04-09-01 CC5-►�,r L4 . ,a, A
Date: April 4, 2001
To: Mayor & Council
From: City Administrator Mike Robertson
Re: 2000 Preliminary Final Budget Report
2000 Selected Funds Report
This is a preliminary report on the final 2000
budget figures. It is a preliminary report because
the figures are unaudited. The final figures will
be in the official 2000 audit report.
SUMMARY
At this point, we have a total 2000 budget surplus
of $48,029. This consists of $135,670 in surplus
revenues and an overage of $87,641 in expended
funds.
On the Revenue side, the main contributors were
surpluses in MSA Maintenance (18,135), Mobile Home
Taxes ($17,928), Interest Earnings ($16,139),
Interfund Transfer ($15,813), CUP/Variance Fees
($12,696), Charges for Service ($12,459),
Subdivision Fees ($10,853), and Mining Fees
($10,033). These items are usually projected very
conservatively due to their volatility, so this is
why we have positive variances.
Below I have listed in detail each department and
how it finished 2000 in terms of the budget.
REVENUES
The City projected revenues of $1,473,068 in 2000
and received revenues of $1,816,962. $208,224 of',
the overage was in Building Permits, which per City
policy has been transferred to the Capital
Improvements Fund. (All transfers are listed
below). These leaves us with a revenue surplus of
$135,670. The major contributors to the surplus
were the following;
Interfund Transfers - There were transfers of
$56,313 from various funds; the Capital Equipment
Fund to make the yearly payment on our purchase
agreement for the new Plow truck ($26,475), and the
Capital Equipment Fund for the completion of the
Public Works building ($29,838).
MSA Maintenance - This was projected at $74,000 and
we received $92,135, a surplus of $18,135.
Mobile Home Tax - No amount is budgeted for this
tax, which varies from year to year. The entire
amount of $17,928 is surplus.
Interest - This was projected at $18,000 and came
in at $34,139, a surplus of $16,139.
Conditional Use Permit/Variance Fees - This was
projected at $750 and came in at $13,446, a surplus
of $12,696. This is mainly due to the amount of
new development.
Charcxes for Service - We have a surplus in this
account of $12,459. The majority of this money is
from Administrative Fees paid by developers for
their developments.
Subdivision Fees - This was projected at $500 and
came in at $11,352, a surplus of $10,853. This is
mainly due to the amount of new development.
Mining Fees - This was projected at $2,000 because
it varies a lot from year to year. $12,033 came in
for a surplus of $10,033.
0r:
EXPENDITURES
The City projected expenditures of $1,473,068 in
2000 and actually spent $1,663,076. $102,367 of
that overage was Building Permits. When that is
removed, that leaves us with a deficit of
-$87,641.
There was a sizable deficit in the Street
Department (-$130,128) and smaller deficits in
Administration (-$17,922), Cleanup Day (-$14,629),
and City Hall (-$11,051).
We had surpluses in City Council ($32,091), City
Planner ($17,197), City Engineer ($15,757), Finance
($6,964), and City Attorney ($1,350).
I have listed below each department and .how it
finished in 2000.
MAYOR & COUNCIL
Mayor & Council was budgeted for $64,050 and spent
$31,959, for a surplus of $32,091. The major
contributors to the surplus were $21,771 in unspent
Contingency funds and $7,975 in unspent Council
Salaries. In 2001 Mayor & Council is budgeted at
$64,800.
ADMINISTRATION
Administration was budgeted at $271,811 and spent
$289,733 for a deficit of -$17,922. The major
contributors to the deficit were overages in
Contracted Services($4,566), Office
Equipment ($3,629), Equipment Rentals ($3,261),
Miscellaneous ($2,720), Small Tools($2,688),
Overtime ($2,477), Supplies ($2,310), and
Printing($1,901). In 2001 Administration is
budgeted at $277,677.
FINANCE
Finance was budgeted at $26,850 and spent $19,886
for a surplus of $6,964. Contracted Services (Gary
Groen's time and payroll costs) was budgeted at
$20,000 and spent $12,525 for a surplus of $7,475.
3
Our Auditing costs ran over by $1,255. In 2001
Finance is budgeted at $34,750.
ASSESSING
Assessing was
for a surplus
on the number
increasing.
$23,066.
ENGINEERING
Engineering
$22,243 for
Engineering
budgeted at $20,974 and spent $19,890
Of $1,084. Assessing costs are based
of parcels in the City, which is
In 2001 Assessing is budgeted at
was budgeted for $38,000 and spent
a surplus of $15,757. In 2001
is budgeted for $40,000.
LEGAL
Legal was budgeted for $30,000 and spent $28,650
for a surplus of $1,350. In 2001 Legal is budgeted
for $28,000.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Planning Commission is budgeted for $3,700 and
spent $3,465 for a surplus of $235. In 2001
Planning Commission is budgeted for $3,737.
PLANNER
The Planner was budgeted for $43,500 and spent
$26,302 for a surplus of $17,198. In 2001 the
Planner is budgeted for $33,800.
EDA
The EDA was budgeted for $15,356 and spent $13,639
for a surplus of $1,717. In 2001 the EDA is
budgeted for $16,291.
CITY HALL
City Hall was budgeted for $75,855 and spent
$86,906 for a deficit of -$11,050. The source of
the deficit was in Repairs & Maintenance/Building,
which had an overage of 18,077. There were
surpluses in Cleaning Services ($1,654), Utilities
($1,713), and Garbage Service ($1,092). In 2001,
City Hall is budgeted for $75,177.
4
POLICE
Police was budgeted for $168,536 and spent $167,994
for a surplus of $542. In 2001 Police is budgeted
for $205,400.
BUILDING INSPECTION
Building Inspection costs are a percentage of the
amount of Building Permits. The City paid $182,367
in 2001. The City earned $368,225 from Building
permits, so it came out $185,858 ahead. It was
budgeted to come out $80,000 ahead.
STREET MAINTENANCE
Street Maintenance was budgeted at $504,906 and
spent $647,549 for a deficit of -$130,128. One of
the major contributors to the deficit was the heavy
snows in November and December. Due primarily to
this we have deficits of $16,090 in Part -Time
Salaries and $21,047 in Sand & Gravel which is
related the high amount of snow. Other
contributors to the deficit are overages in
Contracted Services($39,825), Improvements Other
Than Roads (Public Works Building)($29,838),
Dustcoating($23,882), Repair/Maintenance
Supplies($15,706), and Sealcoating($11,505). In
2001, Street Maintenance has been budgeted for
$546,543.
RECYCLING
Recycling was budgeted at
for a deficit of -$1,321.
been budgeted at $42,000.
$38,000 and spent $39,321
In 2001 Recycling has
CLEANUP DAY
Cleanup Day was budgeted at $12,000 and spent
$26,629 for a deficit of -$14,629. Since Cleanup
Day was close to even, the reason for the deficit
was the cost of removing the old pile of junk
behind City Hall to the landfill. In 2001 Cleanup
Day has been budgeted at $13,000.
RIVER RIDER
River Rider was budgeted at $3,195 and spent $2,634
for a surplus of $561. In 2001 River Rider is
5
budgeted at $3,195.
COMMUNITY RECREATION
Community Recreation was budgeted at $21,328 and
spent $22,692 for a deficit of -$1,364. This
deficit was due to an increased amount of
participation from Otsego residents. In 2001
Community Recreation has been budgeted at $22,276.
PARK MAINTENANCE
Park Maintenance was budgeted at $22,866 and spent
$20,244 for a surplus of $2,622. In 2001 Park
Maintenance is budgeted at $23,775.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Historic Preservation was budgeted at $4,141 and
spent $2,417 for a surplus of $1,724. In 2001
Historic Preservation is budgeted at $4,141.
STREET LIGHTING
Street Lighting was budgeted at $16,000 and spent
$12,887 for a surplus of $3,113. In 2001 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 spent -$4,007 for both buildings.
Utilities ($2,477) were the bulk of the items.
Neither of these buildings has a budget for 2001.
ANIMAL CONTROL
Animal Control was budgeted at $3,000 and spent
$1,419 for a surplus of $1,581. In 2001 Animal
Control is budgeted at $3,000.
CODE ENFORCEMENT
Code Enforcement was budgeted at $9,000 and spent
$2,758 for a surplus of $6,242. In 2001, Code
Enforcement has been budgeted at $9,000.
0
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 2000.
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 $2,881,266. This is
enough to fund the next 6 years of bond payments.
The City could also use this fund to self -finance
(rather than borrow) the funds for the next phase
of the sewer plant expansion.
PARR 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 $632,169.
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. When park shelter construction is
closed out this year after the park shelter is
finished, the deficit will be made up by a transfer
from the Park Development Fund.
7
REVOLVING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
This fund consists of; cash left over when
improvement bonds are closed out, assessments sti'll
coming in yearly from those bonds, assessments on
City financed (non -bonded) improvements, and budget
surpluses from previous years. 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 $384,052.
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 $56,014.
FIRE FUNDS
The Fire Funds consist of the funds assessed each
property in the City for fire protection. 2000 is
the first year these funds have been broken into
sub -districts for each fire department. Staff went
back five years to examine where the fire
assessments came from and how much each fire
department billed the City.
Elk River Fire District - There is a surplus of
$97,493 in this district. The City was billed
$56,847 in 2000 from Elk River for fire protection.
Council should examine reducing the property
assessment in this district. Alternatively, funds
could be accumulated for construction of a fire
station.
Albertville Fire District - There is a surplus in
this district of $4,525. The City was billed
$17,520 in 2000 from Albertville for fire
protection.
Rosters Fire District - There is a surplus in this•
district of $11,540. The City has not been billed
by Rogers since 1998 which is undoubtedly the
source of the surplus. Rogers has been called
about this but has not billed us.
Monticello Fire District - There is a deficit in
this district of -$1,612. The City was billed
$7,350 in 2000 from Monticello for fire protection.
The City should consider a minor increase in its
assessment charge for fire protection in the
Monticello district.
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 fees and
assessments have been collected.
North Mississippi Watershed Fund - There is a
deficit in this fund of -$96,954. 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 $34,155. 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
0
the construction of an addition to, or major
remodeling of, City Hall. The balance in this fund
is $161,787.
10
2000 FUND TRANSFERS
This is an update of the transfers between funds
that have taken place in 2000.
1. Transfer of $105,858 of surplus 2000 Building
Permit revenues from the General Fund to the
Capital Improvement Fund per City policy.
2. Transfer of $26,475 from the Capital Equipment
Fund to General Fund to make the yearly payments on
the Loader.
3. Transfer of $149,699 from the 1999 Budget
Surplus to the Capital Equipment Fund to purchase
2000 Plowtruck.
4. Transfer of $29,838 from the Capital �quipment
Fund to General Fund to make the payment for the
completion of the Public Works Maintenance
Building.
5. Transfer of $138,000 from the General Fund
(Street Department 2000 Budget) for the City's
share of the 1999 Overlay Bond debt service.
cc: City Staff
11
714sr,
MEMO
Date: April 5, 2001
To: Mayor & Council
From: City Administrator Mike Robertson
Re: Merrili Asleson's Request
Merrili Asleson and her father will be appearing in
front of the Council under Special Presentation at
Monday's Council meeting. They have two reasons for
appearing.
They felt that their property on County Road 42 was
unfairly stigmatized as an unsafe property during the
discussion of Farr Development's senior housing and
medical clinic proposal. That would like the Council
to make some sort of statement that they do not
consider the property unsafe.
They are trying to sell the property and they would
also like to hear from the Council what land uses you
think might be acceptable for the site, assuming that
all other issues such as access, etc., can be worked
out.
cc: City staff
ELK RIVER
A R E A
ARTS
-OUNCIL
400 Jackson Avenue - Suite 105 - Elk River, Minnesota - 55330
March 20, 2001
Ms.Judy Hudson, City Clerk
Otsego City Hall
8899 Nashua Avenue Northeast
Otsego, Minnesota 55362
Dear Ms. Hudson:
�6�adc�
�D
763141.4715 elkriverart@gwest.net
The Elk River Area Arts Council has been supporting local artists and providing arts
opportunities for residents in School District 728 since 1988. Many of our members are
residents of Otsego, as are many more people who participate in programs we offer.
Among those programs are Strings for Youth (very affordable music lessons), Arts in
Harmony (a national juried art show) along with other art exhibitions, and ArtSoup (our
summer festival). Several Otsego residents also receive The Eddy, our newsletter which
reports on theater, music, literature, and visual arts opportunities as well as features work
from local student and professional artists.
As we plan events, we have been keeping Otsego residents in mind. For example, we
are presenting a series of low-cost bus trips to arts activities in the Twin Cities this year each
of which includes transportation from Rogers Junior High School and Elk River Senior High
School. We will attend the St. Paul Art Crawl and the exciting theatrical experience,
STOMP! this spring. A visit to the Uptown Arts Fair and additional theater and music
events are planned for next year.
Because we are a nonprofit organization, we must ask for financial support to continue to
develop programing which brings art to the area and brings our residents to art elsewhere.
For that reason, we have been asked to be placed on the April 9 agenda for the thownship
board meeting. We will be requesting $1,0000.00 to offset operational expenses. As
you consider our proposal, we hope that you will bear in mind that we work to fill gaps that
the schools and other civic and private agencies have not been able to provide for area
residents and that we respond directly to requests local people have made about enriching
the cultural vitality of the area.
Our representatives look forward to meeting with you on April 9, but should you have any
questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me before then.
Yours trul
Sharon L. Tra
Executive Director
CLAIMS LIST
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 9, 2001
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 any questions regarding this service, please let me know.
Claims Registers 3-29-2001 $ 3,558.44
4-4-2001 61,629.08
4-4-2001 1,414.04
GRAND TOTAL $ 66,601,56
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
Check Summary Register
10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER
UnPaid GRANITE CITY LEASING INC
UnPaid ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST
UnPaid PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FD
Check
Total Checks
Wednesday, April 04, 2oo1
Check Amt
$68.03
$331.92
$1,014.09
$1,414.04
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF OTSEGO Wednesday, April 04, 2001
Check Detail Register Pte' °f'
Check Amt Invoke Comment
10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER
Unpaid GRANITE CITY LEASING INC
E101-41400-413 Office Equipment Rental $68.03 TOSHIBA FAX MACHINE
Total GRANITE CITY LEASING INC $68.03
E 101-41400-121 PERA $201.92 PPE 3/31/01
G 101-21705 Other Retirement $130.00 PPE 3/31/01
Total ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST $331.92
Unpaid PUBLK: EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FD
G 101-21704 PERA $485.09 PPE 3/31/01
E 101-43100-121 PERA $266.70 PPE 3/31/01
E 101-41400.121 PERA $189.78 PPE 3/31/01
E 101-41550-121 PERA $72.52 PPE 3/31/01
Total PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT FD $1,014.09
10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER $1,414.04
10100 Ew
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
OF ELK
CITY OF OTSEGO
Check Summary Register
FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE CO
MEDICA
MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Check Daft
Total Checks
Thursday, March 29, 2001
Check Amt
$134.69
$3,393.75
$30.00
$3,558.44
Page 1 of 1
CITY OF OTSEGO Thursday, March 29, 2001
Check Detail Register Page 1 of 1
Check Amt Invoice Comment
10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER` '��.����?s
Unpaid FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE CO "'""`""�^^~�•�
E 101-41400-130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $94.50 STD -APRIL - ADMIN
E 101-43100-130 Employer Paid Ins (GENERAL) $40.19 STD -APRIL - P/W
Total FORTIS BENEFITS INSURANCE CO $134,69
E 101-41400-123 Heelth $1,961.48 101091114025 ADMIN -APRIL
E 101-43100-123 Health $1,43227 101091114025 P/W -APRIL
Total MEDICA 33,393.75
Unpaid MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY
E 101-45300-360 Education/Training/Conferences 330.00 JOYSWENSON
Total MINNESOTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY $30.00
10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER
10100 BANK OF ELK
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
Unpaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
UnPaid
CITY OF OTSEGO
Check Summary Register
AIRGAS, INC.
BANYON DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
BERLIN TIRE CENTER, INC
BOYER TRUCKS
COURI MACARTHUR LAW OFFICE
D & T LANDSCAPING do IRRIGATION
DEHMER FIRE PROTECTION
DELUXE BUSINESS FORMS & SUPPU
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
FINKEN'S WATER CARE
FYLE'S EXCAVATING & HONEY WAG
GROEN GARY CPA
H G WEBER OIL COMPANY
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOC INC
JERRY OLSON
LITTLE FALLS MACHINE
LONG & SONS
MONTICELLO ANIMAL CONTROL
NAPA OF ELK RIVER INC
NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP
RANDY'S SANITATION
TERMINAL SUPPLY CO
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Wednesday, April o4, 2001
Check Amt
$25.56
$1,104.17
$183.61
$6.29
$8,993.00
$170.00
$164.71
$63.52
$46.67
$71.28
$400.00
$900.00
$1,423.44
$16,960.82
$25,432.79
$2,175.99
$426.00
$32.00
$161.32
$195.00
$483.90
$2,018.33
$65.62
$125.06
Total Checks $61,629.08
Pogo 1 or 1
CITY OF OTSEGO Wednesday, April 04, 2001
Check Detail Register I I
Page 1 of 3
heck Amt Invoice Comment
10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER
E 101-43100-310 Miscellaneous $25.56 105855126 MISC
Total AIRGAS, INC. $25.56
BANYON DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
E 101-41600-390 Contracted Services $1,104.17 8002 SOFTWARE SUPPORT
Total BANYON DATA SYSTEMS, INC. $1,104.17
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $183.61 2800015098 2000 IH TRUCK
Total BERLIN TIRE CENTER, INC $183,61
E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $6.29 7804R FORD TRK
Total BOYER TRUCKS $629
Unpaid
E 101-41700-301 Legal Services
$240.00
COKLEY LIT
E 413-43100-301 Legal Services
$1,169.50
ODEAN AVE
E 101-41700-301 Legal Services
$1,040.00
STONEBRIDGE LEASE
G701-21927 O. Thompson CUP M18
$1,000.00
RIVERPOINTE
E 101-41700-301 Legal Services
$450.00
MORATORIUM
G 701-21938 TMH Development
$437.50
TODAY
E 418-43100-301 Legal Services
$400.00
78TH STREET
G 701-21940 The 'Point* - Big Ed's
$312.50
PULTE
G 701-21944 Bauerly/Bajari
$240.00
INDUSTRIAL PARK
E 101-41700-301 Legal Services
$2,660.00
GENERAL
G 701-21949 Stone Gate Estates
$218.50
STONEGATE
G 701-21969 Farr Development PUD
$187.50
FARR
E 101-41700-301 Legal Services
$150.00
SCHULENBERG
G 701-21961 Pheasant Ridge #rd & 4th
$125.00
PHEASANT RIDGE 4
G 701-21973 Pheasant Ridge 5th
$62.50
PHEASANT RIDGE 5
E 101-41700-301 Legal Services
$50.00
WATER TOWER
E 415-43251-301 Legal Services
$250.00
WASTEWATER
Total COURI MACARTHUR LAW OFFICE
$8,983,00
Unpaid ""` D & T LANDSCAPING IRRIGATION
E 101-41940-390 Contracted Services $170.00 SPRINKLER SERVICE
Total D & T LANDSCAPING & IRRIGATION $170.00
DEHMER FIRE PROTECTION
E 101-41940-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL) $164.71 8631 FIRE EXTO. SERVICE
Total DEHMER FIRE PROTECTION $164.71
Unpai — µDELUXE BUSINESS FORMS & SUPPU .—
E 101-41400-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL) $63.52 96147382 SALES SLIP FORMS
Total DELUXE BUSINESS FORMS & SUPPLI $63,52
Unpaid,,,, ECM PUBLISHERS INC N , ,,,,,., •� ,,,,,,,.
E 101.41400-350 Print/Binding (GENERAL) $46.67 108425 NOTICE OF PH
CITY OF OTSEGO Wednesday, April 04, 2001
Check Detail Register Page 2 of 3
Check Amt 1
..,.�::. nvolce Comment
Total ECM PUBLISHERS INC $46.67
Unpaid FINKEN'S WATER CARE
E 101-41400-310 Miscellaneous $31.14 TOWN HALL
E 101-41950-310 Miscellaneous $29.82 RENTAL HOUSE
E 101-43100.310 Miscellaneous $10.32 GARAGE & SHOP
Total FINKEN'S WATER CARE $71.28
Unpaid ��A FYLE'S EXCAVATING do HONEY WAG k...w
E 101-41400-310 Misceilaneous $125.00 10269 CITY HALL TANKS
E 101-43100-310 Miscellaneous $275.00 10269 PUMPING SHOP DRAIN
Total FYLE'S EXCAVATING & HONEY WAG $400.00
Unpaid GROEN GARY CPA
E 101-41600.390 Contracted Services $900.00 3/4 TO 3130
Total GROEN GARY CPA $900.00
Unpaid H G WEBER OIL COMPANY
E 101-43100-202
Gas & Oil
$460.88 39544
MISC
E101-43100-202
Gas & Oil
$604.40 39555
#13
E 101-43100-202
Gas & Oil
$88.46 39694
PUMP
E101-43100-202
Gas & Oil
$269.70 39728
#13
G 701-21940
Total H G WEBER OIL COMPANY
$1,423.44
THE POINTE
Unpaid w.. „"�„' HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOC INC w <
G 701-21969
Farr Development PUD
$867.68 3335
SENIOR HOUSING
G 701-21961
Pheasant Ridge #rd & 4th
$292.32 3336
PHEASANT RIDGE 4
G 701-21961
Pheasant Ridge #rd & 4th
$23.72 3337
PHEASANT RIDGE 3
G 701-21970
Bulow/Luconic
$112.50 3338
MEADOWLANDS
G 701-21940
The'Point' - Big Ed's
$75.00 3339
THE POINTE
G 701-21946
Crimson Ponds 2nd
$422.44 3340
CRIMSON PONDS
G 701-21922
Pheasant Ridge
$23.72 3341
PHEASANT RIDGE 1
G 701-21944
Bauerty/B ari
$187.50 3343
1-94 WEST
G 701-21936
Mississippi Pines PUD 00
$150.00 3344
MISSISSIPPI PINES
G 701-21949
Stone Gate Estates
$150.00 3345
STONEGATE
G 701-21912
PLT 99-4, D. Ullmer
$23.72 3346
PRAIRIE CREEK 1
G 701-21938
TMH Development
$487.50 3348
TO -DAY
E 101-41560-302 Engineering Fees
$105.00 3351
STAFF MEETING
E 413-43100-302 Engineering Fees
$2,132.63 3353
ODEAN #98.05
E 101-41560-302 Engineering Fees
$209.00 3354
MSAA
E 415-43251-302 Engineering Fees
$455.00 3355
PUMP HOUSE #98.02
E 101-41560-302 Engineering Fees
$70.00 3356
WETLANDS
E 415-43251-302 Engineering Fees
$670.18 3357
WASTEWATER/SEWER
G 701-21941
Pulte Homes
$187.23 3358
PRAIRIE CREEK 2
G 701-21947
Prairie Creek 3rd Addn
$153.16 3359
PRAIRIE CREEK
G 701-21922
Pheasant Ridge
$54.44 3360
PHEASANT RIDGE 2
E 101-41560-302 Engineering Fees
$840.00 3361
MISC ENG
G701-21927
O. Thompson CUP 99-18
$9,043.08 3364
RIVERPOINTE 1
G 701-21973
Pheasant Ridge 5th
$225.00 3365
PHEASANT RIDGE 5
Total
HAKANSON ANDERSON ASSOC INC
$16,960.82
Unpaid JERRY OLSON
CITY OF OTSEGO Wednesday, April 04, 2001
Check Detail Register Page 3 or 3
V..... :... Check Amt Invoice
E 101-42410.390 Contracted Services
Comment
$25.432.79
MARCH 2001
Total JERRY OLSON
$25,432.79
Unpaid LITTLE FALLS
E 101-43100-220 R"r/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$408.45 25957
94 FORD TRK
E 101-43100-220 Repair/MaintSupply(GENERAL)
$884.81 25958
20001H TRK
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply(GENERAL)
$882.73 25959
2000 IH TRK
Total LITTLE FALLS MACHINE
$2,175.99
Unp
E101-41400-389 Cleaning Services
$426.00
MARCH CLEANING
Total LONG & SONS
$426.00
Unpaid MONTICELLO ANIMAL CONTROL
"""""""""""'^^
E 101-42710-390 Contracted Services
$32.00 213
DOG PICK UP
Total MONTICELLO ANIMAL CONTROL
$32,00
Unpaid '� ���' SApA OF ELK RIVER INC
`°"°'
E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$17.02
E 101-43100-310 Miscellaneous
94 FORD TRK
E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$19.51
$23.41
MISC
E 101-43100-310 Miscellaneous
$44.62
92 FORD TRK
E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$61.34 829646
MISC
86 CHEVY PICKUP
E 101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
($4.58) 829690
MISC
Total NAPA OF ELK RIVER INC
$161,32
Unpaid H
E 602-49450-322 Utilities
$195.00 31040
17330 53RD STREET
Total NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY
$195.00
Unpaid PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL GROUP
"�""".'""`"M"'",�"'.'^^'~�^.�^,,..x„�,,.^^,.m...:^^•„^^^,�,.x.,
E 101-43100-123 Health
$240.88
p/W
E 101-41400-123 Health
$243.02
ADMIN
Total PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL- GROUP
$483,90
Unpaid RANDY'S SANITATION
^•'
E 101-43610-390 Contracted Services $1,928.75 1-39247 3
RECYCLING
E 101-41940-325 Garbage Service
$89.58 1-87254 0
GARBAGE SERVICE
Total RANDY'S SANITATION
$2,018.33
Unpaid ` M w� k:.w MNw ...w TERMI WL SU
�� ,� <•x
E101-43100-220 Repair/Maint Supply (GENERAL)
$65.62 10765-00
MISC
Total TERMINAL SUPPLY CO
$65.62
Unpaid WASTE MANAGEMENT
E 101-43610.390 Contracted Services
$125.06 0094000-1593-
RECYCLING
Total WASTE MANAGEMENT
$125,06
10100 BANK OF ELK RIVER $61.629.08
1--47Z_tn (, .
r' 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 nac@w-internet.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 3 April 2001
RE: Otsego - Vetsch; Planning Commission Recommendation
NAC FILE: 176.02 - 01.02
Please be advised that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their
meeting on April 2, 2001 to consider the above referenced request.
There were no comments from the applicant or the general public. The Planning
Commission did not discuss the request.
After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend the
City Council approve the requested Zoning Map amendment. Findings of fact consistent
with the Planning Commission's recommendation are attached for consideration at the
April 9, 2001 City Council meeting.
pc. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Larry Koshak
Ron Wagner
Todd Vetsch and Kristy Miller
James and Judith Vetsch
CITY OF
OTSEGO
91IM1i
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Zoning Map Amendment
Findings of Fact
& Decision
Applicant: Todd Vetsch and Kristy Miller, on behalf of James and Judith Vetsch
Request: Consideration of a Zoning Map amendment to rezone a 74.4 acre property located
at the northeast quadrant of CSAH 19 and 80th Street from A-1 District to A-2 District to establish
additional development rights allowed by the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of creating one
new residential lot.
City Council Meeting Date: 9 April 2001
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 property is described by attached Exhibit A.
2. The 74.4 acre property lies within the Agricultural Preserve area and is guided for
continued agricultural use by the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update.
3. The property is zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District; The applicant is requesting
the property be rezoned to A-2, Agricultural Long Range Urban Service District to establish
additional development rights allowed by the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of
creating one new residential lot.
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 subject property is within the Agricultural Preserve established by the
Comprehensive Plan. This area anticipated continued agricultural activities with
some allowance for rural residential use until such time as City approved sanitary
sewer and water service may be available. The Comprehensive Plan prescribes a
maximum density of four units per forty acres for parcels with public street frontage
and one unit per forty acres for parcels without public street frontage. Within the
Zoning Ordinance, the A-2 District is intended to implement the allowance of rural
residential development at four units per forty acres, whereas the A-1 District is more
restrictive one unit per forty acres for preservation purposes.
The subject site is 74.4 acres in size. There is one existing residential dwelling on
the property. Therefore, based upon the size of the parcel and existing
development, no additional building rights exist under the present A-1 District zoning.
Under the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, however, as many as six additional
building rights may be established by rezoning to A-2 District.
The proposal to rezone the subject site to A-2 District in order to allow for one new
residential lot to be created (at this time) is consistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan to allow a minimum level of rural residential development that
may compatibly exist with agricultural activities.
B. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Finding: The proposed rezoning will allow for creation of one and possibly more
residential lots at a density of four units per forty acres with street frontage. This
level of development is consistent with the rural character of the area, which is
expected to continue until such time as City approved sanitary sewer and water
services may be available.
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 of one lot from the subject property can be processed
by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 2 of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Although the subdivision is to be processed as a separate application and is not be
considered as part of this request, the following performance standards apply to the
anticipated minor subdivision request:
Access. The proposed lot is to access off of 80"' Street, which is designated
a local street by the Comprehensive Plan. Local streets are intended to
provide access directly to individual properties. The width of the access to
80th Street from the subject property must be in accordance with the
standards of the Engineering Manual, Standard Plate 109.
Lot Area. The minimum lot size within the A-2 District is one acre in
accordance with Section 20-52-6.A.1. The proposed lot must be large
enough to provide for a building site within required setbacks and two septic
drainfreld sites.
Lot Width. Section 20-52-6.A.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that lots
within the A-2 District must have at least 150 feet of frontage to a public
street, measured at the front setback line.
Lot Depth. Within the A-2 District, lots must be at least 150 feet deep as
required by Section 20-52-6.A.3.
Setbacks. Based upon the proposed lot fronting 80" Street, the required
setbacks are 35 feet front, 30 feet on each side yard and 50 feet in the rear
yard. A lot that meets the minimum lot area, width and depth requirements
of the A-2 District should not have any issue meeting setbacks. ,
Feedlot Setbacks. There is a registered feedlot on the adjacent property to
the east. The farm to the south of the subject property is not a registered
feedlot. Section 20-27-9 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that new
residential lots be setback at least 1,000 feet from the facility. This
requirement dictates that the proposed lot must be located in the southwest
corner of the subject site.
Drainage and Utility Easements. Section 21-7-15 of the Subdivision
Ordinance requires that a 10 foot drainage and utility easement be
established at the perimeter of the proposed lot. The need for any additional
drainage and utility easements are subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
Park and Trail Dedication. Section 21-7-18 of the Subdivision Ordinance
requires dedication of land for parks and trails as part of requests to subdivide
and develop property. As the City is not have plans for establishment of
parks or trails effecting the subject property, a cash fee in lieu of land is
required. The present cash fee is $1,075 per lot created. This cash fee in
lieu of land is to be paid at the time the administrative subdivision is
processed.
D. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Finding: The requested rezoning is not anticipated to have any negative effects to
the area in which it is proposed as it is within the guidelines of the Comprehensive
Plan.
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. The rezoning will allow for division of a new residential lot accessing 80"'
Street. This street is designated as a local street by the Comprehensive Plan which
is being improved with an overlay project. The proposed use resulting from the
rezoning is not anticipated to generate traffic beyond the capabilities of this street.
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 t6 --the City's
service capacity as it is within the scope of development anticipated by the
Comprehensive Plan.
5. The planning report dated 28 March 2001 prepared by the City Planner, Northwest
Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein.
6. The Otsego Planning Commission conducted a public hearing at their regular meeting on
2 April 2001 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 6-0 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 information received to date
PASSED by the Otsego City Council this 9th day of April, 2001.
Attest:
CITY OF OTSEGO
Larry Fournier, Mayor
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
4
ORDINANCE NO.:
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO
TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR PROPERTY
LEGALLY DESCRIBED BY EXHIBIT A.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
Section 1. The official Zoning Map of the Otsego Zoning Ordinance is hereby
amended to change the zoning classification of the property legally described by Exhibit
A (the "property').
Section 2. The property is hereby rezoned from an A-1, Agriculture - Rural Service
District designation to an A-2, Agriculture - Long Range Urban Service District (General)
designation.
Section 3. The Zoning Administrator is hereby directed to make appropriate
changes to the official Zoning Map of the City of Otsego to reflect the change in zoning
classification set forth above.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage
and publication.
PASSED by the Otsego City Council this 9th day of April 2001.
CITY OF OTSEGO
Larry Fournier, Mayor
ATTEST:
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
"GINTIAWSST ASSOCIATED k"C'
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 nac@winternet.com
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 3 April 2001
RE: Otsego - Stonegate Estates; 2"d Addition Final Plat
FILE NO.: 176.02 - 01.10
BACKGROUND
Tollefson Development, Inc. has submitted an application for final plat approval of the
second (and final) addition of Stonegate Estates. The proposed final plat, legally
described as Outlots F and G of the Stonegate Estates 1" Addition, consists of 92
townhouse unit lots and one outlot. The subject site is within the sanitary sewer service
district and is zoned R-6 District. The preliminary plat of Stonegate Estates was approved
by the City Council on September 26, 2000.
Attached for Reference:
Exhibit A:
Site Location
Exhibit B:
Findings of Fact
Exhibit C:
Preliminary Plat
Exhibit D:
Final Plat
ANALYSIS
Preliminary Plat Consistency. The design of the proposed final plat mirrors that of the
approved preliminary plat. This final plat includes 12 two -unit structures, five four -unit
structures, and eight six -unit structures. City Staff should verify that none of the
townhouse structures are to be located closer than one half the sum of adjacent building
heights with submission of scaled building elevations as part of the building permit.
Phasing. The Comprehensive Plan directs that the City is only to approve final plats likely
to be constructed within two years of the date of approval. The reason for this policy is to
ensure that required improvements are installed as they may impact adjacent development
and to ensure that the City's service capacity is not underutilized. The applicant is final
platting what was proposed to be the second and third phases of this subdivision.
Potential limitations on future sanitary sewer capacity is believed to be the primary reason
for final platting both phases at this time.
In that the applicant had previously indicated a three year build out for this project, it may
be expected that the project will be complete within two years based upon existing market
and economic conditions. The developer must also pay up front for service capacity as
part of the development contract protecting the City's interests. Finally, no other
developments are dependent upon the improvements within Stonegate Estates. As such,
approval of the final plat is not inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Outlots. The final plat includes one outlot. Outlot A covers the common area between the
residential units and the area of the private street within the final plat. Consistent with the
City's past practice, a drainage and utility easement will be established over all of Outlot
A.
Park and Trail Dedication. The applicant dedicated the land for future development of
School Knoll Park as part of the first addition, as a 57.4 percent credit for park and trail
dedication requirements. The balance of the park dedication is to be based upon 42.6
percent of the City's present cash fee in lieu of land per unit. This formula is shown
below.
92 units x $458.38/unit = $42,170.96
Construction Plans. The applicant has provided construction plans addressing grading,
drainage, streets and utilities. These elements must be consistent with the provisions of
the Subdivision Ordinance and Engineering Manual subject to review and approval of the
City Engineer.
Development Contract. If the City Council approves the final plat, the applicant must
enter into a development contract with the City. The development contract requires the
applicant to pay applicable fees and dedications and post required securities. The
development contract is subject to review and approval of the City Attorney.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The requested Stonegate Estates 2"d Addition Final Plat is consistent with the approved
preliminary plat. As such, our office would recommend approval of the application subject
to the following conditions:
-2-
No townhouse structure is located closer than one-half of the sum of adjacent
building heights, subject to approval of City staff.
2. The applicant pay $42,170.96 in park and trail dedication cash fee in lieu of land
in combination with the land dedicated with Stonegate Estates 1 'Addition, subject
to review and approval of the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council.
3. All construction plans and easements are subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and pay all
applicable fees and securities, subject to review and approval of the City Attorney.
5. Comments of other City Staff.
pc. Mike Robertson
Elaine Beatty
Larry Koshak
Ron Wagner
Andy MacArthur
John Anderson
-3-
►u
A1o►w#--*
UNTHE GREA"I' RIVER ROAD
AP
Dn
)n
nc
YYY
CITY OF
0403-01
OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA Final Plat
Findings of Fact
& Decision
Applicant's Name: Tollefson Development, Inc.
Request: Request for final plat approval of Stonegate Estates 2"d Addition, consisting of 92
townhouse unit lots and one outlot.
City Council Meeting Date: 9 April 2001
Findings of Fact: Based upon review of the application, the City Council of the City of Otsego
now makes the following findings of fact:
The legal description of the property is as described as Outlot F and Outlot G of Stonegate
Estates.
2. The property lies within the Sanitary Sewer Service District and the property is guided for
medium-high density residential land uses by the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update.
3. The property is zoned R-6, Residential - Townhouse, Quadraminium, and Low Density
Multiple Famiy District; Townhouse uses are a permitted use within the R-6 District.
4. The Stonegate Estates Preliminary Plat and PUD -CUP was approved by the Otsego City
Council on September 25, 2000.
5. The proposed final plat consists of 92 townhouse unit lots and one outlot.
6. The planning report dated 3 April 2001 prepared by the City Planner, Northwest Associated
Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein.
7. The engineering review dated 2 April 2001 prepared by the City Engineer, Hakanson
Anderson Associates, Inc., is incorporated herein.
8. The final plat application is processed in accordance with the provisions of Section 21-3-3
of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Decision: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the requested
Stonegate Estates 2nd Addition Final Plat is hereby approved based on the most current plan and
information received to date, subject to the following conditions:
No townhouse structure is located closer than one-half of the sum of adjacent building
heights, subject to approval of City staff.
EXHIBIT B
2. The applicant pay $42,170.96 in park and trail dedication cash fee in lieu of land in
combination with the land dedicated with Stonegate Estates 1"Addition, subject to review
and approval of the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council.
3. All construction plans and easements are subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
4. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and pay all applicable
fees and securities, subject to review and approval of the City Attorney.
PASSED by the Otsego City Council this 9th day of April, 2001.
CITY OF OTSEGO
Larry Fournier, Mayor
Attest:
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
2
I
-NY-ld7il 1579NISVI Of
V 1y1d ANVNIN113Hd U)
'ONI IN314dO13A30 NOS43-1101
, to
.S31YIS3 31iO3NOIS
tu
Mvs
'A
V-1
43
I Fall!
Rig
4w
fie 6
f':1 N
VN
'3'N 31114-4111 tv
R.]Q.
d -J]°-
12'SY
STONEGATE ESTATES SECOND ADDITION
OD
SwDD N RD
- lDlD
1.
o Iw
24
$
23
1
e
28 38 48 58 L. 68
L. 8y 18�
28w
38t 48r 5886
z°m Aro ..DD ww
mw
_
. XNOIEJ '.NW �DrRw[xi rDURD.
JI1 M1 Z iET'aMRt Or{ rE,,R .Y �.RE<DRpxD
x 'wi Rwi, ul0 uRRR[D 9r REOSiRw;wr, Opwi.
�RMiwMNr Ci 'IRS 3[wRK iKiEu i5 3wSED ar 1ME
3FYbq�iY �SiSQ,6G°R ESTwiq �iw u wSAwfO
0
o 50 00 150
SCALE.
I
EXHIOT D-2
John Over d As
6.2
ENGINEERING REVIEW4'��
Hakanson Residential Subdivision
Anderson for the City of Otsego
Assoc., Inc. by
Hakanson Anderson Associates, In T.
Submitted to: Mike Robertson, Administrator
cc: Judy Hudson, City Clerk,
Dan Licht, City Planner
Andy MacArthur, City Attorney
Tollefson Development, Inc., Developer
John Oliver & Associates, Surveyor
John Oliver & Associates, Developer's Engineer
Reviewed by: Lawrence G. Koshak, P.E.
Ronald J. Wagner, PE
Date: April 2, 2001
Proposed
Development: Stonegate Estates 2nd Addition
Street Location
of Property: NW '/4S E '/4 Section 22, T121, R23
16.4 ± Acres, West of CSAH 42 and South of 85th Street
Applicant: Tollefson Development, Inc.
900 W. 128" St., Suite 107
Burnsville, MN 55337
Developer: Tollefson Development, Inc.
Owners of Record: Kevin and Benita Lefebvre
8585 Parrish Ave. N.E.
Otsego, MN 55330
Purpose: Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Town Homes
Jurisdictional Agencies:
(but not limited to): City of Otsego, Wright County
Permits Required
(but not limited to):NPDES
Considerations:
G:Wlunicipat\AOTSEGO\2235\ot2235RVW1 doc
INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Stonegate Estates 2nd Addition Construction Plans dated 3/21/01
Sheet 1 — Cover Sheet
Sheet 2 — Overall Construction Plan
Sheets 3 through 6 — Sanitary Sewer & Watermain Plans
Sheets 7 through 10 — Street and Storm Sewer Plans
Sheets 11 & 12 — Civil Details
City of Otsego Engineering Manual, March 1999, 2/27/01 Revision
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410 — EAW Requirement
Trunk Stormwater Facilities Study for Portions of Lefebvre Watershed, March 1999
City of Otsego Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, February 1991
National Wetland Inventory Map, 1991
G:\Municipal\AOTSEGO\2235\oL2235RVW1.doc
COVER SHEET
No comment.
OVERALL CONSTRUCTION PLAN
1. Label construction limits.
SANITARY SEWER & WATERMAIN
1. Show and label insulation in plan and profile.
2. Water valves must be added. Spacing shall be a minimum of 1 valve every 1000( ± )
feet, and the number of valves at a tee or cross should be one less than the number
of legs (i.e. a tee must have 2 valves and a cross must have 3 valves).
3. Include elevations for services.
4. Add "Connect To Existing 8" DIP Watermain" on 83rd Street, Parrish Avenue, and
Parkington Avenue. Include stations.
5. Add "Connect To Existing Sanitary Sewer" on Parrish Avenue and Parkington
Avenue. Include stations.
6. Note that watermain must be wet -tapped into existing 16" watermain. A gate valve is
required also.
7. Add manholes to keep Sanitary Sewer & Watermain away from buildings & out of the
way of utilities.
STREETS
1. There is not enough grade on Parkington Avenue to push water around the radius
into CBMH 115 on 83�d Street. An additional catch basin or a cross gutter is needed.
2. There is not enough grade on Parkington Avenue to push water around the radius
into CBMH 106 on Parrish Avenue. An additional catch basin or a cross gutter is
needed.
3. Label radii at intersections. (20' MIN)
4. The updated Otsego Engineering Manual requires 5" of Class 5, 100% crushed.
Bituminous shall be in accordance with MnDOT 2350.
5. Include horizontal curve data.
6. include radii for roundabout.
G'WMunicipalWCTSEGO\22351ot2235RVW1 doc
7. Sheet 7 shows the roundabout having a highpoint in the island and everything drains
to the outside curb, while the drainage plan shows a crown in the center of the
roundabout street. Please clarify. The plan shown on sheet seven is preferred.
STORM SEWER
1. Provide 0.1' or 0.08 diameter points fall across all manholes.
2. Show locations where insulation is needed in plan and profile.
3. Geotextile fabric or granular filter blanket is needed at FES outlets rather than wood
fiber blanket. (wood fiber blanket is required at inlets)
4. Specify type of casting and each invert elevation for all structures.
5. Is CBMH 112 needed or can it be a STMH? If it is to be revised into a STMH, locate
the manhole in the island of the roundabout such that the storm pipe will follow the
curb line on 83rd Street and Parkington Avenue.
6. Stormwater calculations fer spread and inlet spacing is required.
CIVIL DETAILS
1. Chimney seals are now required on all sanitary sewer manholes. See standard
plates 308, 309, and 310.
2. Curb stop covers are required for curb stops installed in driveways. See standard
plate 207.
3. Steel posts are now the only option for service markers.
SUMMARY AND/OR RECOMMENDATION
Resubmit for review.
G: WlunlclpaMOTS EGO\2235\ot2235RVW 1.doc
Sivn 6.3.
"00THwaST ASSOCkATI110 �ows��x���s� %MCI
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
PLANNING REPORT - addendum
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 4 April 2001
RE: Otsego - Pheasant Ridge 5°i Add.; Revised Plans
NAC FILE: 176.02 - 01.03
BACKGROUND
The City Council approved the rezoning, PUD -CUP and preliminary plat applications
subject to conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission and City Staff at their
meeting on March 26, 2001. Following this action, the City Council reconsidered the
action and tabled applications at the applicant's request. The City Council directed the
applicant to meet with City Staff to discuss the issues of single family lot width and
setbacks, and private street design.
City Staff meet with the applicant and project builder on March 29, 2001. The Elk River
Fire Chief was also present at this meeting. The applicant has since submitted revised a
site plan and preliminary plat for consideration. These revised plans are reviewed in
subsequent paragraphs.
Exhibits:
A. Revised Site Plan/Preliminary Plat
ANALYSIS
Single Family Lots. The proposed R-6 District zoning of the subject site requires single
family lots to have a minimum width of 60 feet and ten foot side yard setbacks. The side
yard setbacks translate into a minimum of 20 feet between structures.
The site plan and preliminary plat have been revised to provide the single family units with
55 foot lots with side yard setbacks of 10 feet on one side of the building and five feet on
the other, with at least 15 feet between buildings. The structures have been laid out such
that the garage side of one structure abuts another. This creates a larger green area
between buildings than if the garages were all on the same side of each unit. During the
staff meeting, the builder indicated that there would be more than one potential building
design for the single family unit, although no additional plans were provided by the time
this report was drafted. The changes to the site plan and preliminary plat has resulted in
elimination of two single family units. The applicant indicated to staff that conformance
with the R-6 District standards would result in a loss of four units from the original site plan.
The performance standards required within the R-6 District serve to define the
community's desired development character and aesthetics. The lot width and side yard
setback requirements of the R-6 District address qualities of visual and practical open
space and building massing. Deviation from these standards as part of a PUD should only
be allowed when a finding can be made that the flexibility is consistent with the purpose
and intent of the requirement.
The R-6 District already allows for a more compact, higher density single family dwelling
development pattern than the City's R-4 or R-5 Districts. The R-4 and R-5 Districts would
require 12,000 square foot lots with minimum 75 foot lot widths and ten foot setbacks on
each side yard. As noted previously, the Planning Commission and City staff are
concerned that allowing lot width or side yard setbacks that results in less building
separation will create a crowded street appearance and poor separation between
dwellings that are shown to have full size windows on the side walls. The revised plans
with 55 foot wide lots and five foot yard setbacks do not change our office's opinion or
recommendations on these issues.
It was suggested to the applicant that the City Council may consider that the dwellings are
all to be a single story. The one story buildings will obviously have less visual mass than
a taller structure. The R-6 District would allow two or three story buildings to be
constructed, subject to Planning Commission and City Council approval. Also to be
considered is the applicant's proposal to use more than one building facade or design.
Variation in the building design would serve to mitigate the monotony of having 20 of the
same structures in a tightly designed row. If this approach is pursued, we would
recommend a minimum of four different facades be used, with no single facade located
closer to the same than every three units. Such a requirement would serve to prevent the
same building face every other unit.
The previous site plan had also proposed 25 foot front yard setbacks to Street A for the
single family units, whereas 35 feet is required. The revised site plan illustrates a 35 foot
setback for all of the single family lots.
-2-
Private Street Width. The other issue with the proposed plat was the width of the private
streets serving four or more of the townhouse units, as shown on Exhibit C. The City's
past practice and City Engineer's recommendation is that such private streets be at least
28 feet wide with concrete curb. The original site plan proposed 18 foot streets without
curb.
The site plan has been revised to provided 20 foot wide private streets. It was discussed
at the staff meeting that curb would also be provided, although the plans do not show it.
The applicant has based the width of the private drives on the interpretation of the Elk
River Fire Chief that these are fire access lanes, which by Fire Code must have a minimum
unobstructed width of 20 feet. These access lanes would be posted "no parking - fire
lanes", which would allow (and require) the Sheriff to have vehicles towed to keep the
lanes clear.
As discussed with the applicant at the staff meeting, the basis for the recommended private
street width is the need to provide adequate access and area in combination with the'/
stall per unit of guest parking for likely parking demand. Whereas in a single family lot
fronting a public street there would be available space within the driveway and along the
street for parking, no such situation exists for the townhouse units. The changes proposed
by the applicant address access concerns, if enforced by the City, but not that of overflow
parking. Further, the increased width of the fire access lane has reduced the available
area in front of some garage stalls to less than 25 feet, which is what the City requires to
allow sufficient area for parking while maintaining visibility.
Staff indicated that we would be willing to support a 24 foot width for private streets serving
four units or less, which is equal to two driving lanes or three eight foot wide segments.
Any change in the width of these private streets must include curb and should also include
adjustments to the site plan to provide a minimum of 25 feet between of each garage and
the private street.
CONCLUSION
In review of the revised site plan and preliminary plat, City Staff does not believe that the
modifications do not adequately address the original concerns regarding the design of the
single family lots and private street width. We still believe that the overall concept of the
project is appropriate and would be consistent with the City's goals if the performance
standards at issue are complied with. As such, we would still recommend approval of the
PUD -CUP and preliminary plat subject to those conditions outlined in the Planning Report
of March 14, 2001, which were also recommended by the Planning Commission by a 7-0
vote.
-3-
At the meeting on March 26, 2001, the City Council tabled action on the PUD -CUP and
Preliminary Plat applications. The Council had previously passed a motion rezoning the
site to R-6 District. As such, it is necessary only to consider action on the PUD -CUP and
Preliminary Plat at this time.
Decision 1 - PUD -CUP and Preliminary Plat
A. Motion to approve a PUD -CUP and Preliminary Plat for Pheasant Ridge 5'Addition
based upon the current plan and information received to date, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Preliminary plat approval does not guarantee access to sanitary sewer
service. The City shall only guarantee sanitary sewer service to approved
final plats with signed contracts or through financial commitment for such
services to assure the City of timely development.
2. Private drives serving four or more units shall be designed to a width of 28
feet with concrete curb. The design and construction of all public or private
streets shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
3. The preliminary plat is revised such that all single family lots have a
minimum width of 60 feet measured at a minimum front yard setback of 35
feet.
4. Side yard setback requirements for single family uses shall be five feet one
side and fifteen feet on the opposite side of the structure with not less than
20 feet between structures.
5. The preliminary plat is revised to designate common lot 86 as an outlot with
an overlying drainage and utility easement.
6. A homeowners association shall be established, subject to review and
approval of the City Attorney.
7. Park and trail dedication shall be made by cash fee lieu of land at the time
of final plat approval, subject to recommendation of the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
8. All grading and utility issues are subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and pay
all applicable fees and securities upon approval of a final plat, subject to
review and approval of the City Attorney.
-4-
10 Comments of other City Staff.
B. Motion to deny the application based upon a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Specific
policies should be cited).
C. Motion to table the application (Specific direction should be provided to the
applicant and/or staff on additional information to be provided).
PC. Mike Robertson
Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur
Lang Koshak
Ron Wagner
Rick Packer
-5-
m
i1 t
60 O
W
!
go
0. a.
1
>>svA a
!�
4{aall
�e•t
�
g
i}
�s
all
. . . .......•
U()!)!PPV MRA
v 1011lq
TmI
"wv
= * "I — _—I
rm
Auvd
lua;d7=
9032V
oil
x
-----------
so,
.-T
W -W
00
101
n go I
.. ei
9
. . . ........ .....
it 91
GOPNER TE ONE�cALL
CO w
------------------ ----------
TF rj--
83 7* 7 r es 67
5 82 77 74 7a 4
17
RECOMMENDED 24' WIDTH
7 8 %4
co ow LoT of
35 tf
37
13
-T
2o28
r 2D
21 2
3A
23
rcon
4
7
Development
Company
3ua.
21
4
3
ovrLor A
2
=1 V Q I
Pheasant Ridge
Y.d
Fifth Addition
-—--—-
— — — — ------- ----——-————-
— —
"in- EXHIBITA-1
site Plan
Z -V 1191HX9
A
wo
.1%, 'o9-10
U014!PPV q4jiA alt �.n,.ea r . i / .
PIN 4imsualla
.1 51
u dw
L 0
jualndolaAKI
V.
4L
at 101 MONIMMM
. . . . . . . . . !K/ ` « l
R
,a M dO z
99
---- IL-
------- ----
SL
K omoo
CITY OF
OTSEGO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Applicant: Arcon Development Inc.
4-5-01
PUD -CUP & Preliminary Plat
Findings of Fact
& Decision
Request: Consideration of a PUD -CUP and preliminary plat entitled °Pheasant Ridge 5t'
Addition" for development of 111 residential units on property legally described as Outlot B of
Pheasant Ridge (the "property").
City Council Meeting Date: 26 March 2001
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 as Outlot B of Pheasant Ridge.
2. The 38.7 acre property lies within the Sanitary Sewer Service District and is guided for low
density residential land uses by the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update.
3
Q
The property is zoned R-6, Low Density Multiple Family District; Single family and
townhouse residential uses are permitted uses of the R-6 District.
The Planning Commission and City Council must take into consideration the possible
effects of the PUD -CUP 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 designates the property forlow density residential
development. Low density development is defined for local purposes as less than
five units per acre. Although "low density' is typically realized as single family
development, it is possible to develop other housing types within the context of this
land use classification. In this case, approximately 21 percent of the subject parcel
is undevelopable wetland areas or right-of-way. The concept plan proposes I I I
units on approximately the gross 38.65 acres, or 2.8 units per acre. As such, the
concept plan is consistent with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan in terms of
density. Even if density is calculated on a net basis (excluding wetlands and rights-
of-way), the project has 3.6 units per acre density.
The Comprehensive Plan also encourages development of alternative housing
designs or different sizes and costs to supplement existing conventional single family
development in response to market forces. The proposed single family units and
may be distinct from other single family options within the City, which may make
them attractive to specifically to empty nest households. Therefore, within the
parameters of density and performance standards of the R-6 District, the proposed
uses may be considered to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
B. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Finding. The areas surrounding the subject parcel is planned for low density
residential development. Only the area to the north and northwest has been
preliminary or final platted with single family residential. Due consideration has been
given to this issue in the layout of the site plan for the townhouses with one story
structures arranged at the perimeter and two story units within the center of the this
area of the project. Further, the majority of the townhouse units on the east
perimeter are setback double the minimum requirement to increase separation from
planned low density uses to the east.
C. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Finding: As a new subdivision, the project will be required to conform to all applicable
provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and terms of the PUD -CUP.
D. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Finding: This proposal is within the scope of development anticipated by the
Comprehensive Plan and therefore is not likely to have a negative impact to 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: The proposed will be served by Page Avenue and 7e Street for primary
access. Secondary access will be provided for most of the units with a future
extension of Street A to the east when the adjacent parcel develops. These streets
will have adequate design capacity to accommodate the proposed development.
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.
2
Finding: The proposed use is not anticipated to have a negative impact to the City's
service capacity as it is anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan within a designated
service area.
5. The planning reports dated 14 March 2001 and 4 April 2001 prepared by the City Planner,
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., is incorporated herein.
6. The engineering review dated March 20, 2001 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
19 March 2001 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 PUD -CUP and preliminary plat based on the aforementioned findings.
8 The City Council at their meeting on March 26, 2001 tabled consideration of the application
at the applicant's request to allow the applicant an opportunity to meet with City Staff and
attempt to resolve outstanding design issues with the site plan and preliminary plat.
Decision: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the requested PUD -
CUP and Pheasant Ridge 5` Addition Preliminary Plat is hereby approved based on the most
current plan and information received to date, subject to the following conditions:
Preliminary plat approval does not guarantee access to sanitary sewer service. The City
shall only guarantee sanitary sewer service to approved final plats with signed contracts
or through financial commitment for such services to assure the City of timely development.
2. Private drives serving four or more units shall be designed to a width of 28 feet with
concrete curb. The design and construction of all public or private streets shall be subject
to review and approval of the City Engineer.
3. The preliminary plat is revised such that all single family lots have a minimum width of 60
feet measured at a minimum front yard setback of 35 feet.
4. Side yard setback requirements for single family uses shall be five feet one side and fifteen
feet on the opposite side of the structure with not less than 20 feet between structures.
5. The preliminary plat is revised to designate common lot 86 as an outlot with an overlying
drainage and utility easement.
6. A homeowners association shall be established, subject to review and approval of the City
Attorney.
7. Park and trail dedication shall be made by cash fee lieu of land at the time of final plat
approval, subject to recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission.
8. All grading and utility issues are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
�. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and pay all applicable
fees and securities upon approval of a final plat, subject to review and approval of the City
Attorney.
PASSED by the Otsego City Council this 9th day of April, 2001.
CITY OF OTSEGO
By:
Larry Fournier, Mayor
Attest:
Judy Hudson, Zoning Administrator/City Clerk
i:Acm -7, J.
April 5, 2001
Mike Robertson
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Re: Well #1 2001 Services
Dear Mike:
We received three quotes for the Well #1 2001 servicing at our office on April 5, 2001.
The three quotes are listed below in order of the totals:
E.H. Renner & Sons $ 4,750
Traut Wells $ 6,155
Bergerson-Caswell, Inc. $14,660
The quote provided for an hourly bid for sand removal. Wkw. The 1s'
and 2nd bidder had $350/hour and $150/hour respectively for that item. If the pumping
requires 7 hours, the difference between the two would make the bids even. We hope the
sand removal will not take more than a day.
Individual prices were quoted in case repairs are needed on the pump and/or the motor.
Bidder #1 is lower than #2 on field service charge and Bidder #2 is lower than Bidder #1 on
the shop service charge.
There are several variables involved when considering a recommendation to accept Bidder #1
or #2 because they could be close. However, E.H. Renner & Sons is our recommendation to
the Council for Award.
If you have further questions, please call.
Sincerely,
Hakanson Anderson Associates, Inc.
Lawrence G. Koshak, P.E., City Engineer
LGK:dlc
Enclosure
cc: Judy Hudson, Clerk
Andy MacArthur, Esq.
Michael C. Couri-
Andrew J. MacAtthur
Robert T. Ruppe—
`Also Iicenud in 111 now
•'ALw licensed in Califomia
April 3, 2001
COURI & MACARTHUR
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box .369
St. Michael, MN 5.5.3 76-0.369
(763) 497-1930
(763) 497-2599 (FAX)
couriatulmacanhur®pobox. com
City Council Members
City of Otsego
c/o Mike Robertson, City Administrator
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: Proposed Joint Powers Agreement- Community Recreation
Dear Council Members:
At the request of the City I have reviewed the proposed Joint Powers Agreement, and
have the following suggested changes:
1. Page 2, first paragraph, last sentence, should read as follows: "Adjustment of a current
year's monthly payments either upwards or downwards shall be made by comparing
actual expenditures in the previous year to the amount budgeted in that year."
2. Page 2, second paragraph, last sentence should read as follows: "The annual report
shall be prepared in such form that the Community Recreation Board and parries to this
Agreement can compare activities actually conducted with the proposed activity program
which was the basis for the preparation of the annual budget."
3. Page 2, third paragraph, the last word in the last sentence should be changed from
"power" to "authority".
4. Page 2, No. 3, first paragraph under "District Responsibility", the third item should
read as follows: " Community Education and Community Recreation will not provide
recreational programs or services (including to non-member municipalities) which are
duplicative of programs or services offered by the other."
5. Page 2, No. 3, second paragraph, first sentence after first colon, the word "including"
and appropriate commas should be added.
Letter to Otsego City Council
April 3, 2001
Page 2
6. Page 3, No. 5, A, at the end of the third sentence should be added "... and the local
government for which they are deemed an employee."
I would add this as a precaution since anyone deemed an employee for any purposes, and
who is treated as an employee, may have potential recourse against the City in the event
of termination or other actions which affect employment. The City should at least be
given some input into the situation to be able to prevent potential arbitrary actions.
7. Page 3, No. 7 should read as follows: "Any party to this Agreement can terminate its
membership upon six months written notice to the Community Recreation Board and all
other parties to this Agreement. Teiinination sliall be effective six months after the date
that the Notice of Termination is received by Community Recreation."
If you have any questions regarding this Agreement I will be available to answer them at
the Council meeting Monday evening.
Very trul yours,
rew J acArt
Z��
COURI & MACARTHUR
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 2001 6:30PM
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
Roll Call: Mayor Larry Fournier, Councilmembers Suzanne
Ackerman, Vern Heidner, Jerry Struthers, and Virginia Wendel
were present. City Staff: Michael Robertson.
INTERVIEW POTENTIAL COMMISSION MEMBERS
Council interviewed Terry Long, 8880 Jaber Avenue; Jon Zack,
14378 70th Street; Jim Gaikowski, 8768 O'Brian Avenue; and
David Thompson, 8393 Ochoa Court. Pauline Nelson and Sharon
Carter were scheduled to be interviewed but did not attend.
Mayor Fournier explained to all interviewees that the
Council would make a decision at their April 9, 2001 meeting
and inform everyone by mail.
Terry Long, 8880 Jaber Avenue - Terry Long has lived in St.
Michael since 1983 and moved to Otsego in 2000. He is a
construction supervisor for KeyLand Homes, a single family
home builder. His company does not do development. His
interest in the Planning Commission is due to seeing other
cities grow in good and bad ways, and wanting to help Otsego
grow in a good way. He favors commercial/industrial
development and small neighborhood parks. He thinks Otsego
is on the right track. He would favor the Comp Plan over
his personal desires. He has.not attended any City
meetings, and has only a small interest in commissions other
than the Planning Commission.
Jon Zack, 14378 70th Street - He grew up in New Jersey, came
to Minnesota for school and moved to Otsego 2 years ago. He
interested in dealing with growth issues. He feels Otsego
is a good place to live but that it needs to develop an
industrial base and build more neighborhood parks. He would
not automatically support the Comp Plan. He has not
attended any City meetings. If he could not be a Planning
Commissioner he has some interest in the EDAAC.
Jim Gaikowski, 8768 O'Brian Avenue - He has lived in Otsego
one year and is a civil engineer by training. His company
has not done any work in Otsego. He wants to be involved
with and assist in the growth of the City. He thinks -the
City should continue to upgrade and widen streets, add more
bike trails, and promote business growth. He likes the mix
of residential lot sizes in the community. He would lean
toward supporting the Comp Plan over personal feelings. He
has not attended any City meetings. If he could not be a
Planning Commissioner he has a mild interest in the park
Commission.
Councilmember Ackerman left the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
_David Thompson, 8393 Ochoa Court - He has lived in Otsego '2-
'A years. He was on the Charter Commission in Columbia
Heights and would like to be involved in a growing
community. He thinks the City is doing a good job but
should stay on top of growth and keep working to develop the
tax base. He would support the Comp Plan over personal
desires. He has been a member of the Snowmobile Committee.
If he could not be on the Planning Commission he would like
to be on the EDAAC.
With no further business Mayor Fournier adjourned the
meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Michael Robertson
City Administrator
ccminwrk/mr
MEMO 9 C
Date: November 9, 2000
To: Mayor & Council
From: City Administrator Mike Robertson
Re: Appointments to City Commissions
The following terms on the following City
Commissions are up at the end of 2000.
PLANNING COMMISSION
The seats held by Arleen Nagel and Carl Swenson.
At the end of 2001 the seats of Richard Nichols,
Patrick Moonen, and Steve Schuck are up.
PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION
The seats held by Tom Baillargeon and Tony Faust.
The seats formerly held by Nicole Martin (2001) and
Sue Kroll (2000) have not been filled. No other
seats are open at the end of 2001.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
The seats held by Elaine Noren and Ron Black. At
the end of 2001, the seats held by Joy Swenson,
Arlene Holen, and Joanie Nichols are up.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ADVISORY COMMISSION
The seats held by Gabe Davis and Vince Peterson.
There are no seats up in 2001.
cc: City Council
City Staff
I+em 9. f. ry.
`Y1__ •
Date: April 4, 2001
To: Mayor & Council
From: City Administrator Mike Robertson
Re: Census Population Estimate
Updated 2001 Population Estimate
We have received our population estimate from the
United States Census Bureau. As of April 1, 2000 they
estimate that Otsego's population is 6389.
Since this population estimate was made just as new
home construction began in Otsego it is already out of
date. An updated population estimate, based on new
home construction, is that as of January 1, 2001
Otsego's population is 6674.
For those who are interested, the following assumptions
were made to estimate Otsego's population;
1) Each newly occupied single family home is assumed
to hold 3 occupants.
2) Each newly occupied town home is assumed to hold
2.5 occupants.
3) Births and deaths of existing population are
assumed to cancel each other out.
cc: City staff
I. /'s
CITY OF OTSEGO
PUBLIC WORKS SUB COMMITTEE MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2001
MINUTES
Members present: Councilmember Ackerman, Mayor Fournier.
Staff present: City Administrator Robertson, Maintenance
Supervisor Chase.
Councilmember Ackerman called the meeting to order at 4:00
p.m.
1. Report on Downtown Service Road
Dave Chase noted that the service road serving Tom Thumb,
Godfathers Pizza, etc., is breaking up. He has received a
quote from Rum River Contracting for an overlay at a cost of
$15,730. This overlay would be proceeded by minimal
patching and could be expected to last 2-4 years before the
road would begin deteriorating again. The Public Works
Subcommittee directed Robertson to send a letter to the
businesses along the service road inviting them to the April
23, 2001 Council meeting to decided whether they wanted an
overlay or whether they wanted the road rebuilt with sewer
and water. Robertson said that he would have the City
Engineer update the report on estimated costs for that area
for the meeting on the 23-1
2. Purchase of a 1 Ton Pickup
Dave Chase stated that he would like to purchase a 1 Ton
Pickup with dump box and plow. This would be used for
primarily for hauling sand and gravel, and plowing cul-de-
sacs and intersections. If a snow blower attachment was
purchased, it could also be used to plow trails and
sidewalks. The Committee directed Chase to research the
best equipment and bring price estimates to them by budget
time.
3. Purchase of Tractor -Mowers
Dave Chase said that he would like to bid on two tractor -
mowers that Wright County has up for auction. Robertson
noted that this was in the budget for 2001. The
Subcommittee authorized Robertson to submit bids for the
mowers.
4. Flooding Potential on the Mississippi River
Dave Chase said that he has been contacted by Wright County
and told that flooding is predicted for the Mississippi
River in Otsego just south of the Parrish Avenue bridge.
Dave is trying to line up a pump through either the County
or the City of Delano, who we usually borrow one from. Due
to the short timeline, the Subcommittee authorized Dave
Chase to purchase a used pump if he was unable to borrow
one.
* Dave was able to arrange to borrow a pump from the City 'Of
Delano.*
S. Adjournment
With no further business Councilmember Ackerman
adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m.
Michael Robertson
City Administrator
11"4./.0
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-12
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT, MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION PURCHASING TAX FORFEITED LAND FOR A PUBLIC
PURPOSE USE AS A STORMWATER HOLDING AREA
WHEREAS, the City of Otsego has determined that a tax
forfeited property described as property ID 118-03700-5040,
Lot 4, Block 5, Walesch Estates 2nd Addition, can be used
for a public purpose by the City of Otsego as a stormwater
holding area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
OTSEGO, MINNESOTA:
1. The City of Otsego wishes to obtain this property from
Wright County for use as a stormwater holding area and
hereby directs the City Clerk and Mayor to execute such
paperwork as is necessary to do so.
Dated this 9th day of April, 2001.
CITY OF OTSEGO
Larry Fournier, Mayor
ATTEST:
Judy Hudson, City Clerk
1* -.nn 9. /.
l�1�II•7
Date: April 5, 2001
To: Mayor & Council
From: City Administrator Mike Robertson
Re: Newsletter Editor
The Administrative Subcommittee received a bid from
Jackie Rognli several weeks ago to resume being the
editor of the Otsego View. I was directed to find out
how the communities around us are doing their
newsletters and to try to obtain a few more quotes to
see if she gave us a good price.
The communities around us are listed below. All of
them produce their newsletters in slightly different
ways, making it difficult to compare them. I have also
listed below the price quotes that I have received. I
would be happy if the Council could find someone to do
the newsletter, as it would free up some of my time to
concentrate on other things.
PRICE QUOTES
Jackie Rognli - $125 setup charge for first issue.
$875 per issue. Will suggest articles and provide
research, writing, and editing of articles. Will take
photos, layout copy (typesetting), and deliver
newsletter to printer.
City provides any articles it wants, proof reading, and
pays for printing and mailing.
Kowler Associates - $200 setup charge for first issue.
$1,000-$1,200 per issue depending on complexity. Will
typeset and mail to City.
City provides all articles, photos, proof reading,
delivers newsletter to printer, and pays for printing
and mailing.
Elk River Printing & Party - No setup charge. $900-
$1,000 per issue depending on complexity. Will typeset
and mail to City.
City provides all articles, photos, proof reading,
delivers newsletter to printer, and pays for printing
and mailing.
ADJACENT COMMUNITIES
St. Michael - 4 page newsletter. They do their
articles in house. The Mayor, City Administrator, City
Planner, Public Works Director, and City Clerk do an
article for each issue. Sent out for printing.
Published 4-6 times a year.
Elk River - Size of newsletter varies, usually 8 pages.
They do their articles in house. The Mayor, City
Administrator, Police Chief, Fire Chief, City Planner,
City Engineer, Building Official, and City Clerk all do
articles. Frequently articles submitted by Park Board,
EDA, and other commissions. Published 6 times a year.
Dayton - 4 page newsletter. They do most of their
articles in house, will occasionally accept outside
articles. The Mayor, City Administrator, Police Chief,
City Planner, Public Works Supervisor, and City Clerk
all do articles. Published 4 times a year.
Monticello - 8 page newsletter. They do their articles
in house. The Mayor, City Administrator, City Planner,
Economic Development Director, City Engineer, Building
Official, Fire Chief, and City Clerk all do articles.
Frequently articles submitted by Park Board, and
occasionally by other commissions. Published 6 times a
year.
cc: City staff
news.wps
K
now
■t■
E®E
April 2, 2001
Mr. Mike Robertson
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Ave NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Dear Mike:
Central Minnesota Housing Partnership, Inc.
P.O. Box 2222 • St. Cloud • Minnesota • 56302-2222
'prr�c�o� d�
The Central Minnesota Housing Partnership is currently working with a variety of communities
in Wright County that are interested in completing a County Wide Housing Plan. The following
is some general information regarding the plan. We are planning to start the project in late April,
so we would like communities that are interested to contact us before April 20`b.
Program Requirements
1. Each City will contribute $500 to the project to match the grant funds, which will pay for the
remaining cost of the plan.
2. The grant lasts through 12/31/01 which means plans should be in their final format by
November 2001.
3. Each community must hold at least one public meeting to solicit feedback from the
community.
4. The plan must include some discussion/recommendations for affordable housing.
5. We will also do some brief follow-up with communities to determine how the housing goals
are being implemented.
Housing Plan Process
1. Community decides to participate in the process and signs a letter of agreement with the
CMHP that outlines responsibilities for each party and the commitment of $500.
2. CMHP and/or a Consultant will gather demographic information for the City and County.
This will be used to analyze existing trends within the community and projections will be
developed for future growth to define needs.
3. Community input will be gathered. The number and format greatly depends on each City. I
encourage you to think of how you would like these formatted. You may have existing
PH 320.259.0393 —A MINNESOTA NtIVF?0IT CORPORATION— E-MAIL cmhp810@cloudnet.com
MN TDD 1.800.627.3529 IQ„-&, WEB PAGE cmhp.net
FAX 320.259.9590 °°`°p'°""'
Reasonable accommodations are available
committees and activities occurring in your community that these meetings could coincide with.
The number of meetings is at the discretion of the City, but we would need to probably limit
these to a maximum of three meetings per City. Some ideas could include:
• What is affordable housing and who does it serve?
• To hold a meeting in conjunction with an existing committee such as your HRA,
EDA, Planning Commission, Chamber of Commerce or City Council.
• To hold a meeting in conjunction with a process or project you have in your
community. A few examples would be if you community is undergoing strategic
planning or is updating your Comp Plan.
• A public meeting designed strictly to address housing in the community.
4. We will then utilize the demographic information and community input to develop area gaps
and identify recommendations to meet area housing needs. This area will include overall
housing recommendations, housing policies, and resources to meet housing needs. In regards to
the recommendations, we will provide the community with some broad recommendations for
housing, but we will not provide project specific recommendations.
I would encourage you to contact me if you have any questions or concerns on this information.
I can be reached at (320) 259-0393 or at lisa(@cmhp.net.
Sincerely
�(Z'
,
-�
Lisa Graphenteen
Community Development Manager
Page 1 of 2
Otsego City Hall
. rom:
"Lisa Graphenteen" <lisa®cmhp.net>
To:
"Otsego City Hall" <cityhall®ci.otsego.mn.us>
Sent:
Wednesday, April 04, 2001 8:21 AM
Subject:
Re: Wright County Housing Plan
Mike
I apologize for this being the first time you heard about the plan. I was working off a contact list from the EDP of Wright
County and I did not realize you were not a member until last week. This process came about when I had a few
communities from Wright County interested in our housing plan program and I had also met with Heidi Peper to talk about
housing and economic development. We then decided to determine the interest of communities in completely a county
study. We have six communities committed so far and are working with the others to determine interest.
The plan would contain the following information:
A detailed demographic analysis of the community including population, household, employment and housing data. It
would include both historical data and projections. Our housing analysis would include information on the existing multi
and single family housing market including availability, rents/prices, and amenities.
From the analysis we would then develop recommendations. I have been telling communities that this is a
comprehensive process and will not include project specific information. For example recommendations could look as
follows:
25 to 50 assisted living units for seniors
30 to 60 units of affordable rental units priced between $600 to $800 per month
100 to 150 market rate single family homes
.ie study would not provide project specific information such as:
A 24 unit townhome project should be developed that consists of 18 3 -bedroom units and 6 2 -bedroom units. Rents
should be $650 for the 3 -bedroom units and $575 for the 2 -bedroom units.
Finally, the plan will outline some resources available for housing development or rehabilitation projects.
Now in some cases communities may also be going through their Comprehensive Plan process where they would also
like some recommendations for housing policies which can also be incorporated.
I think it is also important to note that although this is a county study, information will be presented for separately for each
community so that you can better utilize the information.
I hope this information is helpful and please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any other questions.
Lisa Graphenteen
CMHP
----- Original Message
From: Otsego Qfty Hall
To: LISA.0CMHP,NIzT
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 1:48 PM
Subject: Wright County Housing Plan
kpril 3, 2001
Lisa:
I've just received your letter about the Wright County Housing Plan. This is the first I have heard about it. Your letter
4/4/2001
Page 2of2
outlines a process, but says nothing about why the City of Otsego should pay money to be involved in this study.
What's in it for Otsego? What would we receive for our $500?
,'lease reply to me by Monday, April 9, 2001 as I met with the Otsego City Council that evening.
Thank you.
Michael Robertson
City Administrator
4/4/2(x)1