03-25-02 CCV
1�i
Date: March 21, 2002
To: Mayor & Council
From: City Administrator Mike Robertson
Re: 2001 Preliminary Final Budget Report
2001 Selected Funds Report
This is a preliminary report on the final 2001
budget figures. It is a preliminary report because
the figures are unaudited. The final figures will
be in the official 2001 audit report.
SUMARY
At this point, we have a total 2001 budget surplus
of $157,549. This consists of $146,776 in surplus
revenues and $10,733 in unexpended funds.
On the Revenue side, the main contributors were
surpluses in other Federal Grants ($36,104),
Charges for Services ($24,337), Interest Earnings
($22,931), Cleanup Day Charges ($11,543), and
Mobile Home Taxes ($10,176). These items are
usually projected very conservatively due to their
volatility, so this is why we have positive
variances.
On the Expenditure side, the main contributors were
unexpended funds in City Council ($33,657) and
Finance ($12,680).
Below I have listed in detail each department and
how it finished 2001 in terms of the budget.
REVENUES
The City projected revenues of $1,468,719 in 2001
and received revenues of $1,61S,495, for a surplus
of $146,776.
Other Federal Grants - No amount is budgeted for
this item. The City receives money from the
Federal Government only irregularly, usually
because of some disaster. The $36,104 is the
amount received from Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) for reimbursement of some of our
costs for flooding on Parrish Avenue.
Charges for Service - This was projected at $8,000
and came in at $32,337, a surplus of $24,337. This
is mainly the administrative service fee charged
new development to account for its use of
administrative staff time.
Interest - This was projected at $21,000 and came
in at $43,931, a surplus of $22,931. This is only
general fund interest, because interest is
allocated to the fund that generates it.
Cleanup Day Charges - This was projected at $4,500
and came in at $16,043 for a surplus of $11,543.
This was due to the high turnout at Cleanup Day and
reimbursement by Wright County for two years of
expenditures.
Mobile Home Tax - No amount is budgeted for this
tax, which tends to go down as the number and value
of mobile homes in the city goes down. The entire
amount of $10,176 is surplus.
2
EXPENDITURES
The City projected expenditures of $1,484,628 in
2001 and actually spent $1,473,895. That leaves a
surplus of $10,733 in unexpended funds.
We had surpluses in City Council ($33,657), Finance
($12,680), City Planner ($6,777), EDA/EDAAC
($6,437), Recycling ($4,841), and Code Enforcement
($4,210).
There were deficits in Administration ($26,928),
Street Department ($21,640), old Town Hall
($7,188), and City Engineer ($6,441).
I have listed below each department and how it
finished in 2001.
MAYOR & COUNCIL
Mayor & Council was budgeted for $64,800 and spent
$31,143, for a surplus of $33,656. The major
contributors to the surplus were $21,840 in unspent
Contingency funds and $8,991 in unspent Council
Salaries. In 2002 Mayor & Council is budgeted at
$59,332.
ADMINISTRATION
Administration was budgeted at $277,677 and spent
$304,605 for a deficit of -$26,928. The major
contributors to the deficit were overages in
Election Supplies, which was the purchase of the
new voting machines ($9,494), General Insurance
($4,821), Employee Costs ($4,697), Contracted
Services($4,229), and Office Equipment($4,690). In
2002 Administration is budgeted at $262,118,
because Kathy Grover's time has been moved to
Finance.
FINANCE
Finance was budgeted at $34,750 and spent $22,070
for a surplus of $12,680. Contracted Services
(Gary Groen's time and payroll costs) was budgeted
at $25,500 and spent $14,912 for a surplus of
$10,588. In 2002 Finance is budgeted at $64,304
because it will include Kathy Grover's time.
ASSESSING
Assessing was budgeted at $23,066 and spent $26,918
for a deficit of -$3,853. Assessing costs are
based on the number of parcels in the City, which
is increasing. In 2002 Assessing is budgeted at
$28,120.
ENGINEERING
Engineering was budgeted for $40,000 and spent
$46,441 for a deficit of -$6,441. In 2002
Engineering is budgeted for $43,500.
LEGAL
Legal was budgeted for $28,000 and spent $27,370
for a surplus of $630. In 2002 Legal is budgeted
for $29,500.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Commission is budgeted for $3,737 and
spent $1,479 for a surplus of $2,257. In 2002
Planning Commission is budgeted for $3,737.
PLANNER
The Planner was budgeted for $33,800 and spent
$27,023 for a surplus of $6,777. In 2002 the
Planner is budgeted for $43,500.
4
EDA
The EDA was budgeted for
for a surplus of $6,437.
budgeted for $16,791.
$16,291 and spent $9,854
In 2002 the EDA is
CITY HALL
City Hall was budgeted for $75,177 and spent
$73,924 for a surplus of $1,253. In 2002, City
Hall is budgeted for $73,187.
POLICE
Police was budgeted for $205,400 and spent $204,400
for a surplus of $1,000. In 2002 Police is
budgeted for $291,000.
BUILDING INSPECTION
Building Inspection costs were moved out of the
General Fund due to their size and to begin
complying with a new State rule regarding building
inspection * fees. The -details of the new State rule
haven't been written yet, so we are just trying to
guess what information they will want.
STREET MAINTENANCE
Street Maintenance was budgeted at $546,543 and
spent $568,183 for a deficit of -$21,640. The
major contributor to the deficit was the flooding
in the spring, which put the department behind for
the next half year. We have a deficit of -$42,407
in Equipment Rentals, which is the pumps that were
rented to deal with the flooding. Due primarily to
overtime because of the spring flooding and
snowplowing we have a overrun of -$23,798 in
Employee Costs. In 2002, Street Maintenance has
been budgeted for $602,741.
5
RECYCLING
Recycling was budgeted at $42,000 and spent $37,159
for a surplus of $4,841. In 2002 Recycling has
been dropped as a service.
CLEANUP DAY
Cleanup Day was budgeted at $13,000 and spent
$9,842 for a surplus of $3,159. In 2002 Cleanup
Day has been budgeted at $13,000.
RIVER RIDER
River Rider was budgeted at $3,195 and spent $2,994
for a surplus of $201. In 2002 River Rider is
budgeted at $3,195. The program may be ended if
ridership does not increase.
COMMUNITY RECREATION
Community Recreation was budgeted at $22,276 and
spent $24,346 for a deficit of -$2,070. This
deficit was due to an increased amount of
participation from Ot . sego residents. Community
Recreation has been dropped as a service in 2002.
PARK MAINTENANCE
Park Maintenance was budgeted at $23,775 and spent
$20,699 for a surplus of $3,076. The surplus was
primarily in our contracted mowing, where we had a
good bid and a dry summer which reduced the amount
of mowing. In 2002 Park Maintenance is budgeted at
$22,275.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Historic Preservation was budgeted at $4,141 and
spent $753 for a surplus of $3,388, primarily
because there were much less printing expenses than
anticipated. In 2002 Historic Preservation is
budgeted at $3,891.
?-i
STREET LIGHTING
Street Lighting was budgeted at $16,000 and spent
$20,937 for a deficit of $4,937. The deficit is
caused by about a $4,S00 rise in lighting costs
from the increase in the amount of streetlights in
the City and by spending $2,47S to purchase a
streetlight for River Ranch Acres. In 2002 Street
Lighting has been budgeted at $16,000.
OLD TOWN HALL & SHED
Expenses are not budgeted for the old Town Hall and
the Shed. we had a deficit of -$7,188 for both
buildings. Miscellaneous ($3,106) and
Utilities($2,912) were the bulk of the items.
Neither of these buildings has a budget for 2002.
ANIMAL CONTROL
Animal Control was budgeted at $2,000 and spent
$1,77S for a surplus of $225. In 2002 Animal
Control is b.udgeted at.$2,500.
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Code Enforcement was budgeted at $9,000 and spent
$4,790 for a surplus of $4,210.
7
FUNDS UPDATE
This is an update on the status of a number of City
Funds that have been discussed during the past
year. All of the funds that receive fees from
development grew tremendously in 2001.
WATER & SEWER DEBT SERVICE FUND
The W&S Debt Service fund contains the Water Access
Charges (WAC) and Sewer Access Charges (SAC) paid
by the developers and builders of new homes in the
sewer district, as well as the SAC/WAC fees paid by
existing buildings that hooked up to City sewer and
water. These funds are used to make the payments
on the seven million dollars that the City borrowed
to construct the sewer and water system. This fund
currently has a balance of $6,510,598, which is an
increase from $2,881,266 in 2000. This is enough
to fund the next 11 years of bond payments. -
PARK DEVELOPMENT FUND
This fund consists of the Park & Trail fees paid by
developers when they plat their land. These fees
are used for the purchase of park land,
construction of parks, purchasing park equipment,
and construction of trails. This fund currently
has a balance of $1,304,570, which is an increase
from $632,169 in 2000.
PARK SHELTER FUND
This fund consists of donations and budget
surpluses from the last several years of the Park &
Recreation budget which were set aside to construct
the park shelter. This fund currently has a
deficit of -$15,856 after payment for park shelter
materials. The final payment has not been made.
9
When it is made, the deficit will be made up by a
transfer from the Park Development Fund.
PARK TREE FUND
This fund consists of donations and grants for the
purchase of trees for City parks. This fund
currently has a balance of $436, up from $427 in
2000.
REVOLVING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
This fund consists of; cash left over when
improvement bonds are closed out, delinquent
assessments still coming in from those bonds,
assessments on City financed (non -bonded)
improvements, budget surpluses from previous years,
and transfers of surplus building permit revenues.
This fund is intended to be used to finance smaller
City improvements that are not bonded and to
finance the portion of City improvements that are
not supported by other -fund sources such as MSA
funds, State or Federal grants, and assessments.
The current balance in the fund is $762,253, which
is an increase from $384,052 in 2000.
REVOLVING CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FUND
This fund consists of funds transferred to it in
prior years. Typically these funds were surplus
revenues from prior budget years. This fund is set
up to purchase new City equipment either outright
or provide a source of yearly payments, so that the
purchase of a major piece of equipment does not
strain the budget in any one year. The current
balance in the fund is -$9,055, which is a decrease
from $56,014 in 2000. In 2001 money from this fund
was used to purchase two mowers, a pump, and a 2002
truck.
9
FIRE FUNDS
The Fire Funds consist of the funds assessed each
property in the City for fire protection. 2000 was
the first year these funds were broken into sub -
districts for each fire department.
Elk River Fire District - There is a surplus of
$130,353 in this district, an increase from $97,493
in 2000. The City was billed $56,847 in 2001 from
Elk River for fire protection. Council is
currently looking at accumulating funds for
construction of a fire station.
Albertville Fire District - There is a surplus in
this district of $8,579, an increase from $4,525 in
2000. The City was billed $17,520 in 2001 from
Albertville for fire protection.
Rogers Fire District - There is a surplus in this
district of $6,376, which is a decrease from
$11,540 in 2000. The decrease came about bec ause
Rogers billed us for several years of payments,
which they had not billed us for before. The City
was billed $5,151 in 2001 from Rogers for fire
protection.
Monticello Fire District - There is a deficit in
this district of -$1,713, which is a slight
decrease from -$1,612 in 2000. The City Council
recently passed a minor increase in rates which
should take care of this deficit. The City was
billed $7,350 in 2001 from Monticello for fire
protection.
10
WATERSHED FUNDS
The Watershed Funds consist of the storm sewer fees
paid by developers and assessments to property
owners benefited by storm sewer improvements.
These funds consist of two district funds where
most of the work has been done and the fees and
assessments have been collected.
North Mississippi Watershed Fund - There is a
deficit in this fund of -$98,023, a slight decrease
from -$96,954 in 2000. This is because most of the
trunk storm sewer facilities in this district have
been completed. As this area develops further,
particularly Otsego's Waterfront, the fees received
from development should bring this fund into
balance.
Lefebvre Creek Watershed Fund - The balance in this
fund is $296,215, which is an increase from $34,155
in 2000. The.majority of new residential
development is occurring in this district. Work
has been done to improve the capacity of the upper
reaches of Lefebvre Creek. Major work still
remains to be done on the lower stages (below
County Road 42) of Lefebvre Creek.
MUNICIPAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION FUND
This fund consists of money left over after the
construction of City Hall. The money was saved
from the construction bid price because
councilmembers, staff, and volunteers did a lot of
the work to save money. This money is reserved for
the construction of an addition to, or major
remodeling of, City Hall. The balance in this fund
is $169,692, an increase from $161,787 in 2000.
11
I
2001 FUND TRANSFERS
This is an update of the transfers between funds
that have taken place in 2001.
1. Transfer of $391,049 of surplus 2001 Building
Permit revenues from the General Fund to the
Capital Improvement Fund per City policy.
2. Transfer of $25,940 from the Capital Equipment
Fund to General Fund to make the yearly payment on
the Loader.
3. Transfer of $123,000 from the General Fund
(Street Department 2001 Budget) for the City's
share of the 1999 Overlay Bond debt service.
cc: City Staf f
12
Michael C. Couri-
Andrew J. MacArthur
Robert T. Ruppe-
David R. Wendorf
*A Lw ficemed in fifinds
**ALw fiemmd in Ca*ngia
March 20, 2002
City Council Members
City of Otsego
c/o Judy Hudson, City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
COURI & MACAR77IUR
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN55376-0369
(763) 497-1930
(763) 497-2599 (TAX)
couriandntacarthur@pohox. com
RE: Proposed Reliant Energy Franchise Renewal
Dear Council Members:
Enclosed please find proposed Franchise Agreements for Reliant Energy. The proposed
agreement is patterned after the model League of Cities Franchise.
The Reliant Energy Franchise is not up for another year or two but they wish to proceed
to begin negotiation for a new franchise at this time. Myself and Mike Robertson met
with representatives of Reliant and they asked whether or not the City would consider
starting franchise negotiations early. We could not think of a reason why this would be
detrimental to the City, as long they were willing to enter into an Agreement patterned
after League of Cities models.
I have attached e-mailed versions that Reliant proposes as models. I have reviewed them
and have no large problem with the general content. City staff is requesting Council
authority to begin negotiations on a franchise renewal with Reliant Energy.
I will be available to answer questions from the Council regarding this matter at the City
Council meeting on Monday evening.
Very trul� yours,
�Midrew J. MacArthur
COURI & MACARTHUR
Encls.
cc: Arnold Hendrickson, Reliant Energy
GAS ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO.
CITY OF OTSEGO, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING RELIANT ENERGY MUSNEGASCO, A DIVISION OF
RELIANT ENERGY RESOURCES CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION,
ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, A NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO CONSTRUCT,
OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN FACILITIES AND EQUIPM[ENT FOR THE
TRANSPORTATION, DISTRIBUTION, MANUFACTURE AND SALE OF GAS ENERGY
FOR PUBLIC AND PRIVATE USE AND TO USE THE PUBLIC WAYS AND GROUNDS
OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO, M1NNESOTA, FOR SUCH PURPOSE; AND, PRESCRIBING
CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO, WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Ordinance, the following capitalized terms listed in alphabetical order shall
have the f6flowing meanings:
City. The City of Otsego, County of Wright, State of Minnesota.
City Utility System. Facilities used for providing public utility service owned or operated by
City or agency thereof, including sewer, storm sewer, water service, street fighting and traffic signals,
but excluding facilities for providing heating, lighting, or other forms of energy.
Commission. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, or any successor agency or
agencies, including an agency of the federal government, which preempts all or part of the authority to
regulate gas retail rates now vested *in the Nlinnesota Public Utilities Commission.
Company. Reliant Energy Minnegasco, a division of Reliant Energy Resources Corporation,
a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns including all successors or assigns that own or
operate any part or parts of the Gas FaciEties subject to this franchise.
Gas Facilities. Gas transmission and distribution pipes, lines, ducts, fixtures, and all necessary
equipment and appurtenances owned or operated by the Company for the purpose of providing gas
energy for public or private use.
Gas. Natural gas, manufactured gas, mixture of natural gas and manufactured gas or other
forms of gas energy.
JMS-17809602
SH155-77
M
Non-Befterment Costs. Costs incurred by Company from relocation, removal or
rearrangement of Gas Facilities that do not result in an improvement to the Gas Facilities.
Notice. A writing served by any party or parties on any other party or parties. Notice to
Company shall be mailed to Reliant Energy Mnnegasco, V.P., Regulatory & Supply Service, 800
LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, NIN 55402-2006. Notice to the City shall be mailed to the City of
Otsego, 8899 Nashua Ave NE, Otsego, NM 55330-7314. Any party may change its respective
address for the purpose of this Ordinance by written notice to the other parties.
Public Way. Public fight -of -way within the City as defined in Minn. Stat. § 237.162, subd, 3.
Public Ground. Land owned or otherwise controlled by the City for park, open space or
similar public purpose, which is held for use in common by the public.
SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF FRANCHISE.
2.1. Grant of Franchise. City hereby grants Company, for a period of 20 years from the
date this Ordinance is passed and approved by the City, the right to import, manufacture, distribute and
sell gas for public and private use within and through the limits of the City as its boundaries now exist
or as they may be extended in the future. This fight includes the provision of Gas that is (i)
manufactured by the Company or its affiliates and delivered by the Company, (ii) purchased and
delivered by the Company or (iii) purchased from another source by the retail customer and delivered
by the Company. For these purposes, Company may construct, operate, repair and maintain Gas
Facilities in, on, over, under and across the Public Ways and Public Grounds, subject to the provisions
of this Ordinance. Company may do all reasonable things necessary or customary to accomplish these
purposes, subject however, to such lawful regulations as may be adopted by separate ordinance and as
currently exist under City Ordinance codified as Section ("Section "). The Company
shall be notified 60 days in advance of proposed changes to Section . The City and Company shall
negotiate in good faith to reach mutually acceptable changes. If the City and Company are unable to
agree, disputes will be handled under the terms of Section 2.5 of this Ordinance. If a provision of
Section conflicts with a provision on the same subject in this Ordinance, this Ordinance will
control.
2.2. Effective Date; Written Acceptance. This franchise shall be in force and effect from
and after its passage of this Ordinance and publication as required by law and its acceptance by
Company. If Company does not file a written acceptance with the City within 90 Days after the date
the City Council adopts this Ordinance, or otherwise places the City on vaitten notice, at any time, that
the Company does not accept all terms of this franchise, the City Council by resolution may either
repeal this ordinance or seek its enforcement in a court of competent jurisdiction.
2.3. Service and Gas Rates. The service to be provided and the rates to be charged by
Company for gas service in City are subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission
2.4. Publication Expense. The expense of publication of this Ordinance shall be paid by
Company.
JMS-178096v12
SH155-77
2
V
2.5. Disvute Resolution. If either party asserts that the other party is in default in the
performance of any obligation hereunder, the complaining party shall notify the other party of the
default and the desired remedy. The notification shall be written. Representatives of the parties must
promptly meet and attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. If the dispute is not
resolved within 30 days of the written notice, the parties may jointly select a mediator to facilitate
further discussion. The parties will equally share the fees and expenses of this mediator. If a mediator
is not used or if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 30 days after first meeting with the
selected mediator, either party may commence an action in District Court to interpret and enforce this
franchise or for such other relief permitted by law.
2.6. Continuation of Franchise. If the City and the Company are unable to agree on the
terms of a new franchise by the time this franchise expires, this franchise will remain in effect until a
new franchise is agreed upon, or until 90 days after the City or the Company serves written Notice to
the other party of its intention to allow the franchise to expire.
SECTION 3. LOCATION, OTRER REGULATIONS.
3.1. Location of Facilities. Subject to regulation under Section Gas Facilities in the
Public Way shall be located, constructed, and maintained so as not to disrupt normal operation of any
City Utility System. Gas FacHities may be located on Public Grounds as determined by the City,
3.2. Restoration of Public Ways and Public Ground. Restoration of the Public Way
shall be subject to Section . After completing work requiring the opening of Public Ground, the
Company shall restore the Public Ground to as good a condition as formerly existed, and shall maintain
the surface in good condition for six (6) months thereafter. All work shall be completed as promptly as
weather permits. If Company shall not promptly perform and complete the work, remove all dirt,
rubbish, equipment and material, and put the Public Ground in the said condition and after demand to
Company to cure, City shall, after passage of a reasonable period of time following the demand, but
not to exceed five days, have the fight to make the restoration of the Public Ground at the expense of
Company. Company shall pay to the City the cost of such work done for or performed by the City.
This remedy shall be in addition to any other remedy available to the City for noncompliance with this
Section.
3.3. Waiver of Performance Securi . The City hereby waives any requirement for
Company to post a construction performance bond, certificate of insurance, letter of credit or any other
forrn of security or assurance that may be required under Section currently or in the future. The
City reserves all other rights under Section to enforce Company performance requirements for
work in the Public Way or Public Ground.
3.4. Avoid Damaze to Gas Facilities. Nothing in this Ordinance relieves any person from
liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid damaging Gas Facilities while
performing any activity.
JMS-17809602 3
SH155-77
SECTION 4. RELOCATIONS.
4.1. Relocation of Gas Facilities. Relocation of Gas Facilities in Public Ways shall be
subject to Section . City may require Company at Company's expense to relocate or remove its
Gas Facilities f7orn Public Grounds upon a finding by City that the Gas Facilities have become or will
become a substantial impairment to the existing or proposed public use of the Grounds. Relocation
Gas Facilities in Public Ground shall comply with applicable City ordinances consistent with law.
4.2. Proiects with Federal Fundin . Relocation, removal, or rearrangement of any
Company Gas Facilities made necessary because of the extension into or through City of a federally -
aided highway project shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 161.46, as
supplemented or ainended. City shall not order Company to remove or relocate its Gas Facilities when
a Public Way is vacated, improved or realigned because of a renewal or a redevelopment plan which is
financially subsidized in whole or in part by the Federal Government or any agency thereof, unless
agreement is made that the reasonable Non -Betterment Costs of such relocation and the loss and
expense resulting thereftom,%Nrill be paid to Company when available to the City. The City need not
pay those portions of such for which reimbursement to it is not available.
4.3. No Waiver. The provisions of Section 4 apply only to Gas Facilities constructed in
reliance on a permit or franchise from City and Company does not waive its rights under an
easement or prescriptive right or State or County permit.
SECTION 5. CHANGE IN FORM OF GOVERNNIENT.
Any change in the form of government of the City shall not affect the validity of this Ordinance.
Any governmental unit succeeding the City shall, without the consent of Company, succeed to all of
the rights and obligations of the City provided in this Ordinance.
SECTION 6. FRANCHISE FEE.
6.1. Reservation of Rights. The City reserves all rights under Minn. Stat. § 216B.36,
to require a franchise fee at any time during the term of this franchise. If the City elects to require
a franchise fee it shall notify Company and negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually acceptable
fee agreement, which shall be set forth in a separate ordinance and not adopted until at least
60 days after Notice enclosing such proposed ordinance has been served upon the Company by
certified mail. If the City and Company are unable to agree on a franchise fee or on any terms
related thereto, each hereby consents to the jurisdiction of State District Court, Scott County, to
construe their respective rights under the law, subject to all rights of appeal.
JMS-178096v12 4
SH155-77
SECTION 7. 11MITATION ON APPLICABILITY; NO WAIVER,
This Ordinance constitutes a franchise agreement between the City and its successors and
the Company and its successors and permitted assigns, as the only parties. No provision of this
franchise shall in any way inure to the benefit of any third person (including the public at large) so
as to constitute any such person as a third party beneficiary of the agreement or of any one or
more of the terms hereof, or otherwise give rise to any cause of action in any person not a party
hereto. This franchise agreement shall not be interpreted to constitute a waiver by the City of any of
its defenses of immunity or limitations on liability under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466.
SECTION 8. AMIENDMENT PROCEDURE.
Either party to this franchise agreement may at any time propose that the agreement be
amended. This Ordinance may be amended at any time by the City passing a subsequent ordinance
declaring the provisions of the amendment, which amendatory ordinance shall become effective upon
the filing of Company's written consent thereto with the City Clerk within 60 days after the effective
date of the amendatory ordinance.
SECTION 9. PREVIOUS FRANCHISES SUPERSEDED.
This franchise supersedes and replaces previous franchises granted to the Company or its
predecessors. Upon Company acceptance of this franchise under Section 2.2, the previous franchise
shall terminate.
Passed and approved:
Mayor of the City of Otsego, Minnesota
Attest:
City Clerk Otsego, Minnesota
JMS-178096v12
SH155-77
CLAIMS LIST
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 25, 2002
TO: Judy Hudson
Attached is the Claims List for the City Council. For more details, please refer to the Check
Detail Registers.
If you have questions regarding this service, please let me know.
Claims Register 3-14-2002 $18,827.54
3-21-2002 $112,364.54
GRAND TOTAL $131,192.08
If you have any questions or if you would like to review this list further, please let me know.
Kathy Grover
Bookkeeper
CITY OF OTSEGO 03/14/02 3:05 PM
Page 1
*Check Summary Register@
MARCH 2002
Name Check Date Check Amt
10100 BANKOFELKRIVER
UnPaid ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST
UnPaid JERRY OLSON
UnPaid PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FD
FILTER: None
$422.31
$16,903.84
$1,501.39
Total Checks $18,827.54
CITY OF OTSEGO 03/14/02 3:06 PM
*Check Detail Register@ Page 1
MARCH 2002
Check Amt Invoice Comment
10100 BANKOFELKRIVER—
G101-21705 OtherRetirement $230.00 PPE 3/2 CK DTD 3/6
E 101-41400-121 PERA $192.31 PPE 3/2 CK DTD 3/6
Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST —$42231
'Un—Pg*la'----"--'----"j'ERRY'OL80N
E 250-42410-390 Contracted Services $16,903.84 FEB PERMITS
Total JERRY OLSON —1'1-6,903.84
G 101-21704 PERA $720.33 PE 3/2 CK DTD 3/6
E 101-43100-121 PERA $378.83 PE 3/2 CK DTD 3/6
E 101-41400-121 PERA $291.63 PE 3/2 CK DTD 3/6
E 101-41550-121 PERA $110.60 PE 3/2 CK DTD 3/6
Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FID ---�-1—,50139
10100 BANKOFELKRIVER $18,827.54
FILTER None
CITY OF OTSEGO 03/21/02 9:31 AM
Page I
*Check Summary Register@
MARCH 2002
Name Check Date Check Amt
10100 BANKOFELKRIVER
UnPaid
AFFORDABLE SANITATION
$172.92
UnPaid
AIRGAS, INC.
$57.61
UnPaid
BOYER TRUCKS
$675.89
UnPaid
CITY OF MONTICELLO
$232.00
UnPaid
COURI MACARTHUR LAW OFFICE
$16,403.30
UnPaid
CROW RIVER FARM EQUIPMENT
$112.87
UnPaid
EARL F ANDERSON INC
$1,926.82
UnPaid
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
$326.66
UnPaid
G & K TEXTILE LEASING SYSTEM
$511.01
UnPaid
GROEN GARY CPA
$1,215.00
UnPaid
H & L MESABI
$777.43
UnPaid
H G WEBER OIL COMPANY
$1,578.09
UnPaid
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOC INC
$43,672.74
UnPaid
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST
$422.31
UnPaid
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES
$20.00
UnPaid
MEDICA
$3,600.19
UnPaid
MENARDS
$16.76
UnPaid
MINNESOTA LIFE
$64.50
UnPaid
MN POLLUTION CONTROL
$1,140.00
UnPaid
MONTICELLO ANIMAL CONTROL
$62.00
UnPaid
NORTHWEST ASSOC CONSULTANTS
$5,220.99
UnPaid
PEOPLE SERVICE INC.
$9,300.00
UnPaid
PITNEY BOWES
$100.02
UnPaid
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FID
$3,370.13
UnPaid
SCHARBER & SONS
$59.60
UnPaid
ST JOESPHS EQUIPMENT INC
$23.47
UnPaid
SUZANNE ACKERMAN
$38.40
UnPaid
WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITOR -TREASURE
$20,318.33
UnPaid
WRIGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC
$945.50
Total Checks $112,364.54
FILTER: None
CITY OF OTSEGO 03/21/02 9:32 AM
Page 1
*Check Detail Register@
MARCH 2002
Check Amt Invoice Comment
10100 BANKOFELKIRIVER
'Unpa1`d"'-'-'- AFFORDAB I LE SANITATION" ----'--------
Un pa
E201-45000-410 Rentals (GENERAL) $172.92 203004 HC UNIT MARCH
Total AFFORDABLE SANITATION $172.92
E101-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)
E101-43100-210 Operating Supplies (GENERAL)
Total AIRGAS, INC.
$16.64 105389737 ACET/HAZMAT/OXYGEN
$40.97 105399745 ACETYLENE
'Dj /.0 1
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $675.89 407981 92 FORD
Total BOYER TRUCKS $675.89
bripaid CITY'OPMONTICtlLlEO`-------'-
E 101-42710-390 Contracted Services $232.00 6996
Total CITY OF MONTICELLO $232.00
E 405-43100-301
Legal Services
$780.00
E 415-43251-301
Legal Services
$3,800.00
E 101-41700-301
Legal Services
$3,770.00
E 101-42420-301
Legal Services
$1.295.80
E 101-42420-301
Legal Services
$1,150.00
E 101-41700-301
Legal Services
$1,100.00
G 701-21993 Otsego Farms
$887.50
E 101-42420-301
Legal Services
$550.00
E 413-43100-301
Legal Services
$190.00
G 701-21996 Vintage
Pro Golf
$50.00
G 701-21990 WH LINK
$960.00
G 701-21970 MEADOWLANDS
$100.00
E 101-41700-301
Legal Services
$520.00
E 418-43100-301
Legal Services
$200.00
E 101-41700-301
Legal Services
$200.00
E 415-43251-301
Legal Services
$200.00
E 101-41700-301
Legal Services
$200.00
E 405-43100-301
Legal Services
$450.00
Total COURI MACARTHUR LAW OFFICE
$16,403.30
GROW RIVEk'PARM"'5QU'1PMENT-----
ANIMAL CONTROL
DRAINAGE EASEMENTS
EAST WWT
GENERAL
BALAMUT
ABATEMENT
MOORE
OTSEGO FARMS
J JOHNSON PROPERTY
ODEAN AVE
VINTAGE PRO GOLF
WH LINK
MEADOWLANDS
MINNEGASCO FRANCHISE
78TH ST
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS
DAYTON SEWER AGREE
MORATORIUM
CHRIST LUTH. NMSD
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $112.87 87993 MISC SUPPLIES
Total CROW RIVER FARM EQUIPMENT $112.87
E 101-43100-393 Street Signs ($9.83) 45798A -CM BALANCE OF CREDIT
E 101-43100-393 Street Signs $385.36 46169 STREET SIGNS
R 101-34301 Street, Sidewalk and Curb Fees $1,551.29 46240 CRIMSON PONDS
Total EARL F ANDERSON INC $1,926.82
EtM PU91LISREIRS INC -
E 101-41400-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL) $49.26 125549 NOT OF PH LANDCOR
E 101-41400-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL) $49.26 125868 NOT OF PH SOLBERG
E 101-41400-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL) $228.14 125869 ORDINANCE
Total ECM PUBLISHERS INC $326.66
SINd'8YSTEM":--------
E 101-41940-390 Contracted Services $82.25 716049 MATS
E 101-43100-225 Uniforms $107.25 716050 UNIFORMS
E 101-43100-225 Uniforms $66.62 720870 UNIFORMS
CITY OF OTSEGO 03/21/02 9:32 AM
Page 2
*Check Detail Register@
MARCH 2002
CPA
E 101-41600-390 Contracted Services $1,215.00 FEB 02 - 27 HRS
Total GROEN GARY CPA $1,215,00
tin p -'a- id MESABI
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $242.02 53103 CARBIDE BL INSERT
E101-43100-220 Repair/MaintSuppiy (GENERAL) ($2.42) 53104 CREDIT FOR INCORRECT PRICE
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $537.83 53135 CARBIDE 8L INSERTS
Total H & L MESABI $777.43
E 101-43100-202
Check Amt
Invoice
Comment
E 101-41940-390 Contracted Services
$80.17
725722
MATS
E 101-43100-225 Uniforms
$98.26
725723
UNIFORMS
E 101-43100-225 Uniforms
$76.46
730539
UNIFORMS
Total G & K TEXTILE LEASING SYSTEM
$511.01
42878
DIESEL
CPA
E 101-41600-390 Contracted Services $1,215.00 FEB 02 - 27 HRS
Total GROEN GARY CPA $1,215,00
tin p -'a- id MESABI
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $242.02 53103 CARBIDE BL INSERT
E101-43100-220 Repair/MaintSuppiy (GENERAL) ($2.42) 53104 CREDIT FOR INCORRECT PRICE
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $537.83 53135 CARBIDE 8L INSERTS
Total H & L MESABI $777.43
E 101-43100-202
Gas & Oil
$181.74
42773
DIESEL
E 101-43100-202
Gas & Oil
$134.05
42774
FUEL OIL
E 101-43100-202
Gas & Oil
$143.80
42794
DIESEL
E 101-43100-202
Gas & Oil
$427.81
42878
DIESEL
E 101-43100-202
Gas & Oil
$399.49
42879
REG NO LEAD
E 101-43100-202
Gas & Oil
$291.20
42911
DIESEL
Total H G WEBER OIL COMPANY
$1,578.09
G 701-21936 Mississippi Pines PUD 00
$93.48
E 1-01-41560-302 Engineering Fees
$430.95
STAFF MEETING
E 406-43100-302 Engineering Fees
$976.13
5383
EASEMENT LEFEBVRE CREEK
E 601-49400-300 Professional Srvs (GENERAL)
$3,507.87
5334
WATER SYSTEM STUDY
E 430-43100-302 Engineering Fees
$175.00
5385
WEST WWTSS
E 430-43100-302 Engineering Fees
$360.95
5387
WEST SEWER PLANT
E 422-43100-302 Engineering Fees
$865.07
5387
88TH ST SSW EXTEN
G 701-21915 Crimson ponds/Backes 99-7
$103.55
5389
CRIMSON POND 1
G 701-21946 Crimson Ponds 2nd
$103.55
5389
CRIMSON POND 2
G 701-21936 Mississippi Pines PUD 00
$93.48
5390
MISSISSIPPI PINES
G 701-21940 The "Point 1 & 2" - Big Ed's
$576.56
5391
THE POINTE
G 701-21941 Pulte Prairie Crk 2nd
$297.30
5392
PRAIRIE CREEK 2
G 701-21958 Crimson Ponds 111
$72.25
5393
CRIMSON POND 3
G 701-21949 Stone Gate Estates
$502.84
5394
STONEGATE1
G 701-21961 Pheasant Ridge #rd & 4th
$30.94
5395
PHEAST RIDGE 4
G 701-21977 Stone Gate 2nd
$137.54
5397
STCNEGATE2
G 701-21961 Pheasant Ridge #rd & 4th
$163.32
5398
PHEAST RIDGE 3
G 701-21947 Prairie Creek 3rd Addn
$247.71
5399
PRAIRIE CREEK 3
G 701-21987 Baurely site Plan Review
$93.48
5400
1-94 WEST IND PARK
G 701-21974 Prairie Creek 4th
$423.82
5401
PRAIRIE CREEK 4
E 101-41560-302 Engineering Fees
$123.45
5402
VERIZON
G 701-21970 MEADOWLANDS
$231.33
5403
MEADOWLANDS
G 701-21980 Hidden Creek Trail Subd
$125.07
5404
HIDDEN CREEK
G 701-21982 Prairie Creek 5th
$451.05
5405
PRAIRIE CREEK 5
G 701-21940 The "Point I & 2" - Big Ed's
$187.50
5406
THE POINTE 2
G 701-21958 Crimson Ponds 111
$192.60
5407
CRIMSON POND 4
E 101-41560-302 Engineering Fees
$75.00
5408
MISC DEVEL REVIEW
G 701-21916 Darkenwald
$75.00
5408
DARKENWALD
E 418-43100-302 Engineering Fees
$815.61
5409
QUADAY/78TH ST
G 701-21938 TMH Development
$600.00
5411
TODAY
E 415-43251-302 Engineering Fees
$171.16
5412
TRUNK SAN SEWER
G 701-21993 Otsego Farms
$1,433.63
5413
OTSEGO FARMS
E 101-41560-302 Engineering Fees
$1,163.09
5414
MSAA
G 701-21927 0. Thompson CUP 99-18
$930.51
5415
RIVERPOINTE
CITY OF OTSEGO 03/21/02 9:32 AM
Page 3
*Check Detail Register@
MARCH 2002
Unpaid RETIREMENT TRUST' -'---
E 101-41400-121 PERA $192.31 PPE 3/16 CK 3/20
G 101 -21705 Other Retirement $230.00 PPE 3/16 CK 3/20
Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST $422.31
'Un—pii'b"--"----"—LEAGUE-OrMN'CITIES
E 101-41100-355 Dues & Memberships $20.00 MEMBERSHIP DUES
Total LEAGUE OF MN CITIES $20.00
E 101-41400-123 Health $2,149.99 ADMIN -APRIL
E 101-43100-123 Health $1,450.20 PW - APRIL
Total MEDICA $3,600.19
E 101-43100-203 Supplies - General $16.76 59853 WOOD PROT/BRUSHES
Total MENARDS $16.76
LIFE.
E 101 -41400-130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $27.40 ADMIN - APRIL
E 101-43100-130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $37.10 PW - APRIL
Total MINNESOTALIFE $64.50
E 415-43251-310 Miscellaneous $1,140.00 4400009636 WQ ANNUAL FEE
Total MN POLLUTION CONTROL $1,140.00
MON
E 101-42710-390 Contracted Services $62.00 281 PICK UP DOGS
Total MONTICELLO ANIMAL CONTROL $62.00
U�P_iid___'_____'NORTHWEST ASS&d-CONSULTAWY9
G 701-22304 OTSEGO WATERFRONT
$32.50
Check Amt
Invoice
Comment
E 415-43251-302
Engineering Fees
$13,000.20
5419
85THJPARK TO PADGETT
E 420-43100-302
Engineering Fees
$10,750.05
5420
PAGE/79TH TO 85TH
E 101-43100-302
Engineering Fees
$2,846.95
5421
PUBLIC WORKS
E 101-41560-302
Engineering Fees
$1,303.23
5422
MISC ENG
E 101-41560-302
Engineering Fees
$35.00
5423
WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT 91
Total HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOC INC
$43,672.74
E 101-41570-303 Planning Fees
$1,200.00
Unpaid RETIREMENT TRUST' -'---
E 101-41400-121 PERA $192.31 PPE 3/16 CK 3/20
G 101 -21705 Other Retirement $230.00 PPE 3/16 CK 3/20
Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST $422.31
'Un—pii'b"--"----"—LEAGUE-OrMN'CITIES
E 101-41100-355 Dues & Memberships $20.00 MEMBERSHIP DUES
Total LEAGUE OF MN CITIES $20.00
E 101-41400-123 Health $2,149.99 ADMIN -APRIL
E 101-43100-123 Health $1,450.20 PW - APRIL
Total MEDICA $3,600.19
E 101-43100-203 Supplies - General $16.76 59853 WOOD PROT/BRUSHES
Total MENARDS $16.76
LIFE.
E 101 -41400-130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $27.40 ADMIN - APRIL
E 101-43100-130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $37.10 PW - APRIL
Total MINNESOTALIFE $64.50
E 415-43251-310 Miscellaneous $1,140.00 4400009636 WQ ANNUAL FEE
Total MN POLLUTION CONTROL $1,140.00
MON
E 101-42710-390 Contracted Services $62.00 281 PICK UP DOGS
Total MONTICELLO ANIMAL CONTROL $62.00
U�P_iid___'_____'NORTHWEST ASS&d-CONSULTAWY9
G 701-22304 OTSEGO WATERFRONT
$32.50
10733
WATERFRONT
G 701-21993 Otsego Farms
$65.00
10733
OTSEGO FARMS
G 701-22301 BARTHEL CUP
$80.09
10733
BARTHEL CUP
G 701-21938 TMH Development
$84.50
10733
TODAY-OSTEGO BUS PARK
E 101-41570-303 Planning Fees
$835.27
10734
GENERAL
E 430-43100-303 Planning Fees
$132.00
10734
WEST SAN SEWER PLAN
E 203-45210-303 Planning Fees
$182.50
10734
SCHOOL KNOLL PARK
E 101-41570-303 Planning Fees
$250.13
10734
COMP PLAN
E 101-41570-303 Planning Fees
$1,200.00
10735
MEETINGS
E 101-41570-303 Planning Fees
$2,079.00
10736
WACP
E 101-41570-303 Planning Fees
$280.00
10737
SORT/ORG CITY CODE
Total NORTHWEST ASSOC CONSULTANTS
$5,220.99
E 601-49400-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $210.00 5488 MISC WATER SERVICES LABR
E 601-49400-390 Contracted Services $9,090.00 5488 MONTHLY SERVICE
Total PEOPLE SERVICE INC. $9,300.00
U411—aid—_ IffAty BOVVES_____—
E 101 -41400-413 Office Equipment Rental $100.02 4705027-MR02 POSTAGE METER
CITY OF OTSEGO 03/21/02 9:32 AM
Page 4
f *Check Detail Register@
MARCH 2002
Check Amt Invoice Comment
Total PITNEY BOWES $100.02
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
E 101-41400-121 PERA
$254.01
PPE 3/16 CK 3/20
E 101-43100-121 PERA
$471.75
PPE 3/16 CK 3/20
G 101-21704 PERA
$669.34
PPE 3/16 CK 3/20
E 101-41400-121 PERA
$1,975.03
SANDY/KATHY
Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FD
$3,370.13
SCHARBEk CSONS_'___'__--------
E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $59.60 265014 HOSE/FITTING CRIMPS/FITTINGS
Total SCHARBER & SONS $59.60
JOESPRSrtQUIPMENT INC
E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $23.47 V104837 93 CASE TRACTOR
Total STJOESPHS EQUIPMENT INC $23.47
tf_n�'i'l ---'-SUZANNE ACKERMAN
E 101-41100-321 Mileage/Travel $38.40 MILEAGE FOR CONF 120 MILES
Total SUZANNE ACKERMAN $38.40
0nl5y18_________WRIGHT couNTY-AUDITOR-TREASURE
E 101-42100-390 Contracted Services $20,318.33 MARCH 2002 PATROL
Total WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITOR -TREASURE $20,318.33
E 601-49400-390 Contracted Services $945.50 8389 MAINTENANCE FEE
Total WRIGHT-HENNEPIN CO-OP ELECTRIC $945.50
10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER $112,364.54
FILTER: None
ASSOCIATtD CONSULTANTS,, INC,
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM- Daniel Licht
RE: Otsego - Otsego Commercial Park Final Plat
REPORT DATE- 6 March 2002 APPLICATION DATE: 12 February 2002
NAC FILE: 176.02 - 02.03 CITY FILE: 2002-02
BACKGROUND
Today Properties has submitted a final plat application for a four -lot commercial
subdivision located east of C8AH 42 at the 85th Street intersection. The property was
rezoned to B -W, Business Warehousing District and preliminary platted on November 27,
2000. Under the terms of the preliminary plat approval, the developer was required to
proceed with a final plat and all improvements no later than November 27, 2002. This
includes removal of an existing single family dwelling on the property.
Exhibits:
A. Site Location
B. Final Plat
ANALYSIS
Preliminary Plat. The proposed final plat is generally consistent VAth the preliminary plat
approved by the City Council. Whereas the preliminary plat provided for five lots, the
proposed final plat has only four. The change in number of lots is due to existing
easements and ponding area needs at the east end of the property, which limits the
buildable area. The final plat also provides for one-half the necessary right-of-way to
extend 85th Street from CSAH 42 to the east.
Page I of 3
Access. The final plat provides only one-half of the right-of-way for the 85 Ih Street
extension. The other half of the right-of-way must be acquired from the abutting property
to the north in order to allow for construction of the necessary street to access Lots 2, 3,
and 4. Without construction of 85t' Street, the developer would have to request a CUP to
allow access to Lots 2, 3, and 4 other than to an abutting public street. Such a request
would be necessary prior to approval of the final plat.
The developer was to try and acquire the necessary land from the property to the north for
the full 85th Street right-of-way. The developer requested in a letter dated July 26, 2001
that the City condemn the necessary land from the abutting property in order to provide
for the extension of 85 th Street. To date, the City has not initiated this process or
requested plans and specifications from the City Engineer to determine the costs of the
Roadway and the financial feasibility of its construction.
Until such time as issues pertaining to the extension of 85' Street and access to Lots 2,
3, and 4 are resolved, approval of the final plat is premature.
The final plat must also be revised to provide necessary right-of-way for a north -south
collector street as shown on the City's Transportation Plan.
Lot Requirements. Lots within the B -W District must be at least two acres in area and
200 feet in width. All of the lots within the final plat meet these requirements.
Existing Dwelling. There is an existing single family dwelling on the subject site. As part
of the final plat, the house must either meet side yard setback requirements or be
removed. Removal of the dwelling is required by November 27, 2002 under the terms of
the preliminary plat approval.
Construction Plans. The developer must submit construction plans for proposed site
improvements, including streets, grading, stormwater facilities, sewer and water utility
extensions, and other items required by the Engineering Manual. These plans are subject
to review and approval of the City Engineer.
Park Dedication. Final platting of the property make it subject to park dedication
requirements. The City's current requirement for commercial and industrial lands is a cash
fee in lieu of land equal to 10 percent of the market value of the property at the time it is
final platted. City Staff will work with the developer to determine the amount of the cash
fee and it will be incorporated as part of a development contract.
Development Contract. Upon approval of the final plat, the developer is required to enter
into a development contract. The development contract will require payment of securities,
Page 2 of 3
escrows and fees applicable to the project. The development contract will also need to
address the costs associated with extending 85th Street. A draft of the development
contract has already been drafted by the City Attorney, but the developer has not signed
it or provided the necessary fees and securities.
CONCLUSION
While the proposed final plat is generally consistent with the design of the preliminary plat,
several issues have not been fully addressed. Most significant of these is access to Lots
2, 3, and 4 of the final plat which do not have frontage to a public street. In order to
approve the final plat, 85th Street must be extended, which would require the acquisition
of land from the abutting property to the north. Alternatively, the developer may request
a CUP allowing temporary access to these lots. Such an application must be processed
before final plat approval and would require the developer to provide plans indicating how
such access would be provided.
Until the access issue is more clearly resolved and other additional plans provided,
approval of the final plat application is premature. The developer will either need to waive
their rights for 60 -day review under Minnesota Statutes 15.99 or withdrawthe application.
Should the developer not take one of these actions, we recommend that the City Council
deny the application based upon a finding that it is premature due to a lack of street
access to Lots 2, 3, and 4 within the plat.
PC Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
Mike Day
Bob Day
Page 3 of 3
p
0 T S E G 0
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
[A C
BASE MAP DATA PROVIDED BY
Hakamn
Anderson
Pill Assoc.,Inc.
NOTE:
THIS MAP IS FOR PLANNING
PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD
NOT BE USED FOR EXACT
MEASUREMENT
0 80 160 240
SCALE: 1 INCH = 80 FEET
N
OM 57. NX
OTSEGO COMMERCIAL PARK
V
T
Lai"
m
x
HY-LAND SURVEYNG. P.A.
IAND SURVEYORS
85TH STREM NX
-------------------
-------------- ------------ --------------------------
----------- ------ ------
.......... ------------
fj
2 3
la Cis 1
B 1L 0 C K
------------ ------------- -------------- ------------ - -----------------------mcm
T-1
------- ------------- -Al ------ --------
m
x
HY-LAND SURVEYNG. P.A.
IAND SURVEYORS
Hakanson
Anderson 3601 Thurston Avenue, Suite 101, Anoka, MN 55303
Phone: 763/427-5860 Fax: 763/427-0520
Assoc., Inc.
February 21, 2002 F E 8 2 5 2002
Mike Robertson
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Otsego, NIN 55330
Re: Otsego Commercial Park
Dear Mike:
We have reviewed the Final Plat for Otsego Commercial Park and have the following comments:
1. A 40' permanent road easement is required on the east end of the property for future
north -south road through the industrially zoned area west of CSAH 42 and east of TH
101. This was stated in a review dated November 6, 2001.
2. A Wetland Delineation is required. Two wetlands are defined on the Construction
Plans although we have been unable to verify these due to the absence of a Wetland
Delineation Report.
3. If the two areas designated as wetlands on the Construction Plans are wetlands, a
drainage and utility easement around them is required on the Final Plat.
As part of the process in allowing the Final Plat of the property, we recommend the Developer be
assessed for 1/2of the construction of 85 1h from CSAH 42 to the eastern extents of the Plat. This
would be covered in the Developer's Agreement, but the Developer should be made aware of
this.
Also, the Developer was required to attempt to secure the N '/2of the 80' roadway easement from
the Kolles family. We are not sure if the requirement has been completed.
If you have any questions, you may contact me at 763-427-5860.
Sincerely,
Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc.
Ro�a_ J. W6*r, P
cc: Judy Hudson, Clerk
Andy MacArthur, Attorney
Dan Licht, NAC
Mike and Bob Day, Today Properties
Civil &Municipal
G:\Municipal\AOTSEGO\2213\ot2213mr3.doe Engineering 25
Land Surveyingfor
HORTIAWRST ASSOCIATItID CONSULTANTS, INC,
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MIN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
6.2
MEMORANDUM
TO- Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM- Daniel Licht
RE: Otsego - Benson; RezoninglPlat/CUP
MEMO DATE: 20 March 2002 APPLICATION DATE: 14 February 2002
NAC FILE: 176.02 - 02.05
Please be advised that the Planning Commission held a public hearing to discuss the
above reference application. The main issue of discussion was regarding the
configuration of the side lot line.
The applicants wish to draw the lot lines so as to provide each of the proposed lots 150 -
feet of frontage to Mason Avenue and also keep an existing out -building with the original
homestead. In order to meet the lot width requirements and provide a side lot line that is
at a right angle to Mason Avenue between the front and rear lot lines, the existing building
would have to be removed.
The Planning Commission recognized that while the building is non -conforming (because
of the number of detached buildings) it has a value as part of the original homestead. As
such, they recommended that the side lot line be re -drawn to extend back at least 150 -feet
from the Mason Avenue right-of-way before angling around the out -building. The Planning
Commission also allowed for additional adjustments such that the lot with the homestead
is at least five acres in size. An exhibit shovving the new lot line is attached as Exhibit A.
After this discussion, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 in three separate motions to
recommend approval of the request. This application is to be considered by the City
Council at their meeting on March 25, 2002 at 6:30 PM. Actions for the City Council to
consider are as follows:
Page I of 3
Decision 1 -Zoning Map Amendment
A. Motion to approve a Zoning Map amendment rezoning the subject site from A-1
District to A-2 District based upon a finding that the request is consistent with the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Motion to deny the application based upon a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Motion to table the request.
Decision 2 - Preliminary and Final Plat
A. Motion to approve a Preliminary and Final Plat for a two -lot subdivision, subject to
the following conditions:
A preliminary plat and final plat that includes all of the information required
by Section 6 of the Subdivision Ordinance is submitted and approved by City
Staff.
2. The common side lot line is revised such that said lot line is at -a right angle---- -
to the Mason Avenue right-of-way for a distance of at least 150 -feet, with
adjustments necessary to provide the north lot with an area of five acres.
3. The applicant shall dedicate 40' of right-of-way for Mason Avenue, subject
to review and approval of the City Engineer.
4. The preliminary and final plat must include 1 0 -foot perimeter easements and
a 50 -foot provision of easements overlaying Otsego Creek, subject to review
and approval of the City Engineer.
5. The applicant pay a park and trail dedication fee in lieu of land equal to
$1,075.
6. On-site septic and well systems shall be subject to review and approval of
the City Building Official.
7. Comments of other City Staff.
B. Motion to deny the request based upon a finding that it is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Subdivision Ordinance.
Page 2 of 3
Decision 3 - Keeping of Horses CUP
A. Motion to approve a CUP allowing the keeping of horses on two lots within the A-2
District, subject to the following conditions:
1 The maximum number of horses stabled on each lot may not exceed one
horse per acre or ten horses, whichever is least.
2. Shelter equal to 100 square feet of area per horse is required.
3. Manure may not be stockpiled or applied within 300 feet of an adjacent
residence, 300 feet from ditches, lakes and creeks or 200 feet from a private
well as regulated by Section 20-27-10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Buildings for keeping of horses are subject to the accessory building size
and material regulations for residential uses outlined in Section 20-16-4 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
5. Comments of other City Staff
PC Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
Betty Benson
Page 3 of 3
0
Z
E'�
Qj
'9z:oo
lilt
ct-
D'LG
io
L
z nz
due
0
co
00'09/
'C330
f 6 -6ef
Hi nos
,-q V:7kv
j7r) If) rr
4Q00
C,
Ln
L L -i
LLJ -
C)
C*4
co
z
IL I-
C)
i--
Z
E'�
Qj
ct-
D'LG
io
L
z nz
due
0
00'09/
'C330
f 6 -6ef
Hi nos
,-q V:7kv
j7r) If) rr
al
C)
C�
Q�
U�
CO
cr)
LAJ
It\j
Lo
V-
516101
PA 3N .3HI
M.
r-%ffl 11r%1'r- A
CITY OF
0 T S E G 0
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Applicant: Betty Benson.
3-20-02
Zoning Map Amendment
Findings of Fact
& Decision
Request: Consideration of a Zoning Map amendment to rezone property located northeast of
Mason Avenue and 83' Street from A-1 District to A-2 District to allow development of single
family uses at a density of four units per forty acres.
City Council Meeting Date: 25 March 2002
Findings of Fact: Based upon review of the application, the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and evidence received, the City Council of the City of Otsego now makes the
following findings of fact:
1 . The legal description of the property is described by attached Exhibit A.
2. The 20 -acre property lieswithin the Agriculture Preserve Area and is guided foragriculture
land uses by the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update, as amended.
3. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District; The applicant is requesting
the property be rezoned to A-2, Agriculture, Long Range Urban Service Area to allow for
subdivision of the property into two residential lots at a density of four units per 40 acres-,
Single family uses are permitted uses of the A-2 District.
4. The Planning Commission and City Council must take into consideration the possible
effects of the Zoning Map amendment with theirjudgement based upon (but not limited to)
the criteria outlined in Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance -
A. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
Finding.- The Comprehensive Plan outlined a limited density allowance intended to
provide opportunities for rural character development in areas not planned for
sanitary sewer service. The proposed development is consistent with a density of
four units per 40 acres as allowed for parcels with street frontage within the
Agriculture Preserve area.
B. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Finding. This area along Mason Avenue has developed with severallarge rurallot
parcels with single family homes. The proposed lot division and keeping of horses
is consistent with this character
C The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Finding.- The proposed division and keeping of horses will conform to all applicable
requirements.
D The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Finding.- The proposed division and keeping horses is not expected to cause any
negative effects as it is consistent with the framework of the Comprehensive Plan
and character of the area.
E The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.
Finding.- Although no study has been completed, the proposed use is not anticipated
to negatively impact area property values.
F Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Finding.- Mason Avenue has necessary capacity for any additional traffic created by
the property division and construction of another single family home.
G The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including
parks, schools, streets, and utilities and its potential to overburden the City's service
capacity.
Finding.- The proposed use is not anticipated to have a negative impact to the City's
service capacity.
5. The planning reports dated 4 March 2002 and 20 March 2002 prepared by the City
Planner, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein.
6. The engineering review dated 14 March 2002 prepared by the City Engineer, Hakanson
Anderson Associates, Inc., is incorporated herein.
7. The Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their regular meeting on
18 March 2002 to consider the application, preceded by published and mailed notice.
Upon review of the application and evidence received, the Otsego Planning Commission
closed the public hearing and recommended by a 7-0 vote that the City Council approve
the Zoning Map amendment based on the aforementioned findings.
Decision: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the requested Zoning
Map amendment is hereby approved based on the most current plan and information received to
date.
2
PASSED by the Otsego City Council this 25th day of March, 2002.
Attest:
CITY OF OTSEGO
In
Larry Fournier, Mayor
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
3
CITY OF
0 T S E G 0
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Applicant: Betty Benson.
3-20-02
Preliminary/Final Plat
Findings of Fact
& Decision
Request: Consideration of a preliminary and final plat to allow the subdivision of a 20 -acre
parcel into two residential lots within the A-2 District.
City Council Meeting Date: 25 March 2002
Findings of Fact: Based upon review of the application, the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and evidence received, the City Council of the City of Otsego now makes the
following findings of fact:
The legal description of the properties are described by attached Exhibit A.
2. The properties are within the Agriculture Preserve Area and are guided for agriculture land
uses by the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update, as amended.
3. The properties are A-2, Agriculture, Long Range Urban Service Area-, Single family
dwellings are a permitted use in this District.
4. Lots within the A-2 District must be at least 1 -acre in area, be at least 150 -feet wide, and
be 150 -feet deep. Both of the proposed lots conform with this requirement.
5. The planning reports dated 4 March 2002 and 20 March 2002 prepared by the City
Planner, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein.
6. The engineering review dated 14 March 2002 prepared by the City Engineer, Hakanson
Anderson Associates, Inc., is incorporated herein.
7. The Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their regular meeting on
18 March 2002 to consider the application, preceded by published and mailed notice.
Upon review of the application and evidence received, the Otsego Planning Commission
closed the public hearing and recommended by a 7-0 vote that the City Council approve
the preliminary and final plat based on the aforementioned findings.
Decision: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the requested
preliminary and final plat is hereby approved based on the most current plan and information
received to date, subject to the following conditions:
1 A preliminary plat and final plat that includes all of the information required by Section 6 of
the Subdivision Ordinance is submitted and approved by City Staff.
2. The common side lot line is revised such that said lot line is at a right angle to the Mason
Avenue right-of-way for a distance of at least 150 -feet, with adjustments necessary to
provide the north lot with an area of five acres.
3. The applicant shall dedicate 40' of right-of-way for Mason Avenue, subject to review and
approval of the City Engineer.
4. The preliminary and final plat must include 10 -foot perimeter easements and a 50 -foot
provision of easements overlaying Otsego Creek, subject to reviewand approval of the City
Engineer.
5. The applicant pay a park and trail dedication fee in lieu of land equal to $1,075.
6. On-site septic and well systems shall be subject to review and approval of the City Building
Official.
PASSED by the Otsego City Council this 25th day of March, 2002.
Attest:
f
CITY OF OTSEGO
M
Larry Fournier, Mayor
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
CITY OF
0 T S E G 0
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Applicant: Betty Benson.
3-20-02
Conditional Use Permit
Findings of Fact
& Decision
Request: Consideration of a conditional use permit to allow the keeping of horses on two lots
within the A-2 District.
City Council Meeting Date: 25 March 2002
Findings of Fact: Based upon review of the application, the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and evidence received, the City Council of the City of Otsego now makes the
following findings of fact -
1 . The legal description of the properties are described by attached Exhibit A.
2. The properties are within the Agriculture Preserve Area and are guided for agriculture land
uses by the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update, as amended.
3. The properties are A-2, Agriculture, Long Range Urban Service Area; The keeping of
horses in the A-2 District is a conditional use subject to the requirements of Section 20-26-
4. B.
4. The Planning Commission and City Council must take into consideration the possible
effects of the conditional use with their judgement based upon (but not limited to) the
criteria outlined in Section 20-4-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance -
A. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
Finding.- The Comprehensive Plan outlined a limited density allowance intended to
provide opportunities for rural character development in areas not planned for
sanitary sewer service. The proposed development is consistent with a density of
four units per 40 acres as allowed for parcels with street frontage within the
Agriculture Preserve area.
B. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Finding. This area along Mason Avenue has developed with several large rural lot
parcels with single family homes. The proposed lot division and keeping of horses It
is consistent with this character
C The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Finding.- The proposed division and keeping of horses will conform to all applicable
requirements.
D The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Finding: The proposed division and keeping horses is not expected to cause any
negative effects as it is consistent with the framework of the Comprehensive Plan
and character of the area.
E The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.
Finding: Although no study has been completed, the proposed use is not anticipated
to negatively impact area property values.
F Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Finding.- Mason Avenue has necessary capacity for any additional traffic created by
the property division and construction of another single family home.
G The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including
parks, schools, streets, and utilities and its potential to overburden the City's service
capacity.
Finding.- The proposed use is not anticipated to have a negative impact to the City's
service capacity.
5. The planning reports dated 4 March 2002 and 20 March 2002 prepared by the City
Planner, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein.
6. The engineering review dated 14 March 2002 prepared by the City Engineer, Hakanson
Anderson Associates, Inc., is incorporated herein.
7. The Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their regular meeting on
18 March 2002 to consider the application, preceded by published and mailed notice.
Upon review of the application and evidence received, the Otsego Planning Commission
closed the public hearing and recommended by a 7-0 vote that the City Council approve
the conditional use permit based on the aforementioned findings.
Decision: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the requested
conditional use permit is hereby approved based on the most current plan and information
received to date, subject to the following conditions:
1 The maximum number of horses stabled on each lot may not exceed one horse per acre
or ten horses, whichever is least.
2
2. Shelter equal to 100 square feet of area per horse is required.
3. Manure may not be stockpiled or applied within 300 feet of an adjacent residence, 300 feet
from ditches, lakes and creeks or 200 feet from a private well as regulated by Section 20-
27-10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Buildings for keeping of horses are subject to the accessory building size and material
regulations for residential uses outlined in Section 20-16-4 of the Zoning Ordinance.
PASSED by the Otsego City Council this 25th day of March, 2002.
Attest:
CITY OF OTSEGO
0
Larry Fournier, Mayor
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
Pi
"QlRT"Wt%T ASSOCIATto camSULTANTS" 1"C'
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, IVIN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM: Daniel Licht
RE: Otsego - Dale Beaudry CUP
DATE: 20 March 2002
NAC FILE- 176.02 - 02.06
6.3
Please be advised that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 18, 2002
to consider a CUP for development of a lot without direct access or the minimum required
frontage to a public street.
The applicant was present at the meeting to object to the recommendation of City Staff that
the 66 -foot by 1,200 -foot remnant strip that is used for access to this and four other parcels
be dedicated as public right-of-way as a condition of approval. The applicant is opposed
to the dedication because 1) they wish to maintain privacy in the area, 2) the parcel is
owned by the applicant's brother who either does not want to sell in order to maintain
access to land which he owns to the west (which is under option with Farr Development)
or the price is excessive. The applicant is also concerned about the loss of mature pine
trees which are planted in the remnant strip and his existing home becoming non-
conforming if a right -of way is established because it is setback only 29 feet from the
abutting lot line.
Since the Planning Commission meeting it has been determined that no easement has
ever been recorded over the 66 -foot by 1,200 foot parcel allowng access to any of the
parcels in the area that do not abut a public right-of-way. As an alternative to dedicating
the parcel as right-of-way, the applicant has suggested that an easement would be placed
on the 66 -foot by 1,200 -foot parcel and that all of the existing lots without direct access to
a right-of-way would be allowed ingress/egress.
While the applicant's proposal is a better alternative than the present day situation, City
Staff continues to recommend dedication of the remnant strip as public right-of-way.
Ensuring adequate access to all properties and circulation within areas of the community
is a primary function of the City's public safety responsibilities and this is best
Page I of 2
accomplished with public rights-of-way. Provision of the remnant strip as right-of-way
would provide for access to all of the properties abutting it. The applicant's concerns
about privacy are somewhat diminished given that the large tracts surrounding this
property are planned for urban residential development, which will significantly alter the
character of the area. Finally, the City could address the issue of the setback of the
existing dwelling by accepting the parcel as right-of-way and then vacating the north 6 feet
of it. The Engineering Manual only specifies a 60 -foot right-of-way for local streets and
vacating the north 60 -feet would allow the existing dwelling the required 35 -foot front
setback. This issue should be subject to additional review by the City Engineer.
City Staff would also like more information on the status of a land transaction effecting the
properties of Lloyd Beaudry and Dale Beaudry. As part of the sale of his land to Farr
Development, Lloyd Beaudry had discussed with City Staff transferring a portion of parcel
#251301 to Dale Beaudry for attachment to #251406. This transfer would effectively
detach the 66 -foot by 1,200 foot parcel from the balance of Lloyd Beaudry's property. This
transfer would also result in the remnant parcel being increased from 1,200 feet in length
as shown on the section maps to 1,300 feet as indicated by the applicant at the Planning
Commission meeting.
The Planning Commission, after engaging in a lengthy discussion of the issue of the right-
of-way, closed the public hearing and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the CUP
subject to the conditions outlined by City Staff provided below. This application is to be
considered by the City Council at their meeting on March 25, 2002 at 6:30PM.
A. Motion to approve a conditional use permit allowing construction of a single family
dwelling on a non -conforming lot, subject to the following provisions:
The applicant acquire and dedicate the 66 -foot by 1,200 -foot parcel as
public right-of-way. Interim use of the right-of-way prior to construction of a
public street will require an agreement with the City.
2. For purposes of defining setbacks, the south lot line shall be designated as
the front lot line if no other lot line abuts a public right-of-way.
3. The site is found to be capable of supporting primary and secondary on-site
septic systems and an on-site well, subject to review and approval of the
Building Official.
PC. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
Dale Beaudry
Page 2 of 2
0
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF
0 T S E G 0
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Applicant: Dale and Anne Beaud[y
3-20-02
Conditional Use Permit
Findings of Fact
& Decision
Request: Consideration of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a single family
dwelling on a non -conforming parcel without direct access to a public street and without the
minimum required lot width.
City Council Meeting Date: 25 March 2002
Findings of Fact: Based upon review of the application, the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and evidence received, the City Council of the City of Otsego now makes the
following findings of fact -
1 . The legal description of the property (the "property")is described by attached Exhibit A.
2. The 5- acre property lies within the Agriculture Preserve Area and is guided for Agricultural
land uses by the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update, as amended.
3. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District-, Single family iises are
permitted uses of the A-1 District.
4. Section 20-21-4. H.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all lots have access directly onto
an abutting improved public street. The property does not have access directly to an
abutting improved public street or a public right-of-way.
5. Section 20-51-6 of the Zoning Ordinance requires lots in the A-1 District to be at least 150 -
feet wide. The width of a lot is determined between the side lot lines at the front setback
line measured from the public right-of-way. As the lot does not abut a public right-of-way,
no front lot line may be established and the property therefore does not meet the technical
definition of lot width.
6. The Planning Commission and City Council must take into consideration the possible
effects of the conditional use permit with their judgement based upon (but not limited to)
the criteria outlined in Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance-.
A. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
Comment: The Comprehensive Plan directs that all land is to be accessed via public
streets. While the present situation may be viewed as an existing condition, the
opportunity to improve on a non -conforming situation is provided if the 66 -foot wide
parcel is acquired and dedicated as public right-of-way. The dimensions of this
parcel indicate consideration was given to this corridor being provided for future
streets. Dedication of the right-of-way would ensure adequate access to the subject
site, other parcels covered by the existing easement, and those which are not
covered by the easement. Further, dedication of the right-of-way would provide
opportunities for improved circulation in the area at such time as the area to the west
develops.
B . The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment. The area surrounding the subject site is essentially rural. The rural
character of the area is likely to change significantly if the City proceeds with plans
for a west sanitary sewer service district, which includes the subject parcel. The land
immediately to the west has already been sold to a developer and is within the first
phase of the service area. However, the proposed single family dwelling would be
compatible with the existing rural or potential urban character of the area.
C The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Comment- The proposed use will conform with all applicable performance standards.
D . The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: Construction of a single family dwelling on the subject parcel creates a
greater need for access to ensure safety. To this end, dedication of public right-of-
way that would serve this and other parcels in the area is a better long-term solution
than the current easement arrangement.
E . The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.
Comment- Although no study has been completed, the proposed use is not
anticipated to negatively impact area property values.
F. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Comment- Area streets have adequate capacity to allow for construction of a single
family dwelling on the subject site.
G. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including
parks, schools, streets, and utilities and its potential to overburden the City's service
capacity.
Comment- The proposed use is not anticipated to have a negative impact to the
City's service capacity. Construction of a single family dwelling will require provision
of on-site septic and we// systems, subject to approval of the Building Official.
I
7. The planning reports dated 4 March 2002 and 20 March 2002 prepared by the City
Planner, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein.
8. The engineering review dated 14 March 2002 prepared by the City Engineer, Hakanson
Anderson Associates, Inc., is incorporated herein.
9. The Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their regular meeting on
18 March 2002 to consider the application. Upon review of the application and evidence
received, the Otsego Planning Commission closed the public hearing and recommended
by a 7-0 vote that the City Council approve the conditional use permit based on the
aforementioned findings.
Decision: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the requested
conditional use permit is hereby approved based on the most current plan and information
received to date, subject to the following conditions:
1 The applicant acquire and dedicate the 66 -foot by 1,200 -foot parcel as public right-of-way.
Interim use of the right-of-way prior to construction of a public street will require an
agreement with the City.
2. For purposes of defining setbacks, the south lot line shall be designated as the front lot line
if no other lot line abuts a public right-of-way.
3. The site is found to be capable of supporting primary and secondary on-site septic systems
and an on-site well, subject to review and approval of the Building Official.
PASSED by the Otsego City Council this 25th day of March, 2002.
Attest -
CITY OF OTSEGO
la
Larry Fournier, Mayor
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
3
NOIRTHWItST ASSOCIATto CONSULTANTS,, INC,
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 20 March 2002
RE: Otsego - DeMars Subdivision Request
NAC FILE: 176.02 - 02.08
6.4
John and Barbara DeMars are interested in dividing a 10.0 -acre parcel fora newhome site
from the 69.9 -acre property located north of City Hall. The parcel that they have proposed
to divide is at the west edge of the property in a location without direct access or the
minimum 150 -feet of frontage to a public street, both of which are required by the Zoning
Ordi*nance (Exhibit A).
We would envision that any parcel subdivided from the 69.9 -acre property would have
150 -feet of frontage and access to 90th Street, which extends along the north side of
Prairie Park and the City Hall property. The location of the parcel that is proposed to be
divided does not abut 90'hStreet, which extends further south into the Park property in this
area.
The DeMars will need to revise their subdivision plan to provide for a lot that conforms to
the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance before the City can process the request. An
option for them to obtain access to 901h Street would be for the City to sell the approximate
0.84 acres land north of 90" Street that abuts their proposed lot (Exhibit B).
Such a proposal would require approval of the City Council prior to an application for
subdivision. We would recommend that the Parks and Recreation Commission also review
any proposal involving the sale of land to Mr. and Mrs. DeMars. The City Engineer should
also review the proposal to determine if a driveway connection to 90' Street is possible
in this location given that Otsego Creek crosses this area. Finally, connection to 90"'
Street will require payment of a road access fee as required by the Development Contract
for Hidden Creek Trails.
Page I of 2
The issue has been placed on the City Council meeting agenda for March 25, 2002 at 6:30
PM. Mr. and Mrs. DeMars have been asked to this meeting to discuss the matter with the
City Council and answer any questions.
pc. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
John and Barbara DeMars
Page 2 of 2
.0,
.)Oas '1,/Ims aLo; JO aull )SO3-,
'N AV
ZN
Zo --V
00,rct
(k:
c
A u 0
0,; c ol —
0 uj
01,
0 10
19 A
go
z
U 17; IA'
0g; 1p
M,.00,*t.ON
NY
c
f
N
Q
.2
ci
C4
.-z
0
0-1
.0
CN
C4
\6 - 5
04
0. c
CN
ow
Lu7 — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
C'4
T 10 CN
to
co z
en A*
el
..... . ........ 'N' 0,
()0
.. . . . . .............
Qy
Z.7
..... ........ . .........
%
MAI, zg.0
u
-n
c)
C4
CK
cl
. . ........... C., 4,
.. .......... .. . ...... ... .....
M,,6,0,Zg-ON -n a—
.. I o 0 -8-- -
n
cza,Lzti 'zt UO-loes t,/Ims 041 ;o ou.
.1 ISOM- --jig
z tie le o
C,
I:s- EXHIBIT A
i Wr,:� .0
I
'o oz. -tgrl—j a*,
it
906.7
x 904.9 x ') 0 4.4
x 904.7
DeMars
Prairie Park
904.3%
POAO
90 fly S.
1) 0 9, 2
x
x 904.3
EXHIBIT B
"NSULTANTS4, INC,
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@
IF
MAR 2 0 2002
19 March 2002
John and Barbara DeMars
8790 Mason Avenue NE
Otsego, MINI 55330
RE- Otsego - Subdivision Request
NAC FILE: 176.02 - 02.08
Dear Mr. and Mrs. DeMars:
Our office serves as the City Planner for the City of Otsego. The City has received a
development application from you dated March 11, 2002 to divide ten acres from the
property located northwest of Nashua Avenue and 90th Street. We have made a
preliminary review of the information submitted and identified an issue with the
configuration of the proposed 1 0 -acre parcel you are seeking to create.
Section 20-21-4.H.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all lots have access directly
onto an abutting improved public street. Also, Section 20-52-6.A of the Zoning Ordinance
requires that lots in the A-2 District have at least 150 feet of frontage to an abutting public
street. The proposed 1 0 -acre parcel proposed on the submitted survey does not have
direct access to or the required minimum frontage to a public street. Moreover, no
information is provided with the application stating how access would be provided to the
1 0 -acre parcel.
Under Minnesota Statues 15.99, a City must determine if an application is complete within
ten days from when it is submitted. Our determination is that the application is not
complete until a subdivision plan is presented that would conform to the requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance or a request for variance is made.
John and Barbara DeMars
Page 2
We would envision that any parcel subdivided from this property would have 150 -feet of
frontage and access to 90th Street, which extends along the north side of Prairie Park and
the City Hall property. The location of the parcel that you wish to create does not abut
90th Street, which extends further south into the Park property in this area.
An option would be for the City to sell the land north of 90th Street to you and connect it
with the 1 0 -acre parcel. Such a proposal would require approval of the City Council prior
to an application for subdivision. The City Council has placed this issue on their meeting
agenda for March 25, 2002 at 6-30 PM. You should attend this meeting to discuss the
matter with the City Council and answer any questions they may have.
If you have any other questions concerning your proposal prior to the City Council meeting
on Monday, please do not hesitate to call me at 952.595.9636.
Sincerely,
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
D. Daniel Licht
Senior Planner
pc. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wager
NOIRT"WIST ASSOCIATto CONSULTANTS,, k"C'
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacpianning.com
MEMORANDUM 6.5
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 20 March 2002
RE: Otsego - Zoning Ordinance; Business/Industrial Wall Signs
NAC FILE: 176.08 - 02.05
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 18, 2002 to consider an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance effecting wall signs for business and industrial uses.
The amendment, proposed in response to the needs of a local business, would remove the
limitation on number of wall signs. instead, the amo*unt of wall signage allowed for any
given property would be regulated as a percentage of the front building facade area. This
amendment would allow buildings with more than one business to identify themselves Wth
wall signage without significantly increasing the amount of signage in proportion to the size
of the building.
No comments were received from the public and Planning Commission discussion was
limited. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend the City Council approve the
Zoning Ordinance amendment as drafted. This issue is to be considered at the City
Council meeting on 25 March 2002 at 6:30 PM.
PC. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
ORDINANCE NO.:
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 37 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE (SIGNS) FOR
THE NUMBER OF WALL, CANOPY OR MARQUEE SIGNS ALLOWED WITHIN
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. Section 20-37-5.C.4.b of the Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended to
read as follows -
b. Wall, Canopy, or Marquee. Wall, canopy, or marquee signs shall be
permitted only on one facade fronting a public street, except in the
case of a corner lot or through lot where wall signs may be installed
on two facades fronting a public street. Individual wall sign area shall
not exceed one hundred (100) square feet.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage
and publication.
PASSED by the Otsego City Council this 25 1h day of March 2002.
CITY OF OTSEGO
AR
ATTEST:
Larry Fournier, Mayor
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
Page I of I
6 1
OTSEGO PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 13, 2002 - 7:00 PM
1. Chair Mike Day will call meetincT to order.
Mike Day called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call:
Park-& Recreation Commission: Mike Day, Tom Constant,
Pauline Nelson, and Terry Long.
Absent: Tom Baillargeon, Jim Gaikowski, and Jessica
Stockamp.
Councilmernbers: CM Suzanne Ackerman & CM Jerry Struthers.
ATDproval of Minutes - The December 12, 2001 minutes were
carried over to the next meeting.
Review of School Knoll Park Information_!!@_g�tin� - After
discussion, Commissioner Constant, seconded by Commissioner
Nelson, moved to recommend the following changes in the park
Plan;
1) Remove the west basketball court.
2) Rotate the tennis court, slide it east, and reserve the
second court area to the north as open space.
3) Add two benches by the play area.
4) Add additional parking spaces.
5) Add a unisex bathroom.
6)* Add a sink with a roll -down cover with three 200'amp
electrical outlets.
7) Provide fresh water use through a sprinkler, fountain,
or water spray.
8) Add one bike rack.
9) Add four grills.
10) Add lights for parking area and lights for tennis and
basketball courts.
City Ulodate - CM Struthers updated Commissioners on Council
business.
Other Business - Commissioner Constant asked that the City
install more signs for the bike trails stating "No Motorized
Vehicles".
Adjournment - Commissioner Constant, seconded by
Commissioner Long, moved to adjourn. Carried 4-0.
Michael Robertson, City Administrator
OTSEGO PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 13, 2002 - 7:00 PM
1. Chai� Mike Day will call meeting to order.
Mike Day�called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call:
Park & Recreation Commission: Mike Day, Tom Baillargeon,
Tom Constant, Pauline Nelson, Jim Gaikowski, and Terry Long.
Absent: Jessica Stockamp.
Councilm xers: CM Suzanne Ackerman & CM Jerry Struthers.
Staff: City Administrator Mike Robertson.
Alp1proval of Minutes ' - Administrator Robertson said that he
had not received any minutes from the February meeting.
Commissioner Day said he would go over his notes to create
minutes.
Future Park Plans - CM Struthers noted the recent Council
discussion on Park Design. There was discussion on the
number of small parks and the future need for a large park
on the west side of the city.
Parrish Avenue Floodolain Area - Administrator Robertson
updated �ommissioners on Council's pursuit of a federal
grant to purchase floodplain properties on Parish Avenue and
their desire to see the area turned into a park. While
commissi �ners thought this was a good idea, they felt that
the area was too small for ball fields, too close to Otsego
County Park to duplicate those services, and too cut off
from the river by the levy wall to be a river access park.
The cons nsus was that its best function was as open space
with litile or no park equipment located within.
\V.Other Business - Recreation - Commissioner Day asked if the
City could use some of the $22,000 formerly spent on the
Joint Po�ers Recreation Commission to hire someone part-time
to organ ze and run T -ball, softball, soccer, and hockey in
Otsego: Commissioner Baillargeon, seconded by Commissioner
Nelson oved to recommend that the City Council hire a
part -ti recreation coordinator to organize and run
io
recreat;n programs within Otsego. Carried 6-0.
Snowmobile Trails - Commissioner Constant stated that he had
ridden snowmobile along the entire east side of Odean
Avenue nd that it could be done if the rider was going 10-
15 mile per hour.
City Uplate _.CM Struthers updated Commissioners on Council
actions Administrator Robertson updated them on proposed
develoio�ents.
HOWTIAWItST ASSOCIATItIb CONSULTANTS,
, INC,
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM- Daniel Licht
DATE- 22 February 2002
RE: Otsego - Park and Trail Planning
FILE NO.: 176.08 - 02.01
BACKGROUND
6.7
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information regarding planning of future
park facilities anticipated by the 2001 Parks and Trails Plan. The information is provided
in response to concerns of the City Council is how the City will prioritize and fund
acquisition and development of the various facilities proposed as part of the Plan. The
primary question is whether the location and number of proposed neighborhood parks
within Sanitary Sewer Service District and Urban Service Reserve Area are appropriate.
Exhibits.
A. NRPA Park Facilities Standards
B. Lakeville Existing Park Facilities
ANALYSIS
System Planning. The National Recreation and Parks Association has established
standards for park facility acreage on a per capita basis, shown in the table below. The
NRPA has also established standards for various park facilities addressing space
requirements, recommended design, service capabilities based on population and location,
and other factors. A typical neighborhood park should have an area of 15 acres.
Page I of 6
NRPA PER CAPITA ACTIVE PARK ACREAGE STD.
Acre / 1,000 Population
Mini -Park
0.25 - 0.50ac.
Neighborhood Park
2.50 - 3.50ac.
Athletic Field
2.00 - 2.50ac.
Community Park
5.00 - 8.00ac.
In 2001, the City adopted a Comprehensive Parks and Trails Plan as a guide for a parks
and trail system within the City as development continues. It is critical to establish a plan
for a parks and trails system prior to urbanization of an area such that the system may be
developed along with growth. Failure to plan for and develop the park system along with
new development would be an opportunity lost as it would be almost impossible to try and
retroactively provide facilities into areas that already built out.
The Parks and Trails Plan establishes a classification system for City Parks and guidelines
for their implementation regarding location, size, facilities, and service area. Based upon
this classification system, a map designating existing parks and trails and search areas for
future facilities is prepared. This map is used to determine park dedication requirements
for new subdivisions in the form of land or cash fee in lieu of land during the subdivision
process. The Plan defines the size and facilities appropriate for neighborhood parks as
follows -
Neighborhood Parks
Sites within the City: Mississippi Pines Park (to be developed)
Use: Area for designated active and passive
recreation areas
Service Area: % to 1 mile radius to serve a population of up to
5,000 persons (a large neighborhood)
Population Served: Focus upon ages 5 through 39 with emphasis
upon ages 5 through 18
Desirable Size- 5 to 10 acres
Acres/1,000 population- 1.5-2.0
The need for neighborhood parks, reflected in the NRPA standards and Otsego's own
Page 2 of 6
classification system, is based primarily on geography with the assumption that the park
is Wthin walking distance for residents. The service area for a neighborhood park should
be a geographic area free from physical barriers (such as major roadways or waterbodies)
to ensure convenient and safe access.
The need for additional neighborhood playgrounds was the fifth highest response to the
question of outdoor activities residents would like to see offered in Otsego as part of a
1992 survey. Bicycling, walking, cross-country skiing, and a swimming pool were
responses ranked higher than additional neighborhood playgrounds. This survey is also
consistent with the comments of the small group of residents that attended a public
meeting held by the Parks and Recreation Commission in January. In general, the City
should anticipate a greater demand for neighborhood parks as new development occurs
as new residents, many relocated from other suburbs, will have greater expectations for
such services.
The City of Lakeville, with a 2000 population of 40,757 and an area of 24,240 acres, has
57 park and greenway/conservation areas comprising 1, 139.3 acres (35.8 persons per
acre). The facilities are broken down into six community parks, five community playfields,
11 greenway/conservation areas, 28 neighborhood parks, and seven special use areas.
A table outlining the facilities within each park is attached as Exhibit C. The Lakeville
Parks Director, Mr. Steve Michaud, considers an ideal neighborhood park to be eight to
ten acres in size with a one-quarter to one-half mile service radius. Their most popular
facilities within the parks are:
Playground equipment must be provided at each park - Lakeville spends $35,000
to $45,000 on play structures for neighborhood parks and $60,000 for community
parks.
Half -court basketball hoops are always in high demand. Less demand for full
courts.
Demand for tennis courts has reached a plateau since the late 80s. At most two
courts need to be provided, but not at each park. People that play tennis will
typically drive to the facilities, which are often provided atjunior-high or high school
campuses.
Paved/lighted skating rinks are gaining in popularity due to two -season function for
ice skating and in-line skating. These facilities often require a provisions for a
warming house.
Picnic facilities do not need to be provided at every park, but should be
geographically located as neighborhood centers.
A small youth ball field and backstop is provided at most neighborhood parks in that
they serve youth leagues or pick-up games for baseball and softball.
Off-street parking and security lighting must be provided at all park facilities.
Page 3 of 6
Back in the 1970s, when Lakeville had a population similar to that currently within Otsego
they faced a similar crossroads in park planning. According to Mr. Michaud, a decision
was made to provide larger community parks with a larger service area instead of more
neighborhood facilities. As the community developed, new subdivision at the edge of the
community park service area started demanding parks closer to their home. The City
found that people were less likely to use the community parks because of the distance
involved and need to cross major roadways (despite extensive trail systems that provided
connections to these parks). Because of this, Lakeville returned to a neighborhood
oriented park system and has had to try and retrofit parks into existing developed areas
on small parcels or remnants. The City of Lakeville recently completed a community
phone survey. One of the questions in the survey asked about use of parks facilities. The
responses were as follows:
Facility
Use
Non -
Trails
58%
42%
Athletic Facilities
37%
63%
Larger Community Parks
74%
26%
Smaller Neighborhood Parks
75%
25
The Otsego Parks and Trails Plan anticipates development of additional neighborhood
parks within the sanitary sewer service district approximately every square mile to serve
a population of up to 5,000 people. Based upon an urban density standard of 2.0
dwellings per acre, the population Wthin a given square mile would be approximately
1,280 units or 4,000 persons (3 persons per unit). The service area population density
suggests that the neighborhood park search areas on the Park and Trail Plan is
appropriate, especially when considering other factors such as physical barriers.
Funding. The primary source of funds for construction of the facilities identified on the
Parks and Trails Plan is park dedication requirements through the Subdivision Ordinance.
Subdividers must dedicate 10 percent of the gross area of their parcel for park facilities or
a cash fee in lieu of land. The decision as to whether to accept land or cash is at the City's
discretion. The current combined park and trail dedication fee in lieu of land is $1,075 per
dwelling unit. For a one -square mile area developed at urban densities of 2.0 units per
acre, the approximate cash fees collected in lieu of land would be $1,376,000.
An analysis done for the Parks and Recreation Commission in 2000 suggests that the
current cash fee is reflective of the costs the City would incur to acquire land and prepare
it for development for park facilities on a per acre basis. City staff is working to prepare a
capital improvement plan (CIP) based upon the Parks and Trails plan that would, in part,
allow the City to include facility construction costs as an additional factor in the park and
trail dedication fee in lieu of land.
Page 4 of 6
This means that the City will be able to justify increasing the park and trail dedication fee
in lieu of land to more accurately reflect the impact of new development to the costs of the
park and trail system. That is, the cash fee in lieu of land charged against any given lot
should reflect a reasonable portion of the cost for developing a neighborhood park serving
the property and a portion of the cost for developing community oriented facilities.
Development. The Parks and Trails Plan is a depiction of the anticipated parks and trails
system within the community. Development of the various future parks or trails identified
by the Plan will occur gradually over time as development occurs and the need for these
facilities is established.
Construction of the School Knoll Park facility will be adequate to service that new
residential development which occurred in the 78 th Street/Page Avenue area since
construction of the sanitary sewer system. Development of additional neighborhood park
facilities is not likely to occur until such time as urban growth expands south of 78th Street
or east of T. H. 101. Moreover, expansion of development to these areas would need to
be sufficiently dense to warrant construction of a park.
The Parks and Trails Plan does not outline an implementation program. Further, the City
is not required in to construct the facilities shown on the Plan, but they are anticipated.
As part of the Park and Trail CIP, the City can identify system priorities, establish triggers
for construction of the various facilities when there is most likely to be a need, outline a
preliminary budget for future facilities, and identify funding sources.
CONCLUSION
The City of Otsego adopted a Comprehensive Parks and Trails Plan in 2001 to guide
development of a parks and trails system within the community. As part of the effort,
classifications for different types of parks (in terms of size, facilities, and service areas) are
defined. These classifications, based upon common park planning guidelines, are used
in identifying search areas for locating future parks with appropriate spacing and facilities
to meet the recreation demands of community residents.
The Parks and Trails Plan only provides a framework for what the City's park and trail
system should develop into as urban growth continues within the community.
Development of the park and trail system depicted by the Parks and Trails plan will occur
gradually over time as demand and funding warrants, typically corresponding to overall
urban expansion. Decisions as to system priorities, costs, and funding sources are yet
to be resolved as part of the current CIP effort. The CIP effort will also provide a basis
for evaluating the current park and trail dedication requirements to ensure that they fully
account to the impact of new development to the system related to land acquisition, land
preparation and construction.
Page 5 of 6
The Parks and Trails Plan or the CIP do not commit the City to construct any of the future
parks or trails shown on the map, but do allow the community to anticipate future needs
and plan accordingly.
PC. Parks and Recreation Commission
Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Ron Wagner
Page 6 of 6
M
X
X
1�
. .................
............. . ... W -W
.................... . . .... . ......
................... . ......... ......
. . ....... . ........... X": MR - :0 MIN . .........
Me . .......... . .............
........................
Activity/Facility Recommended Recommended Size Recommended Number o . f Units Servi—ceTLocation Notes
'ry
Space and Dimensions Orientation Per Population Radius
Requirements
Basketball
2,400-3,036 SF
Full Court:
Long axis north-
Full Court:
1/4 to Y2 mile -
Usually in school, rec-
46'- 50'x 84'with 5'
South
1 /city plus 1 per
reation center, or church
unobstructed space
5,000 or
Facility. Safe walking or
on all sides
bike access. Outdoor
Half Court:
courts in neighborhood &
Half Court:
1 /city plus 1 per
community parks, plus
40'x 40'
2,000
active recreation areas in
other park settings.
Ice Hockey
22,000 SF incl.
Rink 85'x 200'
Long axis north-
Outdoor - 1 /city
10-15
Best as part of multi -
support area plus
(minimum 85'x 185')
south
plus 1/3,000
minutes
purpose neighborhood
parking
additional 5,000 SF
travel time
park
support area
maximum
Free Skating
Minimum 20,000
Varies
None
1/city plus 1 per Y4
3/4 - 1 mile
Usually in neigh
SF
to 1 mile radii
park
Tennis
Minimum of
36 'x 78' 12'clearance
Long axis north-
1 court per 2,000
1/4 - Y2mile
Best in batteries of 2 or
7,200 SF single
on both sides; 21'
south
more. Located in
court (2 acres for
clearance on both
neigh borhood/community
complex)
sides
park or adjacent to
school site.
Volleyball
Minimum of
20'x 60' Minimum 6'
Long axis north-
1 court per 5, 0___00
-M-4 1/2mile
Same as other —court
2,000 SF
clearance on all sides
south
activities (e.g.,
basketball, etc.)
Baseball
1 - Official
Minimum
- Base lines - 90'
Locate home plate
1/city plus 1 per
1/4 - Y2mile
Lighted fields part of
3.0-3.85 AC
Pitching distance 60Y2
so pitcher
6,000 plus lighted
community complex
Foul lines min. 320'
throwing across
- 1 per 15,000
Center field 400'+
sun & batter not
2 - Little
Minimum 1.2 AC
- Base lines - 60'
facing it. Line from
League
Pitching distance 46'
home plate
Foul lines 200'
through pitcher's
Center field 200'-250'
mound run east -
north -east.
Field Hockey
Minimum 1.5 AC
180'x 300'with a
Fall season - long
I per 20,000
15 minutes
Usually part of baseball,
minimum of 6'
axis NW to SW.
travel time
football, soccer complex
clearance on all sides
For long periods,
in community park or
north to south.
adjacent tq i h school
_04
Activity/Facility
Recommended
Recommended Size
Recommended
Number of Units
Service
Location Notes
ArcheryRange
Space
and Dimensions
Orientation
Per Population
Radius
Part of a regional/metro
Requirements
10'wide betw. targets.
north + or — 45
travel time
park complex or
Football
Minimum 1.5 AC
160'x 360'with a
Same as field
1 per 20,000
15 minutes
Same as field hockey
minimum of 6'
hockey
travel time
facility
clearance on all sides
Soccer
1.7 to 2.1 AC
195'to 225' x 300' to
Same as field
1/city plus 1/3,500
1-2 miles
Number of units depends
360'with a 10' min.
hockey
people
on popularity. Youth
Par 3 (18 hole)
50-60 AC
clearance on all sides
Majority of holes
NA
15-30
soccer on smaller fields
600-1,700 yards
on north -south
minutes
adjacent to schools or
axis
travel time
neighborhood parks
Softball
1.5 to 2.0 AC
Base lines 65'
Same as baseball
1/city plus 1 per
% - "/2mile
Sight difference in
standard
Pitching distance — 55'
2,000
dimensions for 16" slow
Min. 40'— women
pitch. May also be sued
18 hole
Minimum 110 AC
Fast pitch field radius
1/50,000
for youth baseball
standard
from plate — 225'
between foul lines
Slow pitch— 275' (men)
250' (women)
Multiple Rec.
Court
(basketball,
volleyball,
tennis)
10,000 SF
120'x 80'
Long axis of
courts with
primary use is
north -south
1/city plus 1 per
2,000 (may
include basketball,
tennis, and multi -
use)
Y, - Y2mile
Should be located in
neighborhood parks
ArcheryRange
Minimum.65AC
300' length x minimum
Archer facing
1 per 50,000
30 minutes
Part of a regional/metro
10'wide betw. targets.
north + or — 45
travel time
park complex or
Roped clear space on
degrees
community special use
sides of range min. of
facility
30' clear space behind
targets minimum of 90'
x 45'with bunker
Par 3 (18 hole)
50-60 AC
Average length -vary
Majority of holes
NA
15-30
9 hole course can
600-1,700 yards
on north -south
minutes
accommodate 350
axis
travel time
people/day.
9 hole
Minimum 50 AC
Average length — 2,250
1/25,000
18 hole course can
standard
yards
accommodate 500-550
people a day.
18 hole
Minimum 110 AC
Average length — 6,500
1/50,000
May be privately owned.
standard
yards
Activity/Facility
Recommended
Recommended Size
Recommended
Number of Units
Service .....
...... L . o . c . a .' t . i , o .. n -, N . otes ..........
Space
and Dimensions
Orientation
Per Population
Radius
Requirements
Golf Driving
13.5 AC for
900'x 690'wide, add
Long axis south-
1 per 50,00-0
15-30--
Part of golf course
Range
minimum of 25
12'width for each
west -northeast
minutes
complex. As a separate
tees
additional tee
with golfer driving
travel time
unit, may be privately
toward northeast
operated.
Swimming
Varies on size of
Teaching — minimum
None — although
1 per 20,000
—
15-30
Pools for general
Pools
pool & amenities.
of 25'x 45'even depth
care must be
(pools should
minutes
community use should
Usually Y2 to 2
of 3-4 feet.
taken in siting of
accommodate 3-
travel time
be planned for teaching,
AC site.
Competitive -minimum
lifeguard stations
5% of total
competitive and
of 25m x 16m.
in relation to
population at a
recreational purposes
Minimum of 27 SF of
afternoon sun.
time)
with enough depth
water surface per
(3.4m) to accommodate
swimmer. Ratios of
1 m and 3m diving
2:1 deck vs. water.
boards. Located in
community park or
school site.
Beach Areas
NA
Beach area should
NA
NA
Should have sand
have 50 SF of land and
bottom with slope of
50 SF of water per
maximum of 5% (flat
user. Turnover rate is
preferable). Boating
three. There should be
areas completely
3-4 acres supporting
segregated from
I
land per acre of beach.
S%,.:— — - - __ -
Source: National Recreation and Parks Association , Barton-Aschman Associates Inc.
ig
Park Facilities
(as of May 1999) Ck C0
Kenreel Park
TL T652-1 Kenreel Avenue 0.251 0.25 1 1
Kensington Park
NP ��Ken�. - - - -
Ington Boulevard 10.00 .00 2 2
KJnq Athletic Complex
21 1
CPF'1&350 Dodd Boulevard RF -0-0 4-5 00 T 3
Lakerldge Park
NP 19070 Jewel Path 12.00 5.50 1 1
Lone Oak Park
TL 11075 Lower 167th Street Wes 0.50 0.50
Marion Fields
NP Dodd Boulevard S. 2.50
McGuire Soccer Park
CPFj85B6 - 215th Street 8.00 6.00 ---3
Meadows Park
N P 120707 Jacquard Avenue 17.00 6.-00+
Meadows Conservation
C -- -10-05-- 0.
North Park
CPF 17100 1pava Avenue 42.00 36.00 1
North Park Conservation Area
C 98.00 0,001 1 1 1 - - - - -
Oak Shores Park
NP 10435 - 162nd Street West -2300 --FT - - - - - - - -
4001T 1 13
Orchard Lake Beach
-
SUA. 17195 Judicial Road 0.50 0.50 " 1 1 1 1 T
(5rchard Lake Park
C 118 75 - I 75th Street West 3.20 2.50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1#
Parkvlew Park
CP 6833 Gerdine Path 11.00 8.00 1 1 1 1 4
Pioneer Plaza
1
SUA 20801 Holyoke Avenue O.Ri -0.25 1
Quail Meadows Park
NP 5580 -'1 70th Street West 10.00 9.00 1 1 3 7 T
Quigley -Sime Athletic
C P F 85M - 202nd Street West 27.00. 15.00 1 T - - - - - - -
Raven Lake Conservatilon
C Ja uar Path 3.40 0.00
Ritter Farm Park
CP 19300 Ritter Trail 34o.00 66oMoTTT- 3- 1 71
Rolling Oaks Park
NIP 10595 - 167th Street West 12.00 11.00 1 1 1 3 4
Rolling Oaks 2 Conservation
C 16568 Kentucky Avenue 3.00 0.00- - - - - 1
00
Sleepy Hollow Park
NP 6W Gerdine Path 4.00 -4 0() -1
0()
�E
Terrace Park
TL 8475 Lower 208th Street �Te-st -1.00 0.
Valley Lake Park & Beach
CP 17165 - Upper 162nd Street Wei -
42.00 1665 T T 1 3
Wayside Park
SUA 11835 - 168th Street West 1.50 0.50 1
West Lake Marion
CP 39.34 0..00
Woodbury Conservation
C 17104 Highview Avenue 1 26.00 0.00
Zweber Woods
Total Acreage
C OD 0.00
--[ I 114-10 - -TIn A I '1 7 n
CP Community Park I ExIsfing Facilities
CPF Community Play Field 2 Proposed Facilities Source: City of Lakeville
M C Conservation Area 3 Portable Toilets (seasonal)
x NP Neighborhood Park
x 4 Paved Hockey Rink
SUA Special Use Area 5 Ampitheatre
TL Tot Lot/Mini-Park
11�5 IN
w
M
R,
Park Facilities .8
(as of May 1999) Ai�
C�
...... ....
All Saints
SUA 209th and Holyoke ir CO 0
4.. 1..
Antlers Park
CP 9740 - 201 st Street West 12.00 10.00 1 1 1 1 1
Aronson Park
1 1
PF 8250 - 202nd Street West 70.6-0 55.00 1 1 1 1 1
Bassett Park
TL 18959 Orchard Trail -0.75 0.50
Bracketts Crossing Park
71- 17775 Layton Path 1.00 0'.
-WP
Bunker Hill Park
6-iE�-Gerdine Path 10.00 9.00 1 1 1 3
Casperson Park & Boat Ln.
CP 19720 Juno Trail -40.00 9.0c) I 1 -1 -1 -1
Cedar Highlands Park
NP 17191 Gerdine Path -8 90 -1.00 -7 -
Cherryview Conservation
C 17245 Greentree Avenue- -8.00 -0.00 -1 - - -
Cherryview Park
NP 7925 - 1 75th Street 12.50 9.OD 1 1 3
Dakota Heights Park
NP 9550 - 175th Street West 14.00 8.00 1 1 3
Dakota Heights 2
Conservation
Daniel's Tk-ddition
- - - - - - - -
C 17970 Italy Path 1.00 0.00
-C 7-00
5.00
Dodd Pointe Park
-TL %46 - 160(h St. W. 2.50 0.50 1 1
-NP
Dodd Trail Park
T�iM- Flagstaff Avenue I I. -Jul 11.00 1 1 3
-WP-
Fairfield Park
16776 Gannon Avenue 4.00 4.00 1 1
Fishing Bridge (1-35)
SUA -1915-0 Kenrick Avenue 0.25 0.00
Foxborough Conservation
C 56.00 0.00
Foxborough Park
NP 7743 Upper 167th Street 27.00 21.00 1 1 1 1 1
Goose Lake Conservation
C T7E1 Jackson Trail 4.00 0.00
Greenridge Park
N P V 6135 Flagstaff Avenue 10.00 . -
N 76� ta A nue
7 10-00 2 -2
1 gs
Highview Heights Park
4P
N P 116314 Havelock Way 10.00 9.00 1 1 3
y
kN lat
Hypointe, �jrosslng Park
P I� H ch nso Drive 2.00 1.25 1
Independence Park
N P 116256 - inch Way 6.00 6.00 1
James Jensen Park
SUA 20390 Howland Avenue 3.50 3.00
Jaycee Park
20510 Hull Avenue 3.50 3.00 T -T
Eake
Juno Traltway
--
Kenmore Park
ENP
SUA Marion @ 205th St. - 0
�
TL I E 1.00 0.00
TL 1120 Kenmore n � #
CP Community Park
CPF Community Play Field
C Conservation Area
NP Neighborhood Park
SUA Special Use Area
TL Tot Lot/Mini-Park
I Existing Facilities
2 Proposed Facilities
3 Portable Toilets (seasonal)
4 Paved Hockey Rink
5 Ampitheatre
Source: City of Lakeville
Ca"SukTANT11, INC,
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
[IV
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM.- Daniel Licht
DATE: 20 March 2002
RE: Otsego - Planning Commission; By -Laws
NAC FILE 176.08 -02. C,'l
Please be advised that the Planning Commission has been working to update their By -
Laws, which regulate their organization and work procedures. Over the course of several
workshops, the following changes have been made:
0 Elimination of the Secretary as an officer as the position is not required and City
Staff has been performing these duties.
0 Requiring that special meetings be scheduled only with approval of a majority of the
members. The current work rules allow the Chair to schedule special meetings.
a Revision of the conflict rules such that a member with a conflict does not have to
leave the meeting room.
0 Correction that the Planning Commission meetings are on the first and third
Mondays of each month, not Wednesdays.
a Correction that the Planning Commission elects its officers at the first meeting in
February, not January.
The Planning Commission adopted the revised By -Laws at their meeting on March 18,
2002. Before the By -Laws become effective, they must be approved by the City Council.
The amended By -Laws are to be considered by the City Council at their meeting on March
25, 2002 at 6:30 PM.
pc. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
CITY OF OTSEGO
PLANNING COMMISSION
BY-LAWS
A. Organization.
Membership of the Commission shall consist of seven (7) members
appointed by the City Council, one (1) alternate member appointed by the
City Council, and one (1) non-voting City Council representative.
2. The Commission shall elect officers from its membership at its first meeting
in February.
3. The officers of the Planning Commission shall be:
a. Chair.
b. Vice -Chair.
4. Duties of the officers:
a. Chair.
The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Commission.
2. The Chair shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide
all questions of order.
3. The Chair shall appoint any necessary committees and shall
appoint any committees requested by a majority of the
members.
b. Vice -Chair.
The Vice -Chair shall preside at all meetings in the absence of
the Chair and perform such duties as requested by the Chair.
B. Work Rules.
There shall be two (2) regularly scheduled meetings the first and third
Monday of each month, unless an alternative is scheduled due to an
unforseen conflict or canceled by the Chair due to a lack of business items.
Notice of the change must be communicated to the members at least four (4)
days prior to the meeting date.
Page I of 4
3. A quorum of the Commission shall consist of four (4) members.
4. All meetings shall be open to the public.
5. A special meeting of the Planning Commission may be called by a motion of
the majority of the members stating the purpose of such meeting with written
notice posted at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting.
6. Any site inspection involving four (4) or more members as a group must be
scheduled and noticed as a special Planning Commission Meeting.
7. The alternate member shall sit at the Planning Commission table during any
scheduled meeting, but the alternate shall only vote if a member of the
Commission is absent.
8. A member may be excused from an individual meeting for reasons of i I Iness,
work, or out of town trips. Notice of the member's absence must be
communicated to the City staff before 4-00 PM on the date of the meeting.
9. The order of business shall be as listed in the meeting agenda to be
prepared by the Zoning Administrator before each meeting.
10. The Zoning Administrator shall take minutes of all Commission meetings or
special meetings, which are to be distributed to the members prior to the
next Commission meeting. Approval of the minutes is by a majority of the
members present at the meeting at which the minutes are on the agenda.
Upon approval, the minutes shall be signed by the Chair and attested to by
the Zoning Administrator.
11, Motions shall be made only by persons recognized by the Chair.
12. Any resolution or motion may be withdrawn at anytime before action is taken
on it.
13. When a question is under debate, no other motion shall be entertained
except to table or call for the questions, act on the question, postpone, refer
to committee, or amend. Motions shall take precedence in that order and the
first two shall be without debate.
14. All motions shall be carried by a majority vote of the members present,
except a call for the question. Any members or the Chair may call for a roll
call vote on any issue.
Page 2 of 4
15. A call for the question is not a motion, but an indication to the Chair that the
person making this statement is ready to have the motion or question acted
upon without further discussion.
16. All commission recommendations shall be sent to the City Council in written
meeting minutes and shall include a record of the division of votes on each
recommendation.
17. Any Commission member having a personal interest, a financial interest, or
a family member with a financial interest in any individual action to be
considered by the Commission shall. -
a. Notify the Chair of the conflict in advance of the meeting.
b. Allow the Chair to explain the potential conflict to the Commission.
C. At the request of the Chair, the member shall excuse themselves from
the Commission in advance of the discussion and voting on this item.
18. In the event that a member is contacted prior to a Commission meeting by
a person with a concern regarding a pending issue, the member must:
a. Refrain from discussing any Planning Commission business with any
individual outside of a Planning Commission meeting. This includes
their own stand on the pending issue.
b Refrain from speculating on other Commission members'stand on the
pending issue.
19. Any Commission member who conducts themselves in a manner conflicting
with these By -Laws provides grounds for removal by the City Council.
20. Any rule not covered by these By -Laws shall be governed by Robert's Rules
of Order.
21. These By -Laws shall not be repealed or amended except by a five (5)
member vote of the Commission and after notice has been given at a
previous meeting. Changes in these By -Laws become effective upon
approval of the City Council.
Page 3 of 4
2002. ADOPTED by the Otsego Planning Commission on this 18th day of March
20
ATTEST -
Richard Nichols, Chair
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
APPROVED by the Otsego City Council on this 25th day of March 2002.
BY -
Larry Fournier, Mayor
ATTEST -
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
Page 4 of 4
March 6, 2002
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. Mike Robertson
City Administrator
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Ave. NE
Otsego, MN 55330-7314
Z
RE: Cable Franchising
Dear Mike:
nr�
Robert J. V. Vose
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9275
Email: rvose@kenncdy-graven.com
I understand that the Council recently directed staff to open the cable franchising process.
Enclosed please find the documentation necessary to do so. You will need to take two steps:
1. Issue a Notice of Intent to Franchise. I have enclosed a draft Notice. The Notice must
be published once each week for two successive weeks in the City's newspaper. Please obtain an
affidavit of publication for each publication date and forward copies of the affidavits to me. I
suggest that the Council formally authorize publication of the Notice at its next meeting.
Please note that I have proposed an application deadline of April 15, 2002. 1 selected this date
because the deadline must be no less than 20 days from the first publication of the Notice. Also
note that the City is required to hold a public hearing concerning the applications received. I
have proposed that the hearing be held at the Council's regular meeting on April 22, 2002.
Although the Notice fulfills the publication requirements for this public hearing, you should also
post notice and take such other steps as are customary for noticing public hearings.
2. Establish an Official Application Form. I have enclosed an Application Form that
contains appropriate requirements as established by state law. If acceptable, I will provide a
copy of the application to all of the companies that have expressed interest in a franchise after the
Notice is published. The Application Form should also be available at City Hall in case any
other providers are interested in applying.
After these steps are completed, I will review applications and respond to any questions. I will
then make a recommendation concerning grant of franchise(s). Any franchises that the City
issues will need to be similar.
RJV-210967vl
TS105-5
C H
A
R
T
E R
E
0
March 6, 2002
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
Mr. Mike Robertson
City Administrator
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Ave. NE
Otsego, MN 55330-7314
Z
RE: Cable Franchising
Dear Mike:
nr�
Robert J. V. Vose
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9275
Email: rvose@kenncdy-graven.com
I understand that the Council recently directed staff to open the cable franchising process.
Enclosed please find the documentation necessary to do so. You will need to take two steps:
1. Issue a Notice of Intent to Franchise. I have enclosed a draft Notice. The Notice must
be published once each week for two successive weeks in the City's newspaper. Please obtain an
affidavit of publication for each publication date and forward copies of the affidavits to me. I
suggest that the Council formally authorize publication of the Notice at its next meeting.
Please note that I have proposed an application deadline of April 15, 2002. 1 selected this date
because the deadline must be no less than 20 days from the first publication of the Notice. Also
note that the City is required to hold a public hearing concerning the applications received. I
have proposed that the hearing be held at the Council's regular meeting on April 22, 2002.
Although the Notice fulfills the publication requirements for this public hearing, you should also
post notice and take such other steps as are customary for noticing public hearings.
2. Establish an Official Application Form. I have enclosed an Application Form that
contains appropriate requirements as established by state law. If acceptable, I will provide a
copy of the application to all of the companies that have expressed interest in a franchise after the
Notice is published. The Application Form should also be available at City Hall in case any
other providers are interested in applying.
After these steps are completed, I will review applications and respond to any questions. I will
then make a recommendation concerning grant of franchise(s). Any franchises that the City
issues will need to be similar.
RJV-210967vl
TS105-5
Mike Robertson
March 6, 2002
Page 2
Finally, as I have previously indicated, Charter's "line extension permit" is of questionable
validity and expires in December. However, Charter has produced correspondence from 1996
indicating that the prior cable company requested that the City initiate cable franchise renewal
under federal law. I expect that Charter will argue that the federal franchise renewal process
preempts the Minnesota process described above. Therefore, Charter may argue that it is exempt
from the City's application requirements. A draft of a letter to Charter concerning this issue is
enclosed for your review.
Please contact me with any questions or if you would like these documents sent via e-mail.
Yours truly,
Vd�,
Robert J.V. Vose
RJV:ch
Enclosures
cc: Andy MacAxthur, City Attorney (with enclosures)
RJV-210967vl
TS 105-5
NOTICE BY THE CITY OF OTSEGO, MINNESOTA
OF INTENT TO ACCEPT APPLICATION FOR A
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM FRANCHISE
The City of Otsego, Minnesota, ("City") has received inquiries concerning cable franchising.
Notice is hereby given that the City will accept applications for franchise(s) for the purpose of
providing cable service and/or constructing, operating and maintaining a cable communications
system serving the City. This notice is given in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota
Statutes § 238.081.
The application requirements are as follows:
1. The deadline for submitting applications in response to this Notice and the Official
Application Form is 4:00 p.m., April 15, 2002.
2. Applications shall be submitted to Robert Vose, Esq., Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, 470
Pillsbury Center, 200 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402. Applicants shall
provide five (5) copies.
3. Applications shall be in writing, notarized, sealed and in a format consistent with the
Official Application Form and Minnesota Statutes § 238.081, subd. 4. The Official
Application Form shall be available upon request in the City offices or from Robert Vose.
4. Each application shall include an application fee of $7500.00 in the form of a certified
check made payable to the City of Otsego, Minnesota as provided for by Minnesota
Statutes § 238.081, subd. 8. The application fee shall be used to offset the cost to the
City of processing applications and issuing the Franchise(s). Any portion of an
applicant's fee that remains upon grant of a Franchise, if any, will be refunded.
5. A public hearing concerning applications will be conducted before the City Council, in
the City Hall, beginning at 7:00 p.m. on April 22, 2002. Each applicant will be given
fifteen (15) minutes to summarize its application. The Council may then continue the
public hearing to permit further review of the application before a final decision is made
to select qualified applicants.
6. The Official Application Form sets forth in detail the expectations of the City. The
application requirements are in conformance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 238. The desired system design and services sought by the City includes
construction and completion of system(s) serving the City within a reasonable time; a
reasonable line extension policy; provision of system capacity that allows for the
provision of adequate video channels and additional non -video services; provision of a
mix, level and quality of programs and services comparable to similar systems; provision
of public, educational and governmental access channels supported by the operator;
reasonable rates; and provision customer service and system maintenance to ensure the
provision of quality services to the subscriber. The Official Application Form provides
further details concerning the desired system design and services to be offered.
RJV-210985vl
TS105-5
7. The criteria for evaluating applications are as follows:
a. The completeness of applications and conformance to the Official Application Form;
b. The system design and time for construction;
c. The programs and services offered initially and criteria for adding programs and
services;
d. The service area and the line extension policy;
e. Customer service policies and system testing;
f. The legal, technical, and financial qualifications of the applicant;
g. The proposal for community services, including public, educational, and
governmental access and/or institutional network services; and
h. Other factors deemed relevant by the City.
8. Each above criterion has equal weight. Applications which fulfill the above criteria in
the opinion of the City Council shall be considered for a Franchise. However, in no event
will submission of a conforming application entitle any applicant to grant of a Franchise.
The City expressly reserves the right to reject both conforming and non -conforming
applications. The City may accept multiple applications and grant multiple Franchises.
9. Any applicant(s) selected by the City Council will be required to accept a Franchise
within thirty (30) days after adoption thereof.
10. All questions concerning this notice should be directed to Robert Vose, Esq., Kennedy &
Graven, Chartered, 470 Pillsbury Center, 200 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN
55402, (612) 337-9275.
Date: .2002
Published in: , on --, 2002 and 2002.
Affidavit of Publication required for each publication.
RJV-210985vl
TS105-5
OTSEGO, MINNESOTA
OFFICIAL APPLICATION FORM
Applicants interested in submitting an application for a cable communications franchise shall
submit the following information as required by Minnesota Statues § 238.081, subd. 4., to the
City.
(1) Plans for channel capacity, including both the total number of channels capable of being
energized in the system and the number of channels to be energized immediately;
(2) A statement of the television and radio broadcast signals for which permission to carry
will be or has been requested from the Federal Communications Commission;
(3) A description of the proposed system design and planned operation, including at least the
following items:
(1) the general area for location of antennae and the headend, if known;
(2) the proposed service area, once system construction is complete (include map);
(3) the schedule for activating two-way capacity;
(4) the type of automated services to be provided;
(5) the number of channels and services to be made available for access cable
broadcasting; and
(6) a schedule of charges for facilities and staff assistance for access cable
broadcasting.
(4) The terms and conditions under which particular service is to be provided to
governmental and educational entities;
(5) A schedule of proposed rates in relation to the services to be provided, and a proposed
policy regarding unusual or difficult connection of services;
(6) A time schedule for constructing the system, including the sequence for constructing and
wiring various parts of the City;
(7) A statement indicating the applicant's qualifications and experience in the cable
communications field, if any;
(8) An identification of the municipalities in which the applicant either owns or operates a
telecommunications or cable communications system, directly or indirectly, or has
outstanding franchises for which no system has been built;
RIV-210984A
TS105-5
(9) Plans for financing the proposed system, which must indicate every significant
anticipated source of capital and significant limitations or conditions with respect to the
availability of the indicated sources of capital;
(10) A statement of ownership detailing the corporate organization of the applicant, if any,
including the names and addresses of officers and directors and the number of shares held
by each officer or director, and intracompany relationship including a parent, subsidiary
or affiliated company; and
1) A notation and explanation of omissions or other variations with respect to the
requirements of the application.
All applications must be notarized and must include detailed responses to the above information
requests, as well as any information or other requirements established in the Notice of Intent to
Franchise a Cable Communications System issued by the City.
Any questions regarding this Application Form may be directed to Robert Vose, Esq., Kennedy
& Graven, Chartered, 470 Pillsbury Center, 200 South Sixth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9275.
RJV-210984vl
TS105-5
C H A R T E R E D
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
http://www.kennedy-graven.com
Robert J. V. Vose
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9275
Email: rvose@kennedy-graven.com
March 6, 2002
Mr. Tucker Carlson
Charter Communications
1210 Northland Dr.
Suite 180
Mendota Heights, MN 55120
Re: City of Otsego; Charter franchising issues
Dear Tucker:
This letter is to update you concerning the City's franchising process. As we have discussed, in
the future the City does not wish to authorize cable service using a line extension permit.
Accordingly, the City has decided to adopt a cable franchise ordinance
WH Link recently notified the City of its plans to deliver facilities -based competitive local
exchange services in the City. WH Link intends to apply for a franchise to provide cable
services. The City has also learned that a residential developer may be interested in providing
cable service in the City and may apply for a cable franchise. In response, the City will issue
Notice of Intent to Franchise and establish an application form as required by Minnesota law,
Chapter 238. Franchise applications will be due on or before April 15, 2002. Of course, the City
may grant multiple franchises.
The most efficient, fair, and orderly manner to process Charter's franchise will be for Charter to
comply with the City's franchise application process. This is particularly true given that the City
has not previously franchised Charter. Otsego Township issued an extension permit to Charter's
predecessor. The permit expired by its terms several years ago and the recent retroactive
46 extension" is of questionable enforceability.
We recognize that Charter may claim certain franchise renewal rights under federal law. Charter
recently provided a copy of a letter dated November 26, 1996, from the City Attorney to
Charter's predecessor, Jones Intercable. This letter references an earlier letter from Jones
requesting initiation of the franchise renewal process contemplated by federal law. The
correspondence further memorializes an agreement to proceed with informal renewal
negotiations.
However, any federal renewal rights do not supercede the City's franchising requirements. The
Cable Act only supercedes the Minnesota franchising process to the extent it is "inconsistent"
RJV-210973vl
TS105-5
Tucker Carlson
March 6, 2002
Page 2
with the federal renewal process. 47 U.S.C. § 556(c). The Cable Act's renewal provisions
specifically require that a renewal proposal contain "such material as the franchising authority
may require." 47 U.S.C. § 546(b)(2). Because the City is merely requiring an application as
provided by state law, the state and federal processes are not inconsistent.
Finally, the City's application process requires submission of an application fee. We are aware
that Charter has objected to paying application fees in relation to franchise renewal. The issue is
whether such an application fee is a franchise fee capped at 5% of gross revenues, or is a charge
"incidental to" awarding a franchise which is excluded from franchise fees. Because Minnesota
law explicitly authorizes the City the right to recover the costs of the "franchising process," we
believe that the application fee is clearly incidental to awarding the franchise. See Minn. Stat. §
238.08, Subd. 8. However, the City will not require Charter to waive any claims concerning
proper characterization of the application fee.
The franchise application process will simply establish a process by which the City and Charter
can finalize a franchise. The City's use of this process is not intended to terminate any informal
franchise negotiations. Once an application is submitted, meaningful informal franchising
discussions can be concluded quickly. Feel free to contact me with questions.
Yours truly,
ert J.V. Vose
cc: Tim Vowell
Carrie Cox, Esq.
Mike Robertson, City Administrator
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
RJV-210973vl
TS105-5
Michael C Courf-
Andrew J. MwAithur
Robert T. Ruppe-
David R. Wendorf
*A 1w licemed in ft&sois
**ALw licaued in Calomia
March 15, 2002
City of Otsego
c/o Judy Hudson, City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
COM & MACARTHUR
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN55376-0369
(763) 497-1930
(763) 497-2599 (FAX)
couriandmacarthur(Mpobox. com
N1,4;' R! 2002
V C -
:S i
RIE: Amendments to Liquor Ordinances, Deleting Requirement of Public Hearing
Dear Council Members:
As requested, please find enclosed for review and possible action at the next regularly
scheduled City Council meeting tow proposed ordinance amendments which would
eliminate the need for a public hearing prior to the granting or denial of a non -
intoxicating malt liquor or intoxicating liquor license, or annual renewal. There is no
specific statutory requirement for a public hearing.
The City Council still retam's the discretion to order such a hearing, and in the case of a
potential denial I would strongly suggest that the City conduct such a hearing to misure
due process.
If you have any questions regarding this matter I will be available to answer them at the
next City Council meeting.
Very tru -purs,
e J.,WaacArthur
OU & MACARTHUR
Encls.
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AMENDMENT TO OTSEGO ORDINANCE NO. 91-07 REGARDING
REGULATION OF NON -INTOXICATING MALT LIQUORS DELETING
THE REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANTING OR
RENEWING A LICENSE
SECTION 1. Otsego Ordinance No. 91-07, Section 6, Granting of License,
Subdivision 1, Investigation and Hearing is amended to read as follows:
Subd. 1. Investigation and Hearing. The City Council or it's designees shall
investigate all facts set out in the application. After such investigation, and upon
review of the result of said investigation, the Council shall grant or refuse the
application in it's sole discretion.
SECTION 2.Effective Date. This ordinance amendment shall be effective upon
its passage and publication according to law.
ADOPTED this day of March, 2002 by the Otsego City Council.
IN FAVOR:
OPPOSED:
CITY OF OTSEGO
Larry Fournier, Mayor
Judy Hudson, City Clerk
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AMENDMENT TO OTSEGO ORDINANCE NO. 91-08 REGARDING
REGULATION OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR AND WINE9 DELETING
THE REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANTING OR
RENEWING A LICENSE
SECTION 1. Otsego Ordinance No. 91-08, Section 5, Granting of License,
Subdivision 2, Hearing is amended to read as follows:
Subd. 2. Investigation and Consideration. The City Council or it's
designee(s) shall investigate all facts set out in the application and not investigated
in the preliminary background and financial investigation conducted pursuant to
Subdivision 1. After the investigation, and upon review of the result of said
investigation, the Council shall grant or refuse the application, in it's sole
discretion. No on -sale wine license or off sale liquor license shall become
effective until it, together with the security furnished by the applicant, has been
approved by the Commissioner of Public Safety.
SECTION 2.Effective Date. This ordinance amendment shall be effective upon
its passage and publication according to law.
ADOPTED this day of March, 2002 by the Otsego City Council.
IN FAVOR:
OPPOSED:
CITY OF OTSEGO
Larry Fournier, Mayor
Judy Hudson, City Clerk
Subd. 1. Investigation and Hearing. The City Council or
it's designees shall investigate all facts set out in the
application. Opportunity shall be given to any person to be
heard for or against the granting of the license. After such
investigation and hearing, the Council shall grant or refuse the
application in its discretion.
Subd. 2. Transfers. Each license shall be issued to the
applicant only and shall not be transferable to another holder.
Each license shall be issued only for the premises described in
the application. No license may be transferred to another place
without the approval of the Council.
Subd. 3. Proof of Financial Responsibility Prior to
issuance of license, the applicant shall file with the City Clerk
proof of financial responsibility with regards to liability
imposed by Minn. Stat. 340A.801,. by filing with the City one of
the following:
(a). A Certificate showing insurance against general
liability and that imposed by Minn. Stat. 340A.801
in the amount of $50,000.00 coverage for
bodily injury to any one person in any one
occurrence, $100,000.00 coverage for two or more
persons in any one occurrence, $10,000.00
coverage because of injury to or destruction of
property of others in any one occurrence,
$50,000.00 coverage for loss of means of
support of any one person in any one occurrence,
and $100,000.00 for loss of means of support
of two or more persons in any one occurrence; or
(b). A Surety Bond with minimum coverages as provided
in clause (a), or a certificate of the State
Treasurer or securities in accordance with Minn.
- 4 -
in the public interest to have an investigation made on a
particular application for renewal of an on -sale license, it
shall so determine. In any case, if the Council determines that
a comprehensive background and financial investigation of the
applicant is necessary, it may conduct the investigation itself
or contract with another agency. No license shall be issued,
transferred, or renewed if the results show to the satisfaction
of the Council that issuance would not be in the public interest.
Subd. 2. Hearing. The City Council or its designee(s),
shall investigate all facts set out in the application and not
investigated in the preliminary background and financial
investigation conducted pursuant to Subdivision 1. Opportunity
shall be given to any person to be heard for or against the
granting of the license. After the investigation and hearing,
the Council shall in its discretion, grant or refuse the
application. No on -sale wine license or off -sale liquor license
shall become effective until it, together with the security
furnished by the applicant, has been approved by the Commissioner
of Public Safety.
Subd. 3. Investigation Fee. Along with the initial
application fee or application for transfer of an existing
"on -sale" license, the applicant shall be required to remit an
investigation fee of $500.00 if it is determined that the
investigation required by Minn. Stat. 340A.412 can be
accomplished within the State of Minnesota. I"- it is determined
that said investigation will have to be conducted outside of the
State, the investigation fee shall be the actual cost of such
investigation not to exceed $10,0oo.00. All investigations shall
be conducted by the City Council, the Wright County Sheriff's
Office, or other agency as designated by the Otseac City Council.
- 6 -
MEMO
Date: March 21, 2002
To: Mayor & Council
From: City Administrator Mike Robertson
Re: Joint Transportation Meeting with St. Michael
During the Highway 101 planning process, Mayor Fournier
and I discussed with City of St. Michael
representatives having a joint transportation meeting.
This meeting would be to allow MNDOT to present
outlines of the plans for Highway 101 and for 1-94 that
we have been working on over the last half year. it
would also allow the two city councils to meet and
discuss transportation and any other joint issues of
interest.
In discussions with MNDOT's consultant and the City of
St. Michael, the following days were suggested for
meetings. St. Michael City Council will be reviewing
these dates at their meeting on Tuesday, March 26,
2000.
Wednesday, April 17, Thursday, April 18, Wednesday,
April 24, or Monday, April 29.
cc: City staff