbs with high
pressure hot water and soap. This appears to be removing a good portion of
the staining.
Because of the oil content being slightly less than specified, I believe we
have two options: 11 One is to negotiate a deduct with the Astech
Corporation because they used less oil, or 21 to extend the warranty an
additional year to have us go over one more freeze/thaw cycle during the
winter. This option would probably he more practical, as it would be
difficult to assess what type of deduct we should get.
B. AI.TERNATIVF ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative would he to authorize final payment to the
Astech Corporation in the amount of $34,618.30 contingent upon their
completion of the cleanup of the curl) as best can he done by the high
pressure spray washing and with the receiving of an additional
written one-year warranty extending the warranty through the 1994-
1996 winter.
2. The second alternative would he to negotiate a settlement with
Astech for the reduced quantity of oil and accept the standard one-
ye:u• warriurty.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director that the City Council
authorize final payment to Astech contingent upon receipt of an additional
one-year warranty as outlined in alternative N1.
1), SUPPORTIM DATA:
None.
is
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
14. Consideration of calling a public hearing to review an amendment
to the city ordinance which would establish a storm sewer utility
fee system. and call for a special meeting for August 16 at 4:50 D.M.
(J.O.)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you know, in the next few weeks, the City will likely be ordering the
completion of the Hart Boulevard trunk storm sewer project ($240,000). In
the next few years, it is also likely that the City will complete the trunk
storm sewer system linking the Meadow Oak arca to the Mississippi River
($250,000 est.). Other major trunk storm sewer improvements serving the
Chelsea Corridor Area will also be needed in the not -loo -distant future. The
present system for paying for trunk storm sewer improvements is limited to
a combination of assessments against benefiting properties and ad valorem
taxation. For most projects, demonstrating benefit is difficult; therefore,
trunk storm sewer assessments are not likely to pay more than 20Th. -40% of
the storm sewer costs.
City staff requests that Council consider establishing a third type of
revenue source which can be used for financing new improvements and can
be used for funding ongoing maintenance of stonn sewer systems. The
system proposed is a storm sewer utility fee that is designed to collect
revenue from individual properties based on the level of storm water run-off
created by the property.
City Council is not asked to review the concepts in great detail at this time.
What Cil.y staff would like to do is to propose that Council establish a public
hearing to review it potential amendment to the ordinance scheduled for
August 2:1, 1993. We would also like to schedule t1 special meeting for
Monday, August 16, at 4:30 p.m., at which time we can go over the concepts
and issues in great detail. Attached is a draft copy of the proposed
amendmentin the city ordinance for Council review prior to the proposed
special meeting on August 16.
B. AurERNATIVE ACTIONS
Motion to approve an amendment to the city ordinance which would
establish n storm sewer utility fee system and call for a special
meeting to he conducted on August Ili at 4::10 p.m.
19
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
2. Motion to deny an amendment to the city ordinance which would
establish a storm sewer utility fee system.
Council should select this alternative if it strongly believes that ad
valorem taxation is the best way to supplement the City's ability to
pay for storm sewer cost via the special assessment process.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is our view that the time is right to consider establishment of the storm
sewer utility fee. Expensive storm sewer projects are impending, and it
may make sense to develop a fund supplemental to ad valorem taxes and
the assessment process to help finance these expenses.
D. SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of proposed amendment.
20
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, HEREBY
ORDAINS THAT TITLE 7 OF THE MONTICELLO CITY ORDINANCE BE
AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER AS IT RELATES TO
STORM WATER UTILITY.
CHAPTER 9
STORM WATER UTILITY
SECTION:
7.9-1:
Storm Water Drainage Utility Established
7.9-2:
Definitions
7-9.3:
Storm Water Drainage Fees
7-9-4:
Credits
7-9-5:
Central Business District Fees
7-9-6:
Exemptions
7-9-7:
Recalculation of Fee
7-9-1: STORM WATER DRAINAGE UTILITY ESTABLISHED: The
municipal storm water system shall be operated as a public utility
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075, from which revenues will be
derived subject to the provisions of this section and Minnesota Statutes. The
storm water drainage utility will be part of the public works department and
under the administration of the Public Works Director.
7.9.2: DEFINITIONS: The following terms, as used in this section, shall
have the meanings stated:
(A) "Residential Equivalent Factor (REF)" means the ratio of the average
volume of run-off generated by one acre of a given land use to the average
volume generated by one acre of typical single family residential land
during a standard two-year rainfall event.
7-9-3: STORM WATER DRAINAGE FEES:
(A) Storm water drainage fees for parcels of land shall be determined by
multiplying the REF for a parcel's land use by the parcel's acreage and then
multiplying the resulting product by the storm water drainage rate. The
REF values for various land uses are as follows:
L
Ordinance Amendment No. _
Page 2
Classification Land Uses REF Number
I.A. Residential, less than 35% 1.00
impervious
1.B. Residential, 36.600 2.00
impervious
I.C. Residential, 61-100% 4.00
impervious
2.A. Commercial, industrial, and 1.25
institutional, less than 35% impervious
2.13. Commercial, industrial, and 2.50
institutional, 36-60% impervious
2.C. Commercial, industrial, and 5.00
institutional, 61-100, impervious
3. Cemeteries and golf courses .25
(B) For the purposes of calculating storm water drainage fees, all developed
one -family and two-family parcels shall be considered to have an acreage of
one-third (1/3) acre and an REF value of 1.00.
7-9.4: CREDITS: The Council shall adopt policies recommended by the City
Engineer, by resolution, for adjustment of the storm water drainage
fee for parcels based upon hydraulic data to be supplied by property owners, which
demonstrates a hydraulic response substantially different from the standards.
Such adjustments of storm water drainage fees shall not be made retroactively.
7.9.5: CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT FEES: The Council shall adopt
policies recommended by the City Engineer, by resolution, for the
adjustment of the storm water drainage fee for parcels within the Central
Business District. Said adjustment shall be to equalize the storm water drainage
areas, since the Central Business District has a major portion of its parking
provided by the City.
Ordinance Amendment No. _
Page 3
7-9-6: EXEMPTIONS: The following land uses are exempt from storm
water drainage fees:
(A) Public rights-of-way.
(B) Public parks.
(C) Agricultural land.
7-9-7: RECALCULATION OF FEE: If a property owner or person
responsible for paying the storm water drainage fee questions the
correctness of an invoice for such charge, such person may have the determination
of the charge recomputed by written request to the City Engineer. All requests
must be received within 60 days of mailing of the invoice in question by the City.
The property owner may appeal the decision of the City Engineer to the Council
by filing notice of said appeal as provided in City Code, Section
Adopted this day of , 1993.
Mayor
City Administrator
y
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
is. Consideration of a resolution calling for a public hearing on the
Hart Boulevard storm sewer improvement. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
As you know, on August 23, the City Council will be considering ordering
the Hart Boulevard storm sewer project. In order to be in position to assess
a portion of the cost to complete the project against benefiting properties,
the City will need to conduct a public hearing on the improvement project
prior to ordering the work.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Motion to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing on the Hart
Boulevard storm sewer improvement project.
Under this alternative, City staff will submit a notice to the local
newspaper and will submit separate notices to all properties in the
Hart Boulevard watershed. It is hoped that by the time that the
hearing is conducted, the City Engineer will have a preliminary
assessment roll prepared that will identify the cost to each benefiting
property.
2. Motion to deny adoption of a resolution calling for a puhlic hearing on
the Hart Boulevard storm sewer improvement project.
City Council should select this alternative if it has no plans to assess
any portion of the project against benefiting properties.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative ill.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of resolution to be provided at meeting.
21
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
16. ConRideration of purchasing two additional bleachers for the
baseball comnlex. US.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
As part of the 1992 budget, $3,6011 was included in the park fund for
purchasing additional bleachers at the NSP ballfield complex. The public
works department obtained prices in August of 1992 and brought those
before the City Council. The lowest price was $.3,380. At that time, some
members of the Council questioned whether the support was continuing
from the Softball Association for paying for the field maintenance.
Consequently, the purchase of the bleachers was tabled until such time the
City Council could review the financial commitment from the Softball
Association.
The Softball Association currently contributes approximately $2,500
annually to the City to cover part of our ongoing maintenance cost. In
addition, both the Softball and Baseball Associations have agreed to
contribute some funds toward the cost of the hallfield lighting that was
recently installed. The Baseball Association has agreed to contribute $1,000
annually for the next, ten years, and the Softball Association $500 per year
for ten years. In addition, the organizations do reimburse the City for all
lighting cost at the end of each season. At this time, neither the Softhall
nor Baseball Association has been approached for additional funding
reimbursements teo cover any other improvements planned at the complex.
We have obtained it new price from Earl F. Anderson, Inc., for two 5 -row,
21-fout all aluminum bleachers. The current price with tax and shipping
would he $:1,636.70. As 1 discussed with the City Council it couple of
months ago, there is a definite need for two additional bleachers at the
hallfields. In addition, we are placing money in the 1994 budget for some
type of netting or economical cover over the bleachers to limit the number of
foul halls striking spectators. Currently, because of the shortage of
bleachers, spectators are using picnic tallies as bleachers, and these picnic
tables tire not, designed to take that load. In addition, if any of you had a
chance to view the recent state tournaments for Pee Wee Reese and Sandy
Cofax Baseball, you noted that the entire parking Int was full, and there
were hundreds of people in the hallfield complex, and the shortage of
bleachers was quite evident at thiel time.
Council Agenda - 8/9/93
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. The first alternative is to authorize the purchase of two 5 -row, 21 -foot
all aluminum bleachers from Earl F. Anderson, Inc., of Bloomington,
Minnesota, for $3,636.70. The bleachers would then be assembled
over the winter and be ready for installation in the spring. We would
also retrofit these two bleachers with some type of economical cover
or placing them in the field.
2. The second alternative is to do nothing at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is the recommendation of the Public Works Director and Park and Street
Superintendent that the City Council authorize the purchase of these two
bleachers as outlined in alternative ill. It is our opinion that it is in the
best interest of the City as well as the welfare of the participants and
spectators at the ballfields that we obtain these bleachers. The support
from the Softball Association and Baseball Association is continuing as they
have indicated.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of quote from Earl F. Anderson dated July 22, 1993.
23
Ead F. Andersen, Inc.
9808 .lames Circle
Bloornington. MN 55431
■ P iie PW'.. d E'.0.r
wsn.wm.mngs
:'r ft co d'W sga.ld alom,ca
cumom 5"
Phone: 612-884-7300
a al"d w as sedum sauna
rtiom
MN WATS: 1-800-862-6026
a Bcroaeovd
sip Vow Mwn" area—
FAX: 612-884-5619
a DOCb
aArdftOU" SWtW
cn.a.r. --WS d•n- MW •n• wwbnoe .r.k...
QUOTATION
• CITY OF MONTICELLO
Date July 22, 1993
P.O. BOX 1147 R1PArhPra
Monticello, MN 55362 You►Re1.No.
Attn: Roger Mack,
Street Superintendent
• TEAMS: Net 30 Oays �{]
To Be Arranged ❑
QUANTITY DESCRIPTION I PRICE EACH I TOTAL
1 7 Row - 2710" All Aluminum Bleacher with $4275.00 $4275.00
ground sills and chain link.
1 5 Row - 25'0" All Aluminum Bleacher with $1920.00 $1920.00
ground sills and chain link.
Freiqht 450.00
ALTERNATE:
3 5 Row - 21.10" All Aluminum Bleacher with $1590.00 $4770.00
ground sills and chain link.
Freight 375.00
Installation prices based on prevailing wages. SUBTOTAL
❑ YES SALES TAX
❑ NO FRE*HT
INSTALLATION
TOTAL l—
,F.O.B. Factory ❑ Destination CS WE ARE AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Shprartt eppros30 to 45 Days aper receipt of order.
NOTE: This quotation valid lot 30 days.
Please write for confirmation aper 00 date. By bn\1 Ali hhh !!1 P LLL►►► WWW
`RDEMXO
LAj
CITY Of MONT ICE LLO MON I HI Y BUILDING LIE PAN I MEN I RF.POBI
MW In 0 Jut,. 1993
PCfMRS 6 USES
'Last
IMI
9am4Mmtn
Leat Y.,
This Yu,
PERMITS ISSUED Mph JUNE MOnln
JIAY
I -Yep!
TO D..
To OO4
RESIDENTIAL
NumOar
11
27
11
67
101
Valuallen
1117.80000
{1,116'.0000
1121753'.00
111.551.000 OD
&2.965.00000
f44a
17.106 01
$7.948 70
0.066 22
112.708 07
922.46573
Swcn9r0ea
627565
155585
117525
$76905
11.1310
COMMERCIAL
NumOar
4
5
3
14
23
V.UHT-
$11,00000
$171,70000
115.00000
1910.20000
$451.10000
Foes
$171 00
11,21515
119050
16.176 79
$4.05495
S -"'g a
$500
$67.15
97 25
$45860
$22170
INDUSTRIAL
Num"
1
7
VaNsI10O
$744.10000
{291,SN 00
Fees
$2.46671
{2,27015
Surchwom
$172.15
$14578
PLUMBING
Nu.1—
1
6
5
29
78
f—
$15900
$74000
$120.00
$11700
$1,02100
Sulcnnpa
$350
111400
$250
$11,50
11200
OTHERS
hl n
7
1
4
Vtluwka
$000
$000
1000
$58.90000
F—
$2000
$1000
94000
$75907
&ncnu9a)
61 OD
$050
t? 00
8320
,
TOTAL I PER,IRS
711
36
20
171
169
TOTAL VALUATION
1454.80000
{1,250.10000
1268,50000
$7.621,500 D0
17,704.56700
1O1 AL F E C 9
64,01001
1(}04.1!
0.78677
$77.28611
MGM as
TOTAL 6URCHAROEF
$24515
162100
114550
{1,41650
{1,69168
CURRENT MON114
RLS
NUTAOEn 1O )ATE
Ell 'RWI NA I LIIE
m-"
Perms
Wcnu94
vskI.M
This 1'4r LHJY-
SlnOlefamil,
A
0,79611
$25050
1501.00000
71
21
DV e.
0
0
Mukl-f..1,
7
P.71793
{70095
{561,60000
7
0
Cpnrrr4rcw
1
7
In(IuslrlAl
1
0
IM Nr4944
1
{5000
$750
15,00000
1
4
Son.
0
0
P1OI1c 0102$
7
0
AI II.fUIN1NM1U PAI14
0 g11.ga1
01700
{040
{71.50000
50
17
c"i—cl4
!
11,21!45
{611!
1174,30000
77
17
Ntluar4l
2
1
IIIMBIAG
A0 IyP44
1
$3.000
0400
$000
36
20
ACCCBSORY
5lnufluncs
.fhii v Poa4
0
D4cL4
6
17600
17 L0
/7,50000
14
15
11 M)'ORARV P15"T
0
Ell NICK IT ION
4
IOIALD
36
93AN III
$62100
61.750.10007
161
171
CITY OF MONTICELLO INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Me" of July, 1993
PERMIT
I
FEES
NUMBER
DESCRIPTION -
TYPEI
_ __NAME/L_OCATION _
_ VALUATION
_PE_RMI7
SURCHARGE
PLUMBING ISURCHARGEI
193-2077
Interior rerrnocleF
AD
py Lane
55.000.00
550.00
52.50
IB3-2078
Interior & enerror remooel
AC
Really Trust, Inc.1316 W Broaowey
NOU00.00
S3a9.50
120.00193-2079
3 -unit townhouse
MF
jKarenrrriihaley11128San
Jay S Vivien Miller/708, 110, f 112 Jerry Lretert Dr.
1288.400.00
19,298.90
Stu 20 I
S71 00 10.50
193-2080
Garage ad,",-
AD
Gordon f Theresa Stelnen/1509 Hilltop Di
52.000.00
$20.00
61.00
193-2081
Window replace.
AO
Eugene Kuhn1106 Wasninpton St
$4 A10000 1
548.00
$2.40
183-2082
Deck
AO
�Roeer A Some Cerlson/208 Ke -Longley Dr
[1,500,00
$1500
90.50
ID3-2083
HOUW A pelage
SF
Denny Jacksoru1103 Cluo View Or
$t 11,200.00
$629.73
$58.60
132.00 SD 50
193-2084
Houde 8 garage
SF
Vetue Plus HomeW5153 Mellaril Lane
555.700.00
$396 13
$27.85
520.00 $0.50
193-2085
Canopy, pumps $ en remodel
AC
Peal Blorkrund/254 W Broadway
$39,200 00
$344.30
199.60
193-2086
House A garage rosningle
AD
Jeffrey A Dlckua Nreserd2o9 WashlnRlon Sl.
59,500.00
575.00
50.50
93-2087
Deck
AD
Jamas f Cheryl HetlerJt23 Jerry Uelert Dr
19.500 00
St 5.00
ZD 50
1
93-2088
4 -unit lownnoua4
Mr
investors r ogather16tK7 Hlverwew Ur , Units 680,
9[93,200.00
$1.31655 .
6146.76
$115.00 S050 1
590. 800, S 610
I
1
193-2089
1Denk
AD
Drone VO surd 121 Crocus Lane
61,600.00
515.00
Soso
193-2090
House A garage
SF
Daryl $ Ellen Fr3ctloacrV303 E Rim St
9,144,200 00
$714 78
$72.10
132.00 , $0.50
193-2091
�Houao 8 garage
SF
Va1uo Plus Homos/5160 Sinning Or
[53.300.00
S38641
62665
123 00 50.50
163-2092
180ding rarool
AC
Deeay Montrwllo AasocJ700 W Prue St
tt 3,900.00
$152 t 0
$6.95
193-2093
Houde 8 garage rerool
AO
Irene Foa1eu806 W River St
Lt.600 00
695 00
50.50
193-2094
MM 0 home entry
AD
Vein RinersoW Ktwlnerg East Trans, Perk
St.500 00
St 5.00
t0 50
1
183-2085
Dock
AD
Anplon; A EStnor Skellorv1045 Hawthorne Place N
$1,500.00
$1500
$0.50
193-2096
Houen h garage
SF
(value Plus homes/5133 Martin Or
1154,900 00
6382.89
92745
$23 00 f0 50
193-2097
Building daemon
AC
Ronhy Trust Inc 1318W Broadway[3.500
00
53500
11.75
193-2090
Screen porch
AD
Allen BrowM619 E R- St
62,000 00
920.00
$1 00
193-2099
Above ground tuol tank
AC
Hogrund Due Company/t 18 E Oakwood Dr
937,700 00
$334,55
$16.85 I
193-2100
Allacned garage
RG
Jerome 6 Diane Wdsonn 16 Mervin Elwood Ro
16.000 00
'50.00
$2-50
193-2101
Deck
AD
Earl Wasol[ 7 Klelbo�q East Trailer Ven
61,50000
$15.00
$0.50
193-2102
Gmege rmoot
AD
Henv s Run Oeatu500 W River Sl
�'."rry
91.500 00
$1500
$050
193-2903
Geragn aoonion
AD
Dm.m SS Sue./601 E Rrvor S1
$1.50000
51500
$050
193_21 ba
Hpuan h garage
SF
WODwood Buudery2800 Rod Oar, Una
175.7p0 W
477 13
37.85
S24 00 9050
TOTALS [1,250,700,00
'7,164.971
1823.00
934000 94.00
FEES
SURCHARGE( PLUMBING ISURCHARGEI
CITY OF MONTICELLO INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Montt) of July, 1993
Pape 2 of 2
I
(PERMIT I
NUMBER DESCRIPTION
TYPE NAME/LOC_ATION _ _
VALUATION
PERMIT
I
I I
1 I PLAN REVIEW
I
I
I
I
193-2079 13-una lornnouse
iMF
(Jay 8 Vivian Mslad108, 110. 8 112 Jerry L iolcn Dr.
44
58.28
193-2083 A narago
SF
Donny Jackil 103 Club View Dr.
$6297
(House
193-2084 Housa A palane
I_SF
Value Plus Hamod5153 Malloro Lane
539.61
93-2088 14-uni1 lonuM
r'M
MF
I
1-1,10r3 TaI )",1660 Rivtf—e. Dr . Unit, 580
5855 20
I
590. 600, A 610
193-2090 IHousO A p]mpo
SF
Daryl A Ellen FisctibacIV303 E River Sl.
$71.48
193-2091 Houso A asiapo
SF
Va'uo Plus Nomed5150 SlnrungOr
538 64
193-2096 IHOaaa A paiano
SF
Value Plus H0mad5133 Martin Di
539 29
193-2104 IHousn A flirogo
SF
Wenrooa Bwlaeid2800 Roo Oaa Lana
547.71
I I
TOTAL PLAN REVIEW
SI.999.18
TOTAL REVENUE
510.131.15
FEES
SURCHARGE( PLUMBING ISURCHARGEI