Loading...
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