2005-12-08 Review
..
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC.
MEMORANDUM
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231.2561 planners@nacplanning.com
Jt~O
b~C I ~lp~
<> <Q(l5 :.tJ
Larry Kruse / Mike Couri
TO:
FROM: Michael Darrow / Alan Brixius
DATE: December 8, 2005
RE: Albertville- Cedar Creek Golf Course
NAC FILE: 163.05 - 05.11
At your request we have reviewed the Cedar Creek Golf Course files regarding flexibility
granted as part ofthe PUD agreement. On August 12, 1997 the City approved the
Cedar Creek Golf Course PUD conceptual master plan for Kenco and Pilot
Development. The request included approval of a conceptual master plan inclusive of
an 18-hole golf course, single family and two-family housing. The PUD designation was
desired to allow flexibility in street design, lot sizes, lot widths, and front yard setbacks.
As a condition of approval, the concept had to be endorsed by St. Michael's.
In exchange for flexibility granted to the developer, an 8-foot trail was constructed along
one side of Karstan Avenue and continued along one side of 53rd Street. A trail
connection was also provided from County Highway 118 on the east end of Town Home
area 3 on the master plan into Center Oaks Phase 3 and 4.
A park dedication requirement and cash in lieu of land was also required at the time of
final plat. Two park areas were provided within the project: 2.17 acres in Center Oaks
and 5.09 acres in Cedar Creek North. With a gross area of 329.83 acres at a 10%
dedication requirement, the total park dedication amount was 32.98 acres of land or a
cash equivalent. From that total, 7.26 acres of land was subtracted, as was the acreage
for the overall trail corridors and the costs to construct designated trails.
As part of the development agreement, the area designated for the 18 hole golf course
shall be restricted in use only as an 18 hole golf course with typical complimentary
accessory uses related to and commonly associated in the industry of golf uses. Such
restriction shall run with the land and shall bind ALL future assignees and/or successors
in interest. The restriction on use of the land only for golf course purposes may be
modified only upon the written authorization of the City, and the City shall exercise sole
discretion in determining whether to allow any use other than an 18 hole golf course on
the property shown as a course on the property.
Kenco Development History
The following time line provides a chronological history of Kenco's involvement in
developing the western portions of the City. This plays a critical role in highlighting
Kenco's knowledge of the City's planning both prior to and during completion of the
Comprehensive Plan update.
March 22, 1995
April 13, 1995
April 25, 1995
May 3, 1995
May 24,1995
June 5, 1995
June 7, 1995
June 13, 1995
June 28, 1995
July 3rd, 1995
July 5, 1995
July 11, 1995
July 27, 1995
Staff meeting held to discuss conceptual plans for a large
subdivision and golf course development. Kenco presented the
proposed plans and the NAC listing of issues was reviewed.
Formal proposal submitted by Kenco for a PUD featuring
Cedar Creek an 18 hole, par 72 golf course.
Planning Commission policy discussion held at regular monthly
meeting regarding Kenco golf course proposal and annexation
request.
The City attorney developed a letter highlighting issues associated
with the Parkside Addition and golf course proposal.
Application made by Kenco for Parkside 3rd Addition.
Staff meeting held to discuss Kenco development options.
Planning report prepared by NAC regarding Parkside 3rd for the
June 13, 1995 agenda.
Parkside 3rd Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning and
preliminary plat considered by Planning Commission.
Revised conceptual plans submitted as Parkside 3rd.
Staff meeting held to discuss Kenco overall concept plan.
Memo prepared by NAC to address issues with Parkside 3rd
proposal.
Planning Commission meeting held to discuss Parkside 3rd
preliminary plat; preliminary plat is approved subject to 15
conditions and submittal of revised plans.
Revised preliminary plat submitted for Parkside 3rd.
2
August 1, 1995
Planning Commission meeting at which approval was
recommended for the subdivision of 89 single family parcels
and two commercial lots known as the Parkside 3rd Addition.
January 22, 1996 Conceptual golf course plan submitted showing all lots at R-1
standards.
February 2, 1996 Revised concept plan submitted for all Kenco land.
February 5, 1996 Golf course concept submitted which varies significantly from
the first, showing much smaller lot sizes and multiple family
developments.
February 7, 1996 NAC report prepared which highlighted numerous concerns relative
to the golf course proposal.
City Attorney prepared memo which highlighted marketing and
financial concerns, among other issues.
February 13, 1996 Planning Commission at which Kenco withdrew its original
plan for Parkside 3rd and proposed a new subdivision concept
and golf course plan. City Planner indicates that the proposal
is an extreme deviation from earlier concept plans a$ well as
the Zoning Ordinance and that the proposed plan is in
opposition with the City's intent for this area.
February 1996
March 1996
Kenco submitted golf course proposal encompassing 350 acres
with 485 residential sites varying between 9,000 and 12,500 square
feet. The proposal states that "under current conditions
Albertville could support 10 upper bracket homes ($150,000
plus) with an amenity such as a golf course being added, this
number could triple. If the parcel were to develop under R-1
standards with no golf course, homes would bring a market
value of $105,000 to $140,000."
The proposal includes a comparison of 75 versus 90 foot lot widths
and states a 90 foot lot will sell for $29,000 the executive lots will
possibly have a pool of builders with a wide variety of homes and
models. The sale price of homes would be in the $100,000 to
$300,000 range.
Kenco withdraws concept plan for golf course due to lack of
support, the elimination of town homes and the request to
reduce the number of 75 and 80 foot lots.
3
March 22,1996
April 9, 1996
April 30, 1996
May 9,1996
May 14, 1996
May 29, 1996
June 17, 1996
June 18, 1996
June 19, 1997
Letter from Meyer-Rohlin to City noting submission of information
for April 9th Planning Commission meeting and included a revised
concept plan for all Kenco land west of CSAH 19. The letter states
that "due to anticipated poor soils in the area of the proposed
collector road near County Road 118, we are proposing a change
from the collector road concept to a loop road concept."
Planning Commission meeting held to consider the Parkside 3rd
Preliminary Plat, continued until April 30th, 1996 to allow time for
plans to be revised.
Planning Commission meeting held to consider the revised plans of
Parkside 3rd Preliminary Plat, continued until May 14, 1996. Kenco
was present at the meeting. Individual planning districts were
discussed relative to proposed land uses, with summaries of issues
and graphics distributed. The May 9, 1996 Kenco letter was based
upon this data.
Letter submitted to Gary Hale from Kenco which makes
observations and recommendations regarding the proposed
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specific comments include
"District Two and Eight do not include 15,000 square foot lots, no
other land owner is singled out in any district in Kenco." The letter
goes on to state that "Kenco supports the City's efforts in clearing
up questions of area density, since we are land owners of several
different land uses."
Planning Commission meeting, Parkside 3rd Preliminary Plat is
approved.
Social, economic and fiscal sections of the Comprehensive Plan
Inventory sent to Kenco from NAC.
Comprehensive Plan update is adopted
R1-A, Low Density Single Family Residential District adopted
P/l Public/Institutional District adopted
Official Zoning Map adopted.
City receives letter from Kenco requesting answers to questions
regarding lot pricing, home sales, future home values, buildable
area, etc.
The City Council approved a request for PUD and rezoning.
Pilot Development Company submitted plans for a preliminary
4
plat for the subdivision of 90 single family lots. The plat,
named Cedar Creek North, is located on the south side of
CSAH 37 at the western City limits. The plat contains four
outlots, three of which A, B, and C are zoned R-5, Medium
Density Multiple Family and will be developed in the future.
Outlot D will be part of the future Cedar Creek South plat
which will incorporate the golf course and additional housing.
The property is zoned R1-A Low Density Single Family but
rezoning is requested to PUD (not including the outlots) in
order to accommodate the unique coving design within lot
widths and structure setbacks which vary from the standard R-
1 A requirements.
October 6,1997 The approved a conceptual master plan inclusive of an 18 hole
golf course, single family and two-family housing. A PUD
designation is desired to allow flexibility in street design, lot
sizes, lot widths, and front yard setbacks. Rezoning the
property from R1-A to PUD.
5
,-
e
7-29-97
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
Planning Commission.
Findings of Fact
& Recommendation
Applicant's Name: Cedar Creek. Golf Course Planned Unit Development. Kenco & Pilot
Development
Request: Approval of a conceptual master plan inclusive of an 18-hole golf course, single
family and two-family housing. A Planned Unit Development designation is desired
to allow flexibility in the street design, some lot sizes, lot widths, and front yard
setbacks~
Planning Commission Meeting Date: 12 August 1997
Findings of Fact: Based on review of the application and evidence received the Planning
Commission now makes the following findings of fact and recommendation:
1. The legal description of the subject property is as follows: (see attached)
2. The NAC memorandums dated 10 ar:ld 29 July 1997, the SEH memorandum dated 12
August 1997, and the memorandum prepared by Mike Couri dated 6 August 1997 are
incorporated herein.
3. The requirements of Sections 300 (rezoning) and 2700 (Planned Unit Development) of the
City Zoning Ordinance have been met.
Recommendation: Based on the foregoing considerations and applicable ordinances, the
applicant's request for rezoning and concept plan approval has been approved based on the
most current plans and information received to date, subject to the following conditions:
1. The number of single family lots does not exceed 278 and the number of twin/town home
units does not exceed 74.
2. All lots are 15,000 square feet or greater with the exception of 11 lots in Cedar Creek
South and 5 lots in Center Oaks (all 16 of which are 12,500 square feet minimum).
3. The town home development in Cedar Creek North (Area A) shall be designed to allow for
individual ownership of structures, but control of common areas and overall maintenance
of the project shall be via a homeowners association. The town home layout permits the
addition of some three car garages.
4. Varying front yard setbacks shall be documented at the final plat stage and shown on
plans.
~12.
~ 13.
~14.
/ - .
/The cul-de-sac option shown adjacent to golf holes 8 and 10 near the center of the
development is acceptable and shall include a center island to be maintained by the golf
course or homeowners association crews. The plants within the island should be capable
of withstanding snow and salt impacts expected throughout the winter months.
6.
Private roads will provide access to Town home Areas Band C of the project located along
County Highway 118 and on-street parking on one side of thestreet in Area C is planned
to accommodate visitors. Design issues such as curb cut locations on Highway 118 and
street width will require approval at the time of final stage development by City and County
Engineers.
7.
Right-of-way is provided adjacent to County Highway 118 as required by Wright County
for future highway improvements and/or by the City/County for future trail improvements ~
(8 foot on-street trail on one side; to be decided later).
8.
Protective netting is utilized along County Highway 118 if it is deemed necessary by the
City Council after one year or more of golf course operation;
9.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet is completed for all of the property included
within the Planned Unit Development.
10.
Emergency access is provided via public easement from the double cul-de-sac in Cedar
Creek South to the southwestern most street in Cedar Creek North. This easement shall
also allow for public golf cart and trail connection to the existing KadlerAvenue. The
methods used to improve this corridor to allow for year-round emergency access while
preventing its use by intruders shall be determined in detail at the time phase 4 is
implemented.
11.
All grading, drainage, utility, and wetland mitigation issues are approved by the City
Engineer.
Two park areas have been provided within the project: 2.17 acres in Center Oaks and 5.09
acres in Cedar Creek North. With a gross land area of 329.83 acres at a 10% dedication
requirement, the total park dedication amount is 32.98 acres of land or a cash equivalent.
From this total, the 7.26 acres of land is subtracted as is the acreage for overland trail
corridors and the costs to construct designated trails.
The 1997 park dedication fee (recommended by the Planning Commission at $1,300/unit
or as otherwise approved by the City Council in September) shall be set at the designated
level through December 31, 2001 by which time all final development phases are expected
to be complete. Should one or more final plats be delayed and are not approved by such
date,the unapproved phases will be subject to any changes in park fee schedules.
..
An eight (8) foot trail shall be constructed along one side of Karstan Avenue (the main
north-south road between CSAH 37 and Center Oaks/53rd Street) and continued along
one side of 53rd Street to CSAH 19). A trail connection shall be provided from County
Highway 118 on the east end of Town home Area C to the north into Center Oaks phase
3or4.
Cedar Creek Golf Course PC FOF - Page 2
;t 18.
19.
20.
,.
'=:,['"
The Jots located on the SOuth side of Winter Park shall be reconfigured slighlly to provide
added space for trail access YAlere they lie in close proximity to the weiland and to ensure
trail use during wet seasons/years.
16.
Prior to sale of lots in the project, illustrative plans are disclosed to potential buyers to
avoid resident complaints relative to non-conventional house placement throughout the
subdivision.
17.
This concept plan approval is contingent upon SI. Michael's endorsement of the same
plan.
The phasing plan is approved with assurances that phases 3, 4, 5 arid 6 of the project are
not approved until the 9011 course is constructed and "grown in". (see 6 August Couri
memo).
Planned Unit Development, association and maintenance agreements are prepared as
part of the future development stage Portion of the project.
A revised master plan is submitted as part of the Planned Unit Development's
Development Stage YAlich incorporates all items addressed herein. This plan will serve
as the gUide for all future Final Stage development.
Adopted by the Albertville Planning CommiSSion this 12th day of August 1997.
Attest:
City of Albertville
. By:
Howard Larson, Chairman
Linda Houghton, City Clerk
pc: Don Jensen, Gary Hale, Linda Houghton, Mike Couri, Pete Carlson
Cedar Creek Golf Course PC FOF - Page 3
~'.i>
<I
,.,
5-19-97
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
FILE COPY
City Council
Findings of Fact
& Decision
Applicant's Name: Cedar Creek North. Pilot Development Co.
Request: Pilot Development Co. has submitted a preliminary plat for the subdivision of 90
single family lots. The plat, named Cedar Creek North, is located on the south side
of CSAH 37 at the western City limits. The plat contains four outlots, three of which
(A, B, and C) are zoned R-5, Medium Density Multiple Family and will be developed
in the future. Outlot D will be part of the future Cedar Creek South plat which will
incorporate the golf course and additional housing. The property is zoned R-1A,
Low Density Single Family but rezoning is requested to Planned Unit Development
(not including outlots) in order to accommodate the unique "coving" design within
which lot widths and structure setbacks vary from the standard R-1 A requirements.
City Council Meeting Date: 3 June 1997
Findings of Fact: Based on review of the application and evidence received, the City Council
now makes the following findings of fact and recommendation:
1) The legal description of the subject property is as follows:
(see attached)
2) The Planning Report dated 7 May 1997, prepared by NAC, Inc. and the 13 May 1997
report prepared by SEH are incorporated herein. .
3) On 13 May 1997 the Albertville Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
consider the applicant's request, preceded by a published and mailed notice. Upon review
of the application and evidence received, the Planning Commission closed the public
hearing and recommended that the City Council approve the project.
Decision: Based on the foregoing considerations and applicable ordinances, the applicant's
request has been approved based on the most current plans and information received to date,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The City Council finds the requested rezoning from Low Density Single Family to Planned
Unit Development acceptable and in conformance with the rezoning criteria contained in
the City's Zoning Ordinance.
2. The vacation of existing Kadler Avenue is approved by the City Council's of the City of
Albertville and the City of Otsego. The developer must petition both cities for vacation of
this street. No temporary or permanent access shall be allowed from the Cedar Creek
North plat to Kadler Avenue.
3.' The lot labeled access easement which is intended to provide future access to/from the
excepted BeckeT parcel shall be platted as an outlot. Such outlot shall be deeded to
Becker upon vacation of Kadler Avenue to provide access to Karstan Drive/Avenue.
4. All lots within the plat which include a portion of Kadler Avenue (assuming its vacation)
shall be revised to be exclusive of this existing roadway in terms of lot area and shall
contain a minimum of 15,000 square feet. The Kadler Avenue right-of-way shall be shown
on the plat as a thirty-three (33) foot roadway easement which upon approval by the City
Council may be abandoned.
5. Lot widths varying between 80 and 188 feet with 38 percent of the lots at or above the R-
1A (100 foot) lot width is acceptable.
6. Front structure setbacks varying from 30 feet to 90 feet are acceptable and are set as the
minimum requirement as shown on the plat.
7. Side yard setbacks for all lots shall be ten (10) feet for interior lots and thirty (30) feet for
corner lots. Rear yard setbacks on all lots shall be twenty-five (25) feet.
8. Twenty-five (25) percent site coverage shall be used as the maximum amount of lot area
that can be occupied by the house and other structures.
9. The maximum building height shall be set at 35 feet for all lots.
10. The dedicated right-of-way for CSAH 37 is reviewed and approved by the Wright County
Engineer.
11. The two main street names within the plat shall be changed to Karstan Avenue and
Karstan Drive so as not to cause confusion with existing Kadler Avenue.
12. The submitted Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan will be subject to review and
approval by the City Engineer.
13. The submitted Water and Sanitary Sewer Plan will be subject to review and approval by
the City Engineer.
14. The submitted Wetland Mitigation Plan will be subject to review and approval by the City
Engineer and the Wright County Soil and Water Conservation District.
15. The configuration of Winter Park and dedication size of 5.09 acres is acceptable to the
City Council with a credit of 1.09 acres to Cedar Creek South.
16. Trail access is provided to Winter Park from Karstan Avenue between Lots 6 and 7 of
Block 1 via a 30 foot trail corridor and an eight (8) foot paved trail to be constructed by the
developer.
2
I
17. The developer constructs the eight (8) foot grade-separated trail as shown along the north/
east side of Karstan Avenue. Where the trail lies outside of the street right-of-way, an
easement shall be established and shown on the final plat.
18. The developer agrees that the third phase of the Cedar Creek North plat (to be platted as
an outlot on the final plat separate from the first and second phases) shall not be
subdivided or developed until the adjacent golf course is approved by the City Council and
graded in. The golf course and/or its adjacent development must incorporate an eight (8)
foot overland trail which provides connection between Karstan Avenue and Karstan Drive
in the southern portion of the Cedar Creek North plat to Highway 118. and the planned cl ub
house area.
19. A Planned Unit Development agreement is prepared which includes all development plans
and specifications plus all standard development agreement data, shall set forth specific
land use and performance standards which must be adhered to throughout the life of the
Planned Unit Development, and shall be approved by the City Attorney.
20. The Planned Unit Development agreement shall be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for review prior to approval by the City Council.
Adopted by the Albertville City Council this 3rd day of June 1997.
City of Albertville
By:
Mark Olsen, Mayor
Attest:
Linda Houghton, City Clerk
pc: Don Jensen, Gary Hale, Linda Houghton, Mike Couri, Pete Carlson
3
A. It is the Developer's and City's intent that single-family detached dwelling
( units, two-family attached dwelliag. units .aad an eighteen hole golf course be
constructed on the lots in Said Plan (one unit on each lot), including th3t
portion .of the golf course lying within the City of St Michael All said
housing units and the entire golfcourse shall be constmcted in the lacations
as shawn on the attached Concept Plan. Developer agrees that it shall nat ~
construct any units .other than thase as shown on said Concept Pl-an. The
number .of single family lats collStruded on the Subject Property shall not
exceed 291 and the num]w' .of twill I town hames shallnat.exceed 50 for all
.of the Subject Praperty.(Ihe area designated for 1he eighteen hole golf course
shall be restricted ta use .only as aaeighteea hale golf caurse with typical
camplimentary accessOlY uses related ta andcommanly assaciated in the
industIy with galf caurse uses. Such restriction shall run with 1he land and
shall bind all future assigneesandlar successors in interest. The restriction an
use .of tIils land .only far galf c.ourse purposes (in substantially the fann shown
an the Concept Plan) may be modified .only upon the written au1horizatian .of
the City, and the City s~ercise sale discretion in determining whether ta
allow any use ather than an 18-hole ..s.alf course an the property shown as golf
course praperty on the Cancept PI89J In the event the Develaper fails ta
construct the galf caurse as shawn an the Concept Plan (including that
portian .of the galf course lying within the Cityof St Michael), the land .
shawn as galf caurse use an.the Cancept Plan shall remain vacan~
undeveloped land in perpetuity, or until said galf caurse is canstructed and
.operated by Develaper .or successarta the Develaper..
r'..-...
'.
~
i
"I.
i'
.~(
i
,
B. Priar ta the sale .of each lot an the Praperty, illustrative plans shall be
disclased ta each potential buyer to avaid resident camplaints relative to non-
canventianal house placement throughout the Subject Property.
;t:.
r-
0.:1
fT1.~
;0 :
-/'
<: (
...... .
r-i
r- r
rT\.;
C. Develaper shall require via recarded cavenants that all hames abutting the
galfcaurse shall cantain at least 1/3 brick, stone, stucco .or waod facing an the
front .of the home.
~~
;:J
:J
Q<
V
C
c:
....,
::c
."
......
::z
):::.
; r-
:"\:1
,....
.);;-
(;1.
D. Develaper shall require via recorded cavenants that the minimum square
faatage of each tawn hame in the develapment shall be no less than 960
square feet. The Develaper shall require via recorded covenants that the
rn1raimum square foatage far the garages attached to each tawn hame shall be
no less than 440 square feet (20 feet by 22 feet). Far all tawn home
COpy OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREE~
rlLUl
LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
September 15, 1999
Residents of Parkside Third Addition
5747 Kalland Avenue NE
AJbe~lle;~ 55301
RE: Citv authorization oftrail construction to connect to ParkS
Dear Neighbor:
Over the last three years,' Albe~ne has discussed implemented a sidewalk and trail plan. Last year, the City's
. first 'attempt at additional trail construction ended with a rejected bid on the installation of trails within Parkside
Third.: The decision while financially responsible, but disappointed many residents who had elected not to finish .
. their property with sod to the curb.
TI.u"oughout . July and August, Pilot Land Development Company worked with the City to rebid the walk
connections in order to have a more complete neighborhood that had safer connections to the park lands it has
dellicated over the last three years. With addltional trail connections started along Karston Avenue, and along
Kahler Drive in the recently paved Center Oaks neighborhood, you can access future parks at the northern edge of .
the Cedar. Creek North and Karston Cove developments, as well as Cedar Creek golf course clubhouse along
Highway 18 or through the golf course on hole 7.
A satisfactory bid was received from Ohman Brothers asphalt of Albertville and on September 7, the City Council
authorized Pilot Land Development to formally contract with Ohman for the work. They will begin the job on
September 27 and intend to complete ill walks within a three-week period. Any sod that is cut out to create the
pathway will be restored, wi thiri 7 days of their paving completion.
While: this project may not be everyone's choice as an improvement, it has been a growing element of the City
system' of roads and pedestrian connections. The entire project is within dedicated walkway easements and
existing road right of way.
Please identify and remove all obstructions within the area of the planned improvement prior to their job start. If
you have an irrigation system that is in this zone, at a minimum turn your system off and flag or remove the heads.
The project does not call for replacement of any irrigation components in the road right of way. Any heads not
removed will be salvaged but not guaranteed operable. The contractor has no intent to be careless. A sprinkler
system not turned off may create an UIUlecessary mess and does not need to be operational in late September.
I have enclosed a map of the planned improvements and sketches showing what the trail. section is planned to be.
Any questions about the need for trails canbe directed to City Hall. We believe that they will be a safe long-term
enhancement of the overall neighborhoods. Thank you for your assistance.
Si~
Donald Jensen
Land D.evelopment Director
cc:
Linda Goeb - Albertville
Mike Couri, City Attorney
Peter Carlson - SEH Steve - Ohman Brothers
Kent Roessler - Pilot Scott Dahlke - Meyer Rohlin
1 \\Server{) 1 \don\LANDDEV\LETTERS\PROJECTSw.,BRTVLE\PRKTRAlL.DOC
13736 Johnson Street NE . Ham Lake, MN 55304 . 757-9816 . Fax: 757-4094
IT enclOSUres are not as noted, kindly notIfy us at once.
PILot(~
rf
June 5, 2001
Dear Cedar Creek Resident
Karston Avenue NE
Albertville, MN 55301
a.
LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
RE: Street Trees bv Develooer
Dear Neighbor:
As part of our connnitment to the overall neighborhood, Pilot Land Development is provided
additional street trees on your property. This is done to add additional character to the project as
new and existing residents arrive to Karston Avenue and proceed south.
We are also attempting to have Eaglecrest Homebuilders proceed quicker on build out of the
Karston Cove neighborhood. This would also improve the entry experience.
The trees a:re in addition to the required City Trees on a per lot basis. Please care for them with
fertilizer and water. Please do not seed whip near the trunk bases as this will kill the tree by
wounding the bark. Ev~ trees of many inches in Diameter can be killed by weed whipping the
bases. Maintaining a mulch bed of some kind is the best choice. The installation company,
Midwest Landscapes of Albertville and Maple Grove will also provide a care tips sheet.
Thank you for purchasing your home in this development.
sr;'
Donald Jensen
Land Development Director
00:
Linda Goeb ~ City Administrator
Adam -Midwest Landscapes
. 1 \\SerVerO 1 \don\LANDDEV\LETTERS\PROJECTS\ALBRTVLE\oPERATIO\NeighborCOmplaints.doo\neigl1bor 1reeSKatstOn.doo
13736 Johnson Street NE . Ham Lake, MN 55304 . 763-772-1001 . Fax: 763-757-4094
e
e
/
//
A review of the land dedications and traiI construction shows that we dedicated 52.81 % of the required
lands for parks and trails, a slight increase from the original master plan. In addition, the corridor of traiI
between Center Oaks 4th Addition and Hi~way 18 adjacent to Ditch 9 includes 1\2 acre by easement. The
land required less the land dedicated equal the percentage of fees per lot owed. Pilot has paid this debt two
ways. The original plan of the Cedar Creek Golf Master Plan required $233,420 worth oftraiIs and
engineering in order to be "in compliance with the traiI plan". To date, we have paid $27,426 in cash to the
City, $188,644 to contractors for trails and $9,432 in allowable engineering expenses. Attached bills, lien
waivers and contracts verify these. Work to complete includes paving the traiI from Center Oaks to
Highway .18 over the granite chip path currently built, later this summer and the resolution of trails on
Highway 18 along with warranty of paved trails on Kal1and in Center Oaks 4th.
Should staffnot dispute our backup, the City would "owe" Pilot as much as $48,000. This credit allows
us to pIat and release the 5th Addition without the need to deposit cash. Currently, we still have. projects to
complete at Karston Cove <::t 50 units @ $1500 = $75,000) and the decision about land value of our parcel
at Parkside Commercial (see attachment B). We could use the projected debt to pay offa portion of these
two sites as credits.
1Dank you for your actions to date and your approval of this PIat.
Land Development Director
cc:
Peter Carlson - City Engineer
Cindy Shennan - NAC
Mike Courl - C&M
Attachment$:
Park Fees Sunnnary, Golf Course Taxes, Dev Agmt and contracts package master plan
d
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Albertville Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Elizabeth Stockman / David Licht
DATE:
16 July 1996
RE:
Albertville - Kenco / Center Oaks Rezoning
FILE:
163.06 - 96.10
With regard to Don Jensen's letter of 11 July 1996 regarding the recent Planning Commission
recommendation for denial of the proposed rezoning request and the upcoming 5 August City
Council meeting, we would like to make the following comments:
· The Planning Report prepared by our office and dated 26 June 1996 specifically
documents the history of the R-1A zone and lot criteria from its inception during Tactics
Interviews conducted prior to September of 1995 when comments were incorporated into
the first phase Comprehensive Plan document. Kenco/Center Oaks was also involved in
several meetings which were held by the Planning Commission to discuss policies, land
use plans and the Development Framework as they related to the golfcourse and Parkside
Third proposals. The Planning Commission can attest to the constant reiteration of the
large lot concept to Kenco/Center Oaks at numerous times throughout the development
process. Kenco was properly notified of the public hearings held in association with the
Comprehensive Plan and rezoning. The City is not responsible for forwarding copies of
proposed ordinance language to land owners.
· Kenco/Center Oaks maintain their disagreement with the 100 foot lot widths adopted as
part ofthe R-1A District. The increased width over the 90 feet allowed in the R-1 District
is intended to provide an enhanced neighborhood, urban design character by spacing
houses further apart and bringing the structures visually more into proportion with the lots.
We have supplied documentation on this issue as part of prior correspondence. Public
hearing notice was given only for the requested rezoning from R-1 to R-1A and that is what
must be decided on 5 August. If a change in the R-1A District standards is desired, a
separate application and public hearing process is required.
1
.~
· The R-1 zoning of Parkside Third does not and should not affect the zoning of adjacent low
density property. Low density is compatible with low density. The transition between
Parkside Third and adjacent areas can be easily made with the same street alignments
and lot depths without having to provide additional R-1 zoned land along the south side
of Parks ide Third as has been recently proposed by Center Oaks. Lot area and widths can
be easily increased as necessary to integrate with the R-1 land already platted.
· There should be no need to table the requested rezoning. If the objective is to allow
development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the answer is obvious and
does not need to be considered over and over. The applicants are allowed a reasonable
use and development of the land as it is (zoned R-1A), without increasing the number of
lots per acre permitted through R-1.
· The applicants have also requested that the City allow for greater setbacks if at least 30
feet of the lot touches a City right-of-way, ie: flag lot. Flag lots are not permitted in the
City.
· Concept plans which were prepared by Kenco for all areas west of CSAH 19 were never
approved by the City, nor do they have to be. It should be further noted that in the City's
ordinances there is no legal standing for "concept" plans as submitted to date by Kenco.
They are intended to show the ability to develop areas in street and lot configurations
which make sense and which avoid sensitive environmental features such as wetlands.
Lot sizes were neither studied, approved or assumed to be at anyone zoning district
standard. The 15,000 square foot "average" suggested by Kenco is a Planned Unit
Development concept. In creating the R-1A District the intent was to have all lots a
minimum of 15,000 square feet. In establishing this minimum or a minimum for any district,
it is fully expected that the average lot size will be above the minimum specified.
· Through our initial review of the attached concept plan for the proposed Center Oaks
rezoning area we have identified several issues:
1) 55th Street as shown as a connection with CSAH 19 is not necessarily desired and
may in fact be prohibited by Wright County. The City has taken the position that
only 53rd and 57th Streets are to be through streets.
2) The B-3 property noted on the concept is designated as low density development
in the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, it is of insufficient size to exist on its own
as a commercial parcel and is land locked. It would therefore have to be combined
with property to the north if it is to be approved by the City as commercial or
medium density residential or it must be platted as low density as originally
planned.
2
. .'
(!
· At the Planning Commission meeting on 9 July 1996 Kenco also submitted a financial
analysis comparing the R-1 A and R-1 Districts in an attempt to demonstrate project
"value". A copy of this analysis is attached. While we would suggest that the analysis
focusing internally upon one specific subdivision is invalid relative to the issue being
argued. In documentation previously supplied we have noted that an analysis of value
must be based upon a subdivision to subdivision comparison, not an a lot to lot analysis.
Within a respective subdivision values are established by the low end units which
influence the balance of the project.
· We maintain our original recommendation to deny the proposed rezoning from R-1A to
R-1.
pc: Gary Hale
Linda Houghton
Pete Carlson
Mike Couri
3
,
26 August 1996
Mr. Don Jensen
Kenco
13736 Johnson Street NE
Ham Lake, MN 55304
Re: Albertville - Development Concepts
File: 163.05
Dear Mr. Jensen,
I have just received your letter dated 19 August 1996 which discusses possible municipal
planning support for shared right-of-way within the City. The Subdivision Ordinance states that
"Half or partial streets will not be permitted, except where essential to reasonable subdivision of
a tract in conformance with the other requirements and standards of the Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances and where, in addition, satisfactory assurance for dedication of the remaining part
ofthe street can be secured". It is our feeling that half streets are best avoided, as lots will not
be permitted to develop along these roads anyway until both halves are completed. However,
if difficulty in street layouts is encountered and a reasonable case can be made, we would
consider supporting such a design.
Your letter could not have come at a better time. We are in the process of reviewing a concept
plan of the Kolles property to be discussed on 28 August 1996 at the City staff meeting. Attached
is our preliminary review and suggested layout of the Kolles property as it ties into Westwind and
your parcel. As is indicated, it is crucial that a formal wetland delineation is done at the earliest
possible date and we have suggested that this effort be combined with that of Little Mountain
Development to potentially save money and expedite the process. We would be open to any
comments you may have for this area and any ideas for resolving issues. One area of concern
is the City's need for a 15 to 20 acre community park and how this would relate to the location of
a golfcourse, should this idea become reality.
Sincerely,
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
Elizabeth A. Stockman
Senior Planner/Landscape Architect
pc: Gary Hale, Linda Houghton, Mike Couri, Pete Carlson, Little Mountain Development
.\j
ii\.
1
(PILO
t\
1
LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
March 18, 1997
Planning Commission, City Council members, and City Consultants
clo Mr. Gary Hale,
City Administrator
5975 Main Avenue NE.
Albertville, MN 55301
RE: Rezonim! of Center Oaks Darcel R-IA to pun overlay
Dear Mr. Hale:
This letter serves to confIrm our conversations regarding the goals for the submissions of
the fInal plans. Pilot Land Development has submitted material to reactivate the tabled
application from November of 1996. This submission of plans is consistent with the
sketch plans previously shown to the Planning Commission and discussed as part of the
golf course project. As plans for the Cedar Creek Golf Course become refined,
applications will be submitted for the balance of the affected parcels.
Plans for the project are as follows:
· A 4 Outlot plat will be filed immediately upon Council Approval to create a land sale
to the Feneis development group for their project.
· Kalland Avenue will be extended as part of the approval process for the senior
housing proposal. Pilot will build the first 150' to provide access and utility
connections to the multi-family Cottages site. The remaining 350' and Kantar Court
will be built during 1998.
· The existing homestead does not pose any fIre or life safety hazards and is
incorporated into the plans as a new lot. Sewer and water stubs will be available for
hookup to the house upon construction of Kantar Court. The house is currently rented
and will have new tenants moving in on May 1, 1997. At such time as Kantar is
completed the property may be converted to a for sale home. No records of code
violations are part of the property file. A gravel driveway will continue to serve the
home through 1997 connecting to Kalland.
· Park land Area is partially satisfied with the plat. Pilot requests to use the balance of
required fees to install desired facilities in the existing park. We would like to
complete the installation of facilities such as ball diamond fencing, trail access points,
and any additional walkways added through the Parkside plat by the new Trails Plan
13736 Johnson Street NE . Ham Lake, MN 55304 . 757-9816 . Fax: 757-4094
..
..1.
],
before the end of summer 1997. Fees should be calculated for the entire preliminary
plar; and a requIred caP Un fadl1ties WIll De projected to provide as much of a finIShed
pat.'k as possIOTe.
. Future program elements ma)' be desired as part of a park master plan which would,
remain the obligations of the park or general fund. ~ )?roposed Park T ,l'Iyont Pll'1n.
Due to existing trees, we recommend that an la structur u a fort like erne
WIt tIm ers. e~Yl.;:tine low area can be flooded in winter for an easy outdoor
skating rink of a modest size. The existing shed can remain as a temporary warming
shelter. It currently has power, but would require a new meter socket connection.
. Trails will be installed Eer the master trails plan and as shown on the preliminary plat.
~ wlll~e installerl ou a final..plat pba~e 6asi~. The r@'l\.le~ted trl'lils corridorfrom_
Karsten to Kalland will req,J1irp t~ lotlil west of th~ tr(Jil to..slide west.LAs a result, a
few lots may drop to 14,000 SF. We will still have greater than 90' fronts on all of
these affected lots.
...... -"",.~~.~-,
. Water quality ponds for the entire project will be constructed with the first phase of
the project. No wetlandfill is proposed as part of the project. However, portions of
Ditch #9 may be convertedfrom open ditch to a pipe through the Karsten Drive
connection into Cedar Creek South. We request approval to 1!rade the entire site
after preliminarv plat aooroval bv Council. A $50.000 letter of credit is proposed as
suretv. As a reminder. it is currentlv all exoosed awaitin1! crop olantin1!. so no
practical difference exists between the current unre1!ulated condition and proposed
1!radinJ!. Upon 1!radin1!, seed crops will be planted.
. Phase one of the project will be the extension of Kalenda Drive to the 55th Street
intersection, then west to the plat boundary with Cedar Creek South, then north to
create a full loop to Kahler Drive within the Parkside 3rd Addition plat. This
positions the development to extend. sewer and roads into Cedar Creek South to tie to
the Summerfield project and Cedar Creek North.
. Phase 2 will include Kalland to the Heuring site and Kantar Court along with formal
lotting of sewered lots on Karsten.
. Phase 3 will be the extension of Kalenda to 53rd, contingent on 53rd being approved
and under construction. In the absence of a development contract for 53rd, a loop
would need to be created through proposed Phase 3.
. Phase 4, Kahler Drive is not projected to be completed until substantial progress is
made on a golf course, thereby taking maximum advantage of exposure to a
completed open space amenity.
.'l.< T k
tl\.;.-r'
In exchange for the flexibility of the design, trails and walks over and above the loop on
Kahler will be installed along the east side of Kalenda to provide a connection to "Roman
Becker Park". This will create a pedestrian environment for 80% of the plat. This
additional trail will be a 5' concrete sidewalk.
Easements and ROW: KaWer, Kalenda, and Kalland are proposed as a 60' and 70'
ROW with a 36' pavement width. Consistent with lTE standards, areas of a subdivision
having fewer than 25 lots causing traffic generation could utilize smaller right of ways
and narrower pavement. Karsten and Kantar Court are proposed to be eligible for a 50;
ROWand 32' pavement width with a 5' sidewalk. If a 60' ROWand a 36' road remain a
requirement, then the proposed sidewalk shall be deleted..
Based on the City schedules we project the following schedule:
July 15 - Grading start Phase one and two.
August 15 - Pipe work for phase one commences.
Please contact us with any questions you may have at any time. Thank you in advance for
your comments and consideration.
Sincerely,
/J1n
Land Development Director & Consultant to Center Oaks
Attachments:
sketch plan of Center Oaks property,
.
l
N
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
COMMUNITYPLANNING - DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Albertville Golf Course Committee
Albertville Mayor and City Council
Albertville Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM:
EI izabeth Stockman
DATE:
1 o February 1997
RE:
Albertville - Cedar Creek Golf Course Concept
FILE:
163.06 - 97.03
In review of the concept plan for Pilot Land Development, prepared by Rick Harrison, I offer the
following comments which are to be discussed at the 11 February 1997 Golf Course Committee
meeting at 6: 15 PM.
Layout. Two concept plans have been prepared for the site, one "traditional" layout with 86 lots
(86 single family lots) and one "coving" layout with 88 lots (106 units; 70 single family and 18 two-
family). Mr. Harrison is trying to show that a more aesthetic subdivision plan can be achieved
with the provision of curvilinear streets, varied lot sizes/widths, and varied setbacks (minimum
standards met). While I generally agree with this idea, I question whether the benefits or positive
results outweigh the negative aspects of the project (outlined below).
Area-Wide Plan. The submitted plan does not include other lands owned by Pilot nor does it
show the golf course design. The City wishes to see the "big picture", so to speak, prior to
making a formal decision on the project. As has been stated in the past, in order to deviate from
lot size requirements and other established policies and standards, the developer must trade
other amenities in return.
Inconsistency with City Policies and Standards. The property is zoned R-1 A, not R-1 as is
indicated on the "traditional" layout submitted. This plan shows minimum lot sizes of 12,500
square feet with widths of 90 feet for interior lots and 100 feet for corner lots (except that two lots
shown are less than the required minimums). The "traditional" concept can therefore not be used
as a base for comparison purposes when the density exceeds that allowed under the current R-
1A zoning designation. Despite this critical factor, I proceeded with my review of the "coving"
plan.
1
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416
PHONE 6 12-595-9636 FAX 6 12-595-9837
"
Density. The "traditional" layout shows a density of 2.51 units per acre while the "coving" plan
shows a density of 2.87 units per acre. .In addition to increasing overall density by adding 18
units to the project through the provision of two-family homes on the "coving" plan, Pilot is further
increasing their profit by having to construct less linear feet of streets and utilities. Using the R-
1A zoning designation as a comparison, the overall density should average about 2.0 units per
acre. If the developer would like to incorporate two-family homes, for instance, in the area zoned
as R-1A, the City needs to gain something in return.
Access and Utility Easements. It is proposed that the front setback area which varies between
30 feet and 168.6 feet, be established as a blanket easement area within which trails can be
located and utilities installed. If the location of utility lines is to also deviate from the standard
location within the street right-of-way, the City Engineer may want to comment on this.
Usable Lot Area. One significant difference in the platting of "coving" lots versus "traditional" lots
is the amount of usable yard area which remains. In the "coving" plan, the front yards of all lots
are reduced between 30 and 168.6 feet by establishing an access/utility easement within which
nothing can be constructed (fences, landscape features, or other accessory structures).
Additionally, landscape plantings installed by the homeowner are at risk of being disturbed to
install or repair trails or utilities located there. Furthermore, the front yard is typically the more
public portion of a lot, more visible by passers-by, so owners are less inclined to make use of the
area for eating, relaxing, etc.
The rear yards of many proposed lots are also extremely limited in terms of usable area. In the
"traditional" plan, the average width at the rear property setback is 90+ feet, with only two lots
vvhich taper to less than 60 feet. The "coving" plan contains 26 lots which taper to less than 60
feet at the rear building setback line, many of which are triangular in shape. By limiting the rear
yard areas significantly, outdoor storage, play equipment, and other such accessory items are
forced into the front yard, where some of them may not be allowed under the present oity code.
Furthermore, fencing or the establishment of hedges are two items which would be ridiculous to
consider on these pie-shaped lots. What good does it do to have larger lots if the space isn't
usable?
Abutting Lots and Perceived Lot Area. The location of "coving" lots adjacent to Summerfield
Addition or any other ''traditional'' neighborhood creates somewhat of a conflict in relation to one
another. The traditional lot owner has a view of six or eight homes behind him/her (although
some may be setback more than average) when abutting a "coving" layout rather than two or
three as is typical. Conversely, the owner of a "coving" lot does not have the ability to screen his
view of traditional neighbors to the rear because the rear yard area may be less than the width
of his/her home on irregular shaped parcels.
In order to achieve the concept of varied lot widths, the "coving" plan contains parcels which have
side lots lines with two angles rather than a single lot line which radiates from the street. Property
owners have a hard enough time trying to determine where their property lines lie upon lack of
a survey, without complicating matters. While there will always be instances where an owner
assumes that a property line is somewhere it isn't, the multi-angled lot lines create additional
headaches.
2
.
. ,
.
Streets. The proposed "coving" design shows the paved street width as 30 feet rather than the
36 foot required width. Also of concern is the number of vehicles per day which will use the
planned local streets. It is imperative that for this determination we have an area-wide plan to
analyze. In the proposed subdivision alone, the maximum recommended 1 ,000 trips per day for
local streets has been exceeded by 60 trips per day, not including adjacent areas to the south and
east which may also use the streets. While Kadler Avenue is located on the western edge of the
site and could be considered a collector route if improved, no connecting access has been
provided to it. On the other hand, the municipalities which have jurisdiction over Kadler Avenue
have made no formal decisions to vacate the roadway in the near future, although this idea has
been rumored. It is these types of transportation details which have to be resolved.
Trail Access. While a trail has been positively located along the primary street route in the
proposed subdivision, there have been no connections proposed to planned park areas or toward
neighboring land areas for future extension. This item will have to be considered in future plans,
as will the proposed trail construction specifications requiring a minimum of ten (10) feet for
shared pedestrian and bicycle trails on one side of the street.
Remnant Land. In the northern portion of the site, adjacent to the wetlands, the "coving" plan
has created an island of leftover land which is not part of platted lots nor accessible from the park
planned on the other side of the wetland. This island should be eliminated prior to subdivision
approval for this area.
pc: Gary Hale
Linda Houghton
Pete Carlson
Mike Couri
Kevin Mealhouse
3
'v/
.'
II
,..-.--.-...."'"
\ .".-.-.-.
"-
." -'---.
...--' -.-.-.
"-
\
I
Uh.__,_
,
,
,
,
I
I
,
,-_...;
,
,
,
I
'I-
I
,
I
I
I
I
\......__..............
---
-'-
=,- ' -- , ~q
('9'::r=-c~~>7:::=::: C5 .D \
-- ---~-~-~.~:==:::...._~.
.~.
,
I
I
\
JJ
.~~---~~~.~
,..--.....-. \
'/(' \\\"\
: 1\ I .. '. .
J
/
, ,
, ,
.. ,
, ,
, ,
NCErT
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
"
I
1- _ -
,
,
- - - ~ - - ., - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - -,
I
I
.. _ J _ - - .
I
I
I
,
,
,
J _ _
- - - - -/-
I
,
I
I
I
I I
I I.
I I '~.
, ,
, I
I ,
- - - - - - _1- _ _ _ r _ _1_,.... - - -- - J'l'"
, '
,
I
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
,1, '\
,
,
, ,
"
I
,
/,
,
,
,
,
"
'" ,
I -_____
,
,
,
,
,
-----_.~---_._-, ,-
, I
, I
,
I
I
------,------,------,--
, I ,
I , I
I I I
, I I
I , ,
I I I
I , ,
I , ,
, I I
- - - - ...---....---
""~'.--"
V.,
, ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
ITRADITION,Al" CONCEPT
"'~/ ~. -"-. .........
I
,
'/:....
,
,
" ,
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
(
I
L.---
(
I
,
I
,
,
I
I
,
I
I
I
-------'------7------~---
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
I '
_.J------J --
,
_1 _ _ .
. .--
. - ,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
I I ,
--_____l____T_~______J~
I '
,
I
I
,
I
,
,
"
, ,
",'
, ,
, /
I
,
,',
,
,
,
I
,
,
,
(
,
,
,
,
,
,
......"
~
, '
I
,
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
,
- ."- - f--
I
,
,
- - r - - - - l -. r
,
,
I
,
,
.__L______L_______L
,
,
,
I
,
'....---..
- - - - -- - - - - - -
...-...., ,"
\ I
I I
..," r'~ -
, I
/ ,
I
I
I
\
\
,
....--...
....-----
"
"
"
------r------r-
, ,
, ,
, I
I I
I ,
I I
I ,
I I
I I
. - - - - r
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
]
.. ~:~ ~~ f7:r ~:::-: :...~~ ~'r- ~~ ::~~ EJ
,""'-------"-------::-:~~-~~:-~:~~ ~ --~
,
I
I
\
......--...
,
,
,
\
I
',-:-.-:::::---....
RECEIVED FES J 6
"
February 5th, 1997
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULT~Tp t e 0 e s i 9 n
5775 Wayzata Boulevard
Suite 555 10902 North Eagle Lake Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369
Dear David and Elizabeth:
Enclosed is int'ormation on an alternative concept that I'll be
presenting in Albertville for Kenco on the 11 th.1 have included
the conventional layout for by Meyer Rohlin for comparison.
This coved subdivision is similar to developments that I have had
approved and many others in the initial planning phases.
I believe your firm was instrumental in these approvals on some of
. .
my past work, and I appreciate the support. If you have any
questions, please call me.
Sincerely;
Lr'~
Richard Harrison
10902 North~agle Lake Boulevard' Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369 -(612) 391-8038 Fax: (612) 391-5771
'I
Cedar Creek Addition
Developer: Pilot Land Development Company
Planning Design by: Richard Harrison
Cedar Creek Addition will be a community that exceeds the living
standards of what you currently know as "subdivision development" .
CREATING A NEIGHBORHOOD INSTEAD OF A SUBDMSION
Recent newspaper articles on "cluster", "new town", or "neo-traditional"
development created bad press against "suburbia" as we know it today, with its
homes perfectly aligned against featureless streets. We present the answer to
these concerns bringing back many qualities of yesterday's lifestyles without
stepping back 100 years in design by using the latest techniques in design and
computer generated geometries.
Take for example this section of a Fergus
Falls subdivision that uses the latest
techniques in planning: curved streets, lots
designed to breakup monotony, three-way
intersections, and homes facing open areas.
This development was platted by George
Cooley... 125 years ago! We have
advanced in virtually every aspect of our
lives in these past decades except how we
live. . . until now:
By using a new technique called
"Coving" , we create spectacular
subdivisions that will appear much
more open and elegant than current
standards. A coved development
creates larger lots while reducing
linear footage of public streets. ~. the
best of both worlds. This allows an
estate-feel lot without increasing
development costs.
.,
What makes a "neighborhood" as opposed to a "subdivision" feel? When you
drive or walk through older urban communities there is a different feel than a
modem subdivision. Obviously one difference has to do with architecture. The
older developments do not have a two or three car garage as the main emphasis
as in today's development.
Driving along France Avenue in Edina,
Minnesota which is a major collector
street you see only home fronts. Driving
along a collector street in the suburbs you
see only home rears as shown here. Our
"coved" alternative does not showcase any
home rears. It also de-emphasizes the
garages without changing architecture.
COVING OF SINGLE FAMILY
This is a new form of housing first developed in 1994 which has been very
successful in Minnesota and in other states.
Going through houses built in the past several decades you will find that each
decade seems to have a different feel within the homes. Today design techniques
and materials are used that gives a home a much larger feel and a look higher
quality than a same size home of just a few decades ago. Think of "coving" as a
method to make better use of space that is available.
What is a "coved" lot?
A coved community combines the
advantages of "cul-de-sac" feel, enhance
views, while at the same time substantially
reducing the visual impact of paving,
softening the visual impact of garage doors
and reducing the lineal feet of roads.
o
Home fronts provide an open welcome feel into the community with a generous
distance from the curb (as opposed to the standard 45 feet). Views constantly
change as you drive, bicycle, or walk through this development.
THE FEEL OF AN ESTATE SIZE LOT
Instead of homes being a steady 120 feet apart front to front, the distance
between home fronts meander as much as 300 feet between fronts creating vast
open areas that will serve as a visual illusion of a larger area from the home.
It is the setback from the street that gives the "feel" of a large lot, NOT the lot
width. If all homes are placed at the same setback you cannot get a sense of
scale, thus there is no illusion of larger lots. Since all "coved" lots meander and
the street winds through with little relationship to a constant setback, the sense of
scale is enhanced. These are larger lots, averaging over 18,000 square feet.
No existing minimum required setback (width, side, rear or front) is reduced. A
coved development must be a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as existing
Minnesota Plat Law does not allow the showing of a variable setback line to be
on a recorded subdivision plat unless that plat is a PUD.
The setback lines serving as a "blanket" utility and access easement. It is this
blanket easement that allows further reduction in main utility line lengths and
allows the walkway to meander instead of paralleling the street.
VALUE AND MARKETABILITY
Value in a home should be one of the main focuses for the City of Albertville as
homes that keep their value for many generations to come will assure that your
city will be a livable community for many generations. It is this continuing home
value that creates a community that passes the test of time. The sense of
beauty, space and community within our layout is unusual for today's suburban
development.
During the aging of the development when the pavement cracks and the
architecture is no longer in vogue, a development needs character to survive long
periods.
.
.
n
TRAFFIC PATTERNS, PAVING AND FLOW
The streets are designed to reduce traffic
speed (increase safety) meandering
through the development with no
dedicated cul-de-sac' s (reducing public
works maintenance). Street paving is
shown here in orange.
The traffic pattern through this
development is void of 4 way
intersections, making it safer. This will
surely be one of the most visually
pleasing roads to visit in your city.
The walk (shown in green) meanders
through the development separating
pedestrian and vehicular traffic as much
as possible.
Notice how little public roadway is used
in this development.
Planning techniques are used to reduce the lineal
feet of paving and utilities, thus not only reduce
development cost, but the on going maintenance
cost to the City of Albertville in snow removal,
and reconstruction. There is a reduction of
750 linear feet of public street in the coved
development plus the elimination of a bubble of
pavement in the lower left comer of the
conventional option shown to the right.
Compare the amount of street paving per lot to
the conventional layout:
Coved
Conventional:
2,034 square feet.
2,321 square feet.
. ,
The coved option has 13 percent less public street paving per home than the
conventional layout. Overall paving between the two is about the same due to the
longer driveways.
OPEN SPACE
As you may have experienced in previous developments there is a wide range of
opinions as to what constitutes "open space". Open space should be easily
accessible or very visible to be counted. The conventional layout is bounded by
wetland areas and the golf course as is the coved layout.
Conventional
Coved
Families that view the wetland areas:
14
35 (twinhomes)
Families that overlook golf course:
13
16
Families that overlook space along street: 0
85
It is not the actual open space that counts, but the visual illusion of open space.
An example is a small interior room in a house with an 8 foot ceiling
feeling claustrophobic compared to a smaller room with a vaulted ceiling.
Small interior dimension changes in a home can make a large difference in
the feeling of space, as well as interior wall and window placement. These
principals are applied to the placement of the homes within Cedar Creek
Addition to make the illusion of a far less dense and more open
community .
Homes are placed to enhance instead of block views when you are living within
the homes.
Why not create great views for those windows that will be in the front and rear of
the homes?
.' 1
COMPARING COVE TO CONVENTIONAL
COVED LAYOUT
Orange = Rear yard space
Green = Perceived rear yard space
CONVENTIONAL
Can you see the simplicity and elegance of the use of space between the two
options? The coved development has an increase of 27 % greater lawn area per
lot (face of home to curb) than the conventional layout exclusive of the driveway
area! Now also consider that the coved lots in Cedar Creek achieve this by using
the 80 foot minimum width instead of the 90 foot as in the conventional layout!
Again it is lot depth, not width that gives the feeling of a larger lot. Why have
increased space in areas of the home where there is no substantial window areas?
. ,
()
In the conventional layout home
rears are showcased as is typical in
suburban development. For
example, those living in the homes
along the golf course have great
rear views, but look what they see
out their home fronts.
This is not to say its horrible.. .just typical. Coved lots eliminate fronts and
passing traffic viewing home rears.
Conclusion
We feel the coved development will be superior to any previously constructed in
the Albertville area. Your approval of this layout is a stepping stone to many
other developments like this to follow improving living standards for countless
people in the future generations. As you know present Planning and Council
members that have the responsibility to future Albertville residents. In a 100 year
period Cedar Creek Addition will provide a high living standard for an estimated
13,000 people. We at PILOT Land Development Company hope you will be
our partner in making, this dream happen by approving, the coved design.
Jfl.:.It~t'f
~:. 9-::CY--7'/ -
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
CEDAR CREEK GOLF COURSE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
CONCEPT PLAN MASTER AGREEMENT
-
THIS AGREE11ENT, entered into this day of , 1997 by and
between Pilot Land Development Company, Inc., referred to herein as "Developer"; and the
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, County of Wright, State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as
"City";
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Developer is the fee owner and developer of a parcel or parcels of land
described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, a portion of
which parcels ofland are proposed to be subdivided and platted for development, and which
subdivision, which is the subject of this agreement, is intended to bear the name "Cedar
Creek Golf Course Planned Unit Development" and may sometimes hereinafter be referred
to as the "Subject Property" or "Said Plan"; and
WHEREAS, the City has given concept plan approval of Developer's plan of Cedar
Creek Golf Course contingent upon compliance with certain City requirements including,
but not limited to, matters set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the City requires that certain public improvements including, but not
limited to, grading, sanitaIy sewer, water, storm sewer and streets (hereafter "Municipal
Improvements") be installed to serve the Subject Property and other properties affected by
the development of Developer's land, to be installed and financed by Developer upon final
plan approval of each phase of development; and
WHEREAS, the City further requires that certain on- and off-site improvements be
installed by the Developer within the Subject Property upon final plan approval of each
phase, which improvements consist of boulevards, top soil and sod, grading control per lot,
bituminous or concrete driveways, parking lot, drainage swales, benning, street signs, street
cleanup during project development, erosion control, and other site-related items; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement is entered into for the purpose of setting forth and
memorializing for the parties and subsequent owners, the understandings and agreements of
the parties concerning the development of the Subject Property;
1
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AND HEREIN MUTUALLY
AGREED, in consideration of each party's promises and considerations herein set forth, as
follows:
1. Construction of Municipal Improvements.
A. At the time Developer applies for preliminary plan approval of any particular
Phase of the development, Developer shall provide the City with detailed
plans and specifications for the installation of municipal improvements to the
Subject Property. Said improvements to include installation of water mains,
sanitary and storm sewers, storm water ponding, site grading, curb and gutter,
paved streets and other usual and customary improvements deemed necessary
by the City for the proper development of the property. Said plans and
specifications shall meet all City design standards and shall be subject to the
approval of the City COWlcil and/or City Engineer. All such improvements
shall be constructed according to the standards adopted by the City, along
with all reasonable items required by the City Engineer, and shall be
constructed within a reasonable time frame established by the City at the time
of approval of the final plan for each Phase. All costs related to the design
and installation of the Municipal Improvements shall be borne by the
Developer.
B. The Developer shall warrant to the City for a period of two years from the
date the City accepts the finished Municipal Improvements that all such
improvements have been constructed to City standards and shall suffer no
significant impairments, either to the structure or to the sutface or other usable
areas due to improper construction, said warranty to apply both to poor
materials and faulty workmanship.
C. Developer shall provide the City with lien waivers from all contractors and
subcontractors engaged to construct said improvements. Should Developer
fail to provide the City with all applicable lien waivers, the City reserves the
right to draw upon Developer's surety and pay any con.tractors who performed
work on any Municipal Improvements and whom Developer has failed to
fully pay for the performance of said work. The City's right to pay said
contractors from Developer's surety shall be subject to Developer's right to
contest in good faith the amoWlt due to said contractors, provided Developer
shall pay all reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the City as a result of said
contest.
2
D. Developer shall grade all lots at the same time as the street grading is
performecL and shall grade such lots in a manner which will allow for
adequate drainage from the lot.
E. The City shall, at its option, have the City Engineer present on Said Plan for
inspection purposes at all times (or such times as the City may deem
necessary) during the construction and installation of said Municipal
Improvements. Developer agrees to pay for all costs incurred by the City
dwing said inspections.
F. Developer shall be responsible for plowing snow on all public streets in said
plan until the base course is installecL the castings have been adjusted and at
least one of the homes is occupied. Upon the occurrence of these three
events, the City shall be responsible for snowplowing on public streets. Until
the installation of the wear course of bituminous pavemen~ the Developer
shall repair, at its expense, any damage occurring to the base course, castings
or other improvements from said City snow plowing, and said snow plowing
shall not be deemed an acceptance of the streets by the City.
2. Construction of On- and Off-Site Improvements. Upon approval of the final
plan for each Phase of the Subject Property, Developer shall perform the following:
A.
Developer shall construct all on- and off-site improvements including
installation of boulevards, street signs, traffic signs, yard top soil, sod iaal1 ,_ )<J
!font and side yards, grass seedingjn back yaT4..~~ grading control per lot,
bitummous or concrete driveways, drainage swales, berming, and like items
as necessary, street cleanup during project developmen~ and erosion control,
all as required by City ordinance. Said on- and off-site improvements shall be
installed within a reasonable time frame established by the City, except that
erosion control, drainage swales and berming shall be installed upon initial
grading of Subject Property. All grading, drainage, utility and wetland
mitigation issues must be approved by the City Engineer.
B. Developer shall, at its own expense, cause the following items to be installed
within the developmen~ all such items to be installed under grOllllcL within
the street right of way, accessible to all lots and in compliance with all
applicable state and local regulations:
1. Electrical power supply, to be provided by Northern States Power or
3
. I
other such carrier;
11. Natural gas supply, to be provided by Minnegasco or other such
cam.er;
ill. Telephone service, to be provided by Sprint/United Telephone
Company or other such carrier;
IV. Cable television, to be provided by Jones Intercable or other such
cam.er.
In addition, the Developer shall, at its own expense, cause street lights and
street signs to be of such type and to be installed at such locations as required
by the City Engineer and in conformance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices.
C. Developer's utility plan for each Phase shall show all existing and proposed
utility lines and easements, and Developer shall install all utilities according
to the Concept Utility Plan attached as Exhibit C approved by the City.
D. Developer shall install silt fencin in back of all curbing within 30 after YI
said curbing is installe 0 ays er e "small utilitles gas, one, / 'V
electrical and cable television) have been installed, whichever occurs sooner.
Developer shall be allowed to substitute hay bales for a 22-foot section of silt
fencing on each lot for the purpose of allowing construction vehicles to pass
from the street to each lot. No construction vehicles shall pass from the street
to the lots except through such designated 22-foot section of hay bales.
Developer shall remove all hay bales and silt fencing from each lot as sod is
installed upon said lot.
E.
Notwithstanding the requirements of subparagraph 2A above, the Developer
shall cause to be installed, to the City's satisfactio~ improvements for each lot
or parcel within sixty (60) days of the date that a certificate of occupancy
(temporary or permanent) is issued by the City for a building located on the
lot, unless the certificate of occupancy is issued after Octooer 1st and before
April 15th in any given year, in which case said improvements shall be so
completed by the following June 15th.
F.
Developer shall install storm water retention/water quality ponds upon Said
Plan in the locations as shown on the Concept Grading and Drainag, Plan n
~ I ~ 'I
t.'\J.f\')%\~ >
4
attached as Exhibit D, and including all ponds within the golf course.
Developer shall provide the City with perpetual drainage easements over such
ponds at the time of the fmal approval of the adjacent plan. Said retention
ponds shall be installed prior to the installation of streets or utilities.
G. In the event that the Wright County Highway Department determines that an
excessive number of golf balls are being hit on or over the pavement of
Wright County Highway 118, Developer (or the then-owner of the golf
course) shall cooperate with the City of Albertville and Wright County in
attempting to alleviate such a problem. In such situation, the Developer (or
the then-owner of the golf course) shall consider such measures as: moving
the tees farther from County Highway 118, re-orienting the tees, installation
of fencing or netting along County Highway 118, or such other measures that
are reasonably calculated to reduce the likelihood of golf balls being hit on or
over the pavement of Wright County Highway 118. Within one year of
notification by Wright County that an excessive number of golf balls are
being hit on or over the pavement of Wright County Highway 118, the
Developer (or the then-owner of the golf course) shall implement measures
that significantly reduce the frequency of golf balls being hit on or over the
pavement of Wright County Highway 118.
3. Status of Streets.
A. Developer agrees that the streets serving the town homes in Cedar Creek
South as shown on the Concept Plan shall remain private streets within Said
Plan and shall not be dedicated the public. However, said streets shall be
constructed in accordance with City construction section standards for public
residential streets, and the pavement on said private streets shall be 28 feet in
width. Plans and specifications for said streets must receive the approval of
the City Engineer prior to commencement of construction. The City Engineer
and City Planner must approve all private road designs as being acceptable to
access the town home areas of the Property located along County Road 118
and as providing appropriate off-street parking to accommodate visitors in
these areas. Developer shall provide legal access to all buildings abutting said
private streets via covenants or some other method acceptable to the City
Attorney.
B. Developer shall be responsible for all maintenance (including snow plowing)
on all private streets in said plan. Developer shall keep all private streets in
said plan in good repair at all times, and shall keep said streets open so as to
5
, I
C.
D.
E.
F.
allow unhindered access for emergency vehicles at all times. Removal of
excess snow shall occur within 12 hours of the start of a snowfall or at such
time as two inches of snowfall has accumulated. Such snow may be stored on
site but shall not be stored in a manner in which the height of the pile of snow
exceeds 10 feet, .nor sh~l.s~~w ?e stored ~ ~ ~~er so as t. 0 blocJf ~d2~~. 4-1A
of homes or vehicular VISIbility m comer VISIbility zones. qs ~~
Developer shall dedicate feet of land abutting the IJcisting
Wright COWlty Highway No. 118 to the City for use as right-of-way for
Wright COWlty Highway No. 118. The City Engineer must approv. ~the <' ~
provision of said right-of-way. ~ ( '-oJ
\.r
Developer shall apply a layer of oil on Kadler Avenue prior to the issuance of
any building permits for any properties in Phase one of Cedar Creek North. If
determined to be necessary by the City Engineer, Developer shall apply two
inches of pavement on Kadler Avenue at such time as 50% of the homes in
PhaSe~Of Cedar Creek North are occupied. If said 50% occupancy rate /'f
occur wing the months of November through May, the Developer shall
have til the following JWle 15th to apply said pavement to Kadler Avenue.
The right of way for Karsten Avenue shall be dedicated with the approval of
the final plan for Phase two of Cedar Creek North. The Developer shall
construct Karsten Avenue from Wright County Highway 37 south to connect
with the street as shown in Phase one of Cedar Creek North on the attached
Exhibit by October 15, 2001 or at such time as City approval of the
final plan of Phase three of Cedar Creek North is granted, whichever occurs
sooner.
In the event that portion ofKadler Avenue abutting Cedar CreOorth is
vacated before final plan approval is received for all Phases 0ii(;1
development, the cost of removing any bituminous pavement then on Kadler
Avenue shall be born by Developer. Said pavement shall be removed within
45 days of the passage of resolutions by governing bodies having jurisdiction
on both sides of Kadler Avenue.
G.
Upon commencement of grading of the golf course, Developer shall apply to
both the City of Albertville and the City of St. Michael for the vacation of
Kadler Avenue.
H.
Developer shall provide a 20 foot wide bituminous paved emergency exit
6
. I
4.
111-eWltt{~06fS \AS€4 tv 1Vl1p'rOVf 1/-1JSJQrYtaov to C<l ((ow -foryear----
YQ\U1d 4vWt\' {ifWS> \NVf}Lv f1l. ev~1 .hci H~1Aqe /4y J/I11YW~ '
9Vta {( ~ d1A&mlYlid tl1- 111,( tlm e 1t1t Mraf)" (hq U1f; M'tP/hd.{
and utility easement from the cul-de-sac of Phase 4 of Cedartreek South -r .
connecting to Kadler Avenue and the street'in Phase 4 of Cedar Creek
North as shown on the Concept Plan. 11lt; (oVt,i-1eCMolll <;lt1ttU (,{I~-() 'SO-Vt"
as 4-ytll( Gov1V\t~+nvt~r' ~lf-~ dftha. pew~.s,
I . Developer shall maintain (or obterwise provide for said maintenance via
homeowners association or golf course operator) all "islands" in the streets
shown on Phases 3 and 4 of Cedar Creek South as shown on the Concept
Master Plan attached as Exhibit B. Developer will provide a maintenance
agreeD?-ent for these "islands" prior to finalJ>lanapproval. AI ( p(~ts wlft:~
'7aJot f 5law:!g ~~+ k{ ca.p~ o}- vvfii19~kj ~ ' 4Qtf'PiTath
Reimbursement of Costs Related to the Installation of Certain Municipal "~... U<J
Improvements. ~"
wfvr'f6t" \M ., ... ,~
The City recognizes, and Developer agrees, that Developer shall install a sanitary
sewer Lift Station ("Lift Station") which will benefit properties in addition to those
owned or controlled by Developer. Said Lift Station is identified on the attached
Exhibit . Developer shall construct the Lift Station as indicated on Exhibit
_ and Developer shall pay all of the cost of said Lift Station. As a consequence
of Developer's installation of the Lift Station:
A. The City shall undertake good-faith efforts to establish a trunk sanitary sewer
charge ("Trunk Charge") upon all property within the City of Albertville
which the City Engineer determines can make use of said Lift Station via
gravity flow sanitary sewers. Said Trunk Charge shall be based upon a
calculation of all land within the City of Albertville which the City Engineer
detennines can make use of said Lift Station via gravity flow sanitary sewers
(including any such land included in the Subject Property) divided by the cost
of the Lift Station (the product of this calculation shall be called the "Per Acre
Charge"). The Cost of said Lift Station shall be made by multiplying the low
bid for the installation of the Lift Station by 1.18 (using 18% for engineering).
B. Upon the establishment of Said Trunk Charge ordinance, the City agrees to
reimburse to Developer all monies collected under said Trunk Charge
ordinance which stem from the per-acre charge established above.
This amount shall be reimbursable solely from trunk charges collected from
lands which connect into said Lift Station, but only to the extent that said
trunk charges are directly attributable to the costs associated with the
installation of the Lift Station. The City and Developer agree that the per acre
Trunk Charge as detennined in subparagraph above and as paid by
7
"
benefited lands which connect to the Lift Station shall be reimbursed to the
Developer. The City shall have no obligation to reimburse to Developer
trunk charges from lands which do not directly utilize said Lift Station via
gravity flow sewers. If additional Trunk Charge fees (in excess of the amount
attributable to the installation of the Lift Station) are required of other lands,
including "benefited lands," to offset additional trunk-line related costs of the
City, said additional fees shall belong solely to the City.
C. The City's obligation to reimburse developer shall exist only to the extent that
the City collects said Lift Station charges as detailed in subparagraphs A and
B. above, and no other City monies shall be used to reimburse Developer.
Reimbursement to the Developer by the City of qualifying monies shall occur
by January 31st and July 31st of each year for the periods ending the prior
December 31st and June 30th, respectively. The City's obligation to
reimburse Developer under this paragraph shall cease on July 31, 2006,
regardless of whether Developer shall have received any reimbursement by
said date. Under no circumstances shall Developer be reimbursed more than
the total cost of the Lift Station. If for any reason the City is unable to
establish or enforce a trunk charge collection mechanism, the City shall have
no obligation to reimburse Developer.
D. Developer shall be eligible for reimbursement under this paragraph only if the
Lift Station is installed by the lowest responsible bidder as determined by the
City Council in accordance with all applicable provisions of Minnesota
Statutes ~471.345.
E. Should Developer develop any lands which utilize said Lift Statio~
Developer shall pay the City the full amount of the trunk charge in effect at
the time said lands are platted. Developer shall then be reimbursed from said
paid trunk charges according to subparagraph above.
F. Developer shall acquire all permanent and temporary easements necessary for
the installation of the Lift Station to be completed by Developer, and shall
dedicate all such easements to the City, all at Developer's sole expense. All
such easements must be approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney
prior to their dedication to the City.
G. Developer shall dedicate the Lift Station to the City upon its completio~ and
shall be warranted by Developer for two years from the date of its dedication
to the City. Developer shall construct said Lift Station according to
8
. I
specifications approved by the City Engineer, and no building permits shall
be issued for any Phase which drains into said Lift Station until said Lift
Station is fully operational.
H. Developer understands that the reimbmsement arrangement set forth in this
agreement is unique and untested under the law. Developer agrees that
should a court invalidate this agreement or any portion of the reimbmsement
provisions of this agreement such that the City can not reimburse Developer
from future fees as set forth in this agreement the City shall have no further
obligation to reimbmse Developer for any costs incurred by Developer in
constructing said Lift Station.
5. Intended Use of Subject Property.
It is the Developer's and City's intent that single-family detached dwelling
units, two-family detached attached dwelling units and an eighteen hole golf
course be constructed on the lots in Said Plan (one unit on each lot). All said
housing units and the entire golf course shall be constructed in the locations
(e ~}l as shown on the attached Concept Plan. Developer agrees that it shall not
K7 0- f--~ construct any units other than those as shown on said Concept Plan. The
\ \:) . t)~ O''f number of single family lots constructed on the Subject Property shall not
, f* \ s f)r, ~+i' exceed 278 and the number of twin / town homes shall not exceed 74 for all
~" ~D .{..te~ . of the Subject Property. The area designated for the eighteen hole golf course
\<o_~ 111 ~ >(.> \'" ~.. shall be restricted to use only as an eighteen hole golf course with typical
~ '\ 'r . ' t:i 'r-.Jf . \ complimentary accessory uses commonly associated in the industry with the
\\ ~ ~ _,,xl golf c,ourse uses. Such restriction shall nm with the land and shall bind all
()~ '1 rj' Cf:fI future assignees and/or successors in interest. The restriction on use of this
l(JJ"', \\{' \\~ land only for golf course pwposes may be modified only upon the written
/",\6'>(-> ? \,\}.. JlL authorization of the City, and the City shall exercise sole discretion in .
v I) ~' 0":) determining whether to allow any use other than an I8-hole golf course on
(J ""W)'" the property shown as golf course property on the Concept Plan. In the event
Sf \fJ ' ~ the Developer fails to construct the golf course as shown on the Concept Plan,
~ \'l.A0 ~, the land shown as golf course use on the Concept Plan shall remain vacant,
~~ undeveloped land in perpetuity, or until said golf course is constructed and
lI: ' ~l <vJl operated by Developer or successor to 1I1e Developer.. ,
-..\~~ ~lJ. R l( Developer shall locate all housing on 1I1e Subject Property wi1l1 1I1e houses ?
X:J~'-.~ \ ~\~ facing in the approximate directions as shown on the Concept Plan. Prior to P
ct ~~"'(} \ the sale of each lot on the Property, illustrative plans shall be disclosea to
tI ~ # ~ each potential buyer to avoid resident complaints relative to non-conventional
~x \~
~~ ~~.
A.
9
. ;
C.
D.
ctj!~ Ij ')
E.
F.
~~f~
r>wMlY ~~{'j
(}.li \0
6.
house placement throughout the Subject Property. Developer shall obtain a
release from each landowner, in a form approved by the City Attorney,
regarding the placement of the homes in the doving concept.
Developer shall require via recorded covenants that all homes abutting the>
golf course install at least a 1/3 brick facing on the front of all said homes.
~fIle I ~tL
Developer shall require via recorded covenants that the minimum square
footage of each town home in the development shall be no less than 960
square feet. The Developer shall require via recorded covenants that the
minimum square footage for the garages adjacent to the town homes shall be
no less than ~ square feey For all town home properties, Developer
shall record co rumts and restrictions acceptable to the City Attorney against
said properties. Said covenants and restrictions shall provide for the
maintenance of all grounds encompassing the town home development and
shall provide for the common maintenance of all town home structures.
All townhome developments on the subject property shall be configured with
several individual lots (containing the housing structure) and one common lot
surrounding all such individual lots, similar to that configuration shown on
the attached Exhibit . <3oVl1e 1uL<.M i1 o~ la;yOvt 1-5 rrvnJ b
fVu.. atltU ff 01/1 ar(if i1It iYd ~itr II ttM'atlt ·
The golf course shall be open for busine~s to the public at large, and shall not
be converted to a "private" golf course without the express written consent of
the Albertville City Council.
VJ,-2f7 ? ?
Albertville residents shall receive a discount of at least % off of the ~'o
regular fee charged to the general public .for use of the golf course. ~ {
~~-Jlf> ~ uAl1.l?\1I ~ \
/W 01/ wi ~f')c, !
Upon the approval of the final plan for each Phase of the development of the
Subject Property, Developer shall provide the City with an irrevocable letter
of credit (or other surety as approved by the City Attorney) as security that the
obligations of the Developer under this contract shall be performed. Said
letter of credit or surety shall be in the amount equal to 100% of the estimated
cost of installing the Municipal Improvements detailed in paragraph
above, plus 50% of the estimated cost of the on- and off-site improvements
detailed in paragraph above. Said letter of credit or surety must meet
Surety Requirements.
A.
10
. I
the approval of the City attorney as to form and issuing bank. No letter of
credit shall be required for the completion of the eighteen hole golf course.
Instead, developer has agreed that Phases 3 and 4 of the residential
developments shall remain unbuildable open space until the golf course is
completed in accordance with the requirements of this document
B. As an alternative to providing a 100% letter of credit, Developer may provide
the City with a combination of an irrevocable letter of credit and a
performance bond as security that the obligations of the Developer under this
contract shall be performed. Said combination shall be as follows:
1. A letter of credit in the amount of 75% of the estimated cost of the
improvements. Said letter of credit must meet the approval of the City
attorney as to form and issuing bank.
11. A performance bond in the amount of 150% of the remaining 25% of
the cost of the improvements. Said bond must meet the approval of
the City attorney as to form and issuing company.
The City reserves the right to require the Developer to provide a 100% letter
of credit for future Phases under this agreement in the event that the City
actually draws on a letter of credit or bond provided under this agreement.
C. The City may draw on said letter of credit or surety to complete work not
performed by Developer (including but not limited to on- and off-site
improvements, Municipal Improvements described above, erosion control,
and other such measures, but not the golf course construction), to pay liens on
property to be dedicated to the City, to reimburse itself for costs incurred in
the drafting, execution, administration or enforcement of this agreement, to
repair or correct deficiencies or other problems which occur to the Municipal
Improvements during the warranty period, or to otherwise fulfill the
obligations of Developer under this agreement.
D. In the event that any cash, irrevocable letter of credit, or other surety referred
to herein is ever utilized and found to be deficient in amount to payor
reimburse the City in total as required herein, the Developer agrees that upon
being billed by the City, Developer will pay within thirty (30) days of the
mailing of said billing, the said deficient amount If there should be an
overage in the amount of utilized security, the City will, upon making said
determination, refund to the Developer any monies which the City has in its
possession which are in excess of the actual costs of the project as paid by the
11
. \
City.
E. Developer hereby agrees to allow the City to specially assess any portion of
the Subject Property for any and all costs incurred by the City in enforcing
any of the terms of this agreement should Developer's letter of credit or surety
prove insufficient or should Developer fail to maintain said letter of credit or
surety in the amount required above within 30 days of mailing of written
request by the City. Should the City specially assess Developer's property for
said costs, Developer agrees not to contest or appeal such assessment (on the
grounds that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property, but
Developer may challenge the calculation of the costs used to determine the
assessment) and Developer waives all statutory rights of appeal under
Minnesota Statutes, including Minnesota Statute 429.081 except as othetwise
allowed in this sentence.
7. Surety Release.
A. Periodically, as payments are made by the Developer for the completion of
portions of the Municipal Improvements and/or On- and Off-site
Improvements in any given Phase, and when it is reasonably prudent, the
Developer may request of the City that the surety be proportionately reduced
for that portion of the Municipal Improvements and/or On- and Off-site
Improvements which have been fully completed and payment made therefor.
All such decisions shall be at the discretion of the City Council. The City's
cost for processing reduction request( s) shall be billed to the Developer. Such
cost shall be paid to the City within thirty (30) days of the date of mailing of
the billing.
B. The Developer may request of the City a reduction or release of any surety as
follows:
1. When another acceptable letter of credit or surety is furnished to the
City to replace a prior letter of credit or surety. ..
11. When all or a portion of the Municipal Improvements or the on- and
off-site improvements have been installed, the letter of credit or surety
may be reduced by the dollar amount attributable to that portion of
improvements so installed, except that the City shall retain the letter of
credit or surety in the amount of 10% of the estimated construction
price of the Municipal Improvements during the fIrst year of the
12
. .
warranty period and 5% of the estimated construction price of the
Municipal Improvements during the second year of the warranty
period.
W. As to all requests brought under sub paragraph A, the City Council
shall have complete discretion whether to reduce or not to reduce said
letter of credit or surety.
C. The costs incurred by the City in processing any reduction request shall be
billed to the Developer and paid to the City within thirty (30) days of billing.
8. Sanitary Sewer Trunk Line Fees.
A. Developer agrees that the City's Sanitary Sewer Trunk Line Fee Ordinance
currently requires the Developer to pay $1,400.00 per acre in sanitary sewer
trunk line fees as each residential Phase is granted final plan approval.
Developer acknowledges that said Trunk Line Fee may increase in the future
as costs related to the sanitary sewer trunk line collection system rise. All
such increases in fees shall be established by resolution of the City Council
and shall be reasonably related to the trunk line costs incurred by the City.
Developer shall pay Trunk Line Fees at the time of granting of final plan
approval for each Phase of the development, and said Trunk Line Fees shall
be paid according to the per acre fee in force at the time approval is granted to
each Phase of the final plan. The 18.4 acre "Existing Wetland" adjacent to the
Parkside Third Addition Plat shall be included in the acreage calculation of
Phase 2 in Cedar Creek South.
B. Developer agrees that by October 1, 1999, Developer shall pay a Trunk Line
fee of $ for all areas of the golf course, based upon a reduced
per acre fee, which in turn reflects anticipated reduced per-acre sanitary sewer
flows from the golf course use.
C. Pursuant to that Developer's Agreement known as the Parkside TIrird
Addition Developer's Agreement between Developer and City dated
. 199 ---.oJ Developer shall receive a credit of $ per acre to
be applied said Trunk Line Fee described above for all portions of said plan
which will utilize the trunk line installed by Developer (said Trunk Line as
described in said Parkside Third Addition Developer's Agreement), except
that said credit shall not apply to any trunk line fees which apply to the golf
course area.
13
. i
9.
wJ w1~-t-)
~ oJsv1 or
Project Phases. { ~<,
A. Developer shall be allowed to develop the Subject Prope . m Phases '\ fA S
consistent with the Concept Phasing Plan attached as E it E. In doing so, (JJtf"\~ · C
Developer shall submit a development plan (similar to reliminary plat), ~ ~j' C
including a grading and drainage plan and utility plan or each respective Vf/ -\
Phase. Upon approval of the development plan for a Phase by the City, the
Developer shall submit a final plan (similar to a final plat) for that Phase. The
submission requirements reflected in this paragraph represent current PUD
ordinance requirements. In the event that the City modifies said submission
requirements, Developer shall comply with the submission requirements in
effect at the time each stage of Phase approvals are applied for. Developer
shall not be allowed to build structures on any portion of the Subject Property
until the portion to be built upon has received final plan approval from the
City. The Phases referred to herein are those Phases shown on the Concept
Plan.
B.
Developer shall "rough grade," and seed all portions of the golf course
(including the portions located within the boundaries of the City of S t.
Michael) to correspond with the Concept Grading and Drainage Plan attached
as Exhibit D by September 30, 1998. In the event Developer fails to so grade
the golf course property by said date, all Phase 3 and 4 properties shall remain
vacant and shall be deemed non-buildable land until the rough grade and
seeding of the golf course has been completed.
C.
Developer shall not be allowed to proceed with the final plan of any Phase 3
or Phase 4 property in Cedar Creek North and Cedar Creek South, nor shall
Developer be allowed to proceed with the final plan of any Phase 4 property
in Center Oaks until all 18 holes of the golf course have been completed
according to the Concept Plan, construction has begun on the club house, and
until the golf course is open for business. In the event Developer fails to so
complete and open the golf course, all Phase 3 and Phase 4 property in Cedar
Creek North and Cedar Creek South, and all Phase 4 property in Center Oaks
shall remain vacant and shall be deemed non-buildable land (except for the
construction of an 18-hole golf course as shown on the Concept Plan) until
the golf course is so completed.
D.
Developer shall install a paved parking 10t{S shown on the Concept Plan
for the 18 hole golf course by October 31, 1999.
vJt'\~ (~
14
. ,
E. Developer shall not be granted final plan approval of any Phase 4 property on
any of the Subject Property until a golf course club house reasonably
adequate to support the operation of the golf course as a going concern is fully
constructed and operational. In the event the Developer fails to complete the
golf course club house by August 31, 2000, all Phase 4 property shall remain
vacant and shall be deemed non-buildable land (except for the construction of
an IS-hole golf course as shown on the Concept Plan) until the golf course
club house is completed.
F. The Developer shall establish homeowners' associations via recorded
covenants for each Phase of t()wn home developments. Said associations
shall provide for maintenance of all common areas and the exterior of all
town home structures. Said association agreements/covenants shall be in a
form and content acceptable to the City Attorney.
G. It is anticipated that due to market conditions, Developer may increase the
size of one or more of the Phases (i.e. move the boundary of the Phase to
take in lots currently shown in a different Phase) at time of final plan cfe/J.oJ.
approval. Said addition or subtraction of 10 lots per Phase shall be allowe \0!
(except in the town home Phases, where no s' m lots s e allowe ,
provided Developer may not shift lots from a restricted Phase (e.g. Phases 3
and 4) without fIrst completing the prerequisites to developing the lots in
said restricted Phases as required by this agreement.
10. Abandonment of Project - Costs and Expenses. In the event Developer should
abandon the proposed development of the Subject Property, the City's costs and
expenses related to attorney's fees, professional review, drafting of this Agreement,
preparation of the feasibility report, plans and specifications, and any other expenses
undertaken in reliance upon Developer's various assertions shall be paid by said
Developer within thirty (30) days after receipt of a bill for such costs from the City.
In addition, in the event the Developer abandons the project, in whole or in part,
ceases substantial field work for more than nine (9) months, fails to provide
sufficient ground-cover to prevent con,tinuing soil erosion from the Plan, or fails to
leave the abandoned property in a condition which can be mowed using conventional
lawn mowing equipment, Developer agrees to pay all costs the City may incur in
taking whatever action is reasonably necessary to provide ground-cover and
otherwise restore Said Plan to the point where undeveloped grounds are level and
covered with permanent vegetation sufficient to prevent continuing soil erosion from
Said Plan and to facilitate mowing of Said Plan. In the event that said costs are not
15
paid, the City may withdraw funds from the above-mentioned surety for the pmpose
of paying the costs referred to in this paragraph.
11. Developer to Pay City's Costs and Expenses. It is understood and agreed that the
Developer will reimburse the City for all reasonable administrative, legal, planning,
engineering and other professional costs incurred in the creation, administration,
enforcement or execution of this Agreement and the approval of Said Plan, as well
as all reasonable engineering expenses incurred by the City in designing, approving,
installing, and inspecting said Improvements described above. Developer agrees to
pay all such costs within 30 days of billing by the City. If Developer fails to pay said
amounts, Developer agrees to allow the City to reimburse itself from said surety
and/or assess the amount owed against any or all of the Said Plan without objection.
Developer has the right to request time sheets or work records to verify said billing
prior to payment.
12. Erosion and Siltation Control. Before any grading is started on any Phase,
Developer shall implement all erosion control measures required by the City
Engineer. Developer shall first prepare an erosion control plan for approval of each
Phase by City Engineer. Developer shall also install all erosion control measures
deemed necessary by the City Engineer should the erosion control plan prove
inadequate in any respect.
13. Ditch Cleaning. Developer shall comply with all requirements set forth for drainage
into any county ditch or other ditch through which water from Subject Property may
drain, and shall make any necessary improvements or go through any necessary
procedures to ensure compliance with any federal, state, COWlty or city requirements,
all at Developer's expense.
14. Maintain Public Property Damaged or Cluttered During Construction.
Developer agrees to assume full financial responsibility for any damage which may
occur to public property including but not limited to streets, street sub- base, base,
bituminous surface, curb, utility system including but not limited to watermain,
sanitary sewer or storm sewer when said damage occurs as a result of the activity
which takes place during the development of Said Plan. The Developer further
agrees to pay all costs required to repair the streets and! or utility systems damaged or
cluttered with debris when occurring as a direct or indirect result of the construction
that takes place in Said Plan. In the event the Developer fails to clean up, maintain
or repair the damaged public property mentioned above, the City shall provide the
Developer with aN otice of its intent to clean up, repair, or maintain such public
property. Developer shall have thirty (30) days from the date of mailing of such
16
. ; I
notice to effect such clean up, repair or maintenance of said public property to the
satisfaction of the City COWlcil. In the event that Developer fails to so clean up,
repair or maintain said public property, the City may Wldertake making or causing it
to be cleaned up, repaired or maintained. When the City Wldertakes such activity,
the Developer shall reimburse the City for all of its expenses within thirty (30) days
of its billing to the Developer. If the Developer fails to pay said bill within thirty
(30) days, funds sufficient to pay the bill may be withdrawn by the City from the
surety described above and/or assessed against any or all of Said Plan.
15. Temporary Easement Rights. Developer shall provide access to the Subject
Property at all reasonable times to the City or its representatives for purposes of
inspection or to accomplish any necessary work pursuant to this agreement.
16. Miscellaneous.
A. Developer agrees that all construction items required Wlder this agreement are
items for which Developer is responsible for completing and all work shall be
done at Developer's expense.
B. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase of
this Contract is for any reason held invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portion of this Contract.
C. Ifbuilding permits are issued prior to the completion and acceptance of public
improvements, the Developer assumes all liability and the costs resulting in
delays in completion of public improvements and damage to public
improvements caused by the City, Developer, its contractors, subcontractors,
materialmen, employees, agents, or third parties. No one may occupy a
building for which a building permit is issued on either a temporary or
permanent basis Wltil the streets needed for access have class five gravel and
concrete curbing installed, unless a specific exception is approved by the City.
D. The action or inaction of the City shall not constitute a waiver or amendment
to the provisions of this Contract. To be binding, amendments or waivers
shall be in writing, signed by the parties and approved by written resolution of
the City COWlcil. The City's failure to promptly take legal action to enforce
this Contract shall not be a waiver or release.
E. This Contract shall run with the land and shall be recorded against the title to
the property via a short-form companion document referencing this
17
f.
agreement. After the Developer has completed all work and obligations
required of it under this Contract (including the expiration of the warranty
, period), at the Developer's request, the City will execute and deliver to the
Developer a release of its obligations under this agreement, but paragraphs
, and of this agreement shall remain binding
upon all present and future owners of any portions of the Subject Property.
F. All municipal water concerns will be handled by the Joint Powers Water
Board. No connections to the water system will be permitted until the Board
has given final approval.
G. The Developer represents to the City that the Concept Plan complies with all
City, county, state and federal laws and regulations, including but not limited
to: subdivision ordinances, zoning ordinances, and environmental
regulations. If the City determines that the Concept Plan does not comply
with any of the above mentioned laws and regulations, the City may, at its
option, refuse to allow construction or development work on Said Property
until the City identifies said non-compliance and Developer so complies with
said laws and regulations. Upon the City's demand, the Developer shall cease
work until there is compliance with said laws and regulations.
H. Prior to the execution of this agreement and prior to the start of any
construction on the Subject Property, Developer shall provide the City with
evidence of good and marketable title to all of Subject Property. Evidence of
good and marketable title shall consist of a Title Insurance Policy or
Commitment from a national title insurance company, or an abstract of title
updated by an abstract company registered under the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
I. Developer shall comply with all water, ponding and wetland related
restrictions as may be required by the Wright County Soil and Water
Conservation District.
J. Developer acknowledges that the City currently does not have adequate waste
water treatment plant capacity to serve existing platted properties and the entire
Subject Property. Accordingly, approval of this Concept Plan shall in no way be
construed as a guarantee that the City will provide waste water treatment plant
capacity for any or all Phases at the time of final plan approval for any such
Phase. Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City shall not be liable in
any manner if at the time of fmal plan approval for any Phase, the City does not
18
.. {' I ~ .
have waste water treatment capacity to accommodate said Phase. The developer
acknowledges that the City has reserved sewer capacity for those properties
abutting the trunk sewer line currently serving the STMA high school located on
Wright County Highway 35, and as such, at all times these parties shall have
priority over Developer for allocation of wastewater treatment plant capacity.
The City reserves the right to allocate wastewater treatment plant capacity among
developments (including future residential, commercial or industrial
developments) or to refuse to grant final plan approval for any Phase for which
unallocated waste water treatment plant capacity is not available.
K. The City shall give concep4~al at the time of the execution of this
agreement, but no development plan approval shall be granted until the City of
St. Michael grants approval of a conditional use permit.
L. In the event an Environmental Impact Statement is required to be prepared for
this project, the City reserves the right to refuse to approve development plans or
final plans for any Phases of the Subject Property until said Environmental
Impact Statement has been prepared and adequately addresses all environmental
issues related to this development.
17. Draw on Expiring Letter of Credit. In the event a surety referred to herein is in the
form of an irrevocable letter of credit, which by its terms may become null and void
prior to the time at which all monetary or other obligations of the Developer are paid
or completed, it is agreed that the Developer shall provide the City with a new letter
of credit or other surety, acceptable to the City, at least forty-five (45) days prior to
the expiration of the expiring letter of credit. If a new letter of credit is not received
as required above, the City may declare a default in the terms of this Agreement and
thence draw in part or in total, at the City's discretion, upon the expiring letter of
credit to avoid the loss of surety for the continued obligation. The form of said
irrevocable letter of credit must be approved by the City Attorney prior to its
Issuance.
18. Violation of Agreement.
A. In the case of default by the Developer, its successors or assigns, of any of the
covenants and agreements herein contained, the City shall give Developer
thirty (30) days mailed notice thereof (via certified mail), and if such default
is not cured within said thirty (30) day period, the City is hereby granted the
right and the privilege to declare any deficiencies governed by this Agreement
due and payable to the City in full. The thirty (30) day notice period shall be
19
, I . I ..
deemed to run from the date of deposit in the United States Mail. Upon
failure to cure by Developer, the City may thence immediately and without
notice or consent of the Developer use all of the deposited cash, irrevocable
letter of credit or other surety funds to complete the Developer's obligations
under this agreement, and to bring legal action against the Developer to
collect any sums due to the City pursuant to this Agreement, plus all costs and
attorney's fees incurred in enforcing this agreement.
B. Paragraph 15A shall not apply to any acts or rights of the City under
paragraph 14 above, and no notice need be given to the Developer as a
condition precedent to the City declaring a default or drawing upon the
expiring irrevocable letter of credit as therein authorized. The City may elect
to give notice to Developer of the City's intent to draw upon the surety
without waiving the City's right to draw upon the surety at a future time
without notice to the Developer.
C. Breach of any of the terms of this Contract by the Developer shall be grounds
for denial of building permits.
19. Dedications to the City.
A. Upon the completion of all construction work and certification of completion
by the City Engineer for any given Phase, the Developer, upon presentation to
the City of evidence of good and marketable title to Phase being developed,
shall dedicate all roads, road right of ways, sewers and water mains to the
City (except for the private roads described above, which shall not be
dedicated to the City). Upon acceptance of dedication, Developer shall
provide to the City "As-Builts" of all sewers, water mains, and roads.
Acceptance by City of any dedication shall occur upon passage of a resolution
to such effect by the City Council.
B. Developer acknowledges that under the City's current park dedication
ordinance, a certain amount of land acceptable to the City must be dedicated
to the City and/or a specified amount of money must be paid to the City in
lieu of land dedicated for park purposes, such amounts payable upon the
approval of the final plan for any particular Phase. The City and Developer
recognize that the required amount ofland dedicated or money paid may
increase prior to the granting of final plan approval for any or all of the Phases
contemplated under this agreement. The City recognizes that any increases in
20
the amount of land required to be dedicated subsequent to the date of this
agreement may interfere with the complete development of the Concept Plan
as it has been approved by the City. As a result, the City and Developer agree
that only that land currently shown on the Concept Plan as land to be
dedicated for park purposes shall be dedicated for park purposes. The
Developer acknowledges that land zoned R5 shall not be included in park
dedication land at this time. Wetlands dedicated as park land shall not be )C
credited~oward park dedication required under this agreement. ,1 /2/1 A f IIJ'll
~ S \tI1"?/?-Ule. ?-1-1"It.avUv~
The City and Developer agree that for purposes 0 satisfying the City's
residential park dedication requirements, land in e amount of 10% of the
Subject Property land shown as residential land ~ including the li.4 aSH_
_~ \ ~ornSai:)thAg \l}:etland") is required to be dedicated to the City by Developer.
(j ~'\ . However, Developer desires to dedicate ~ acres of land (representing
42- ~ only ~ % of the required land), and therefore shall satisfy the remainder
. of the park dedication requirement via the payment of cash to .!be City on a
.X\6per..art basis representing F;; ~ % of the residential ~'lihe .
""~lopment, at the per-lot requirement in effect at the time each Phase
receives ~al ~lat. ~ currently shown on, 9J.~, Q.once~t Plan, 6 S?% ~ O\J ~ ~
of the resId~n~~_ ~q~s .'2Jl4 ~~ ~hich the Developer will e \? 1--IJ.
pay a per-~M-i:~edication. Developer shall dedIcate the lands shown as ~2-\IJ I
park lands on the Concept Plan. Said dedication shall occur in the locations
shown on the Concept Plan and shall be dedicated at the time the Phase one
adjacent to each park receives final plan approval. Nothing in this agreement
shall be construed to require the Developer to dedicate more land than the
<:[. og acres currently shown as park land on the Concept Plan.
~ :I.L..-..:
X'
... fb S v'
l' x:!~
'\ ~ . \}- \f\ ...J1.~
V 0'-b'
f'hVy l>(9
'J V'
D.
E.
C.
In the event that Developer dedicates more park land than required with any
particular Phase, Developer shall receive a park land dedication credit which
may be applied to subsequent Phases. Actual park dedication amounts shall
be figured on a Phase by Phase basis, and all cash to be paid in lieu of land
dedications shall be paid as each Phase receives final plan approval. Payment
of said park dedication fee shall occur prior to release of the final plan.
The City and Developer agree that for purposes of satisfying the City's M11 y i 0.- ~
commercial park dedication requirements, Developer shall dedicate an -Ov (;f \11r&/A(
amount of cash equal to % of the value of the land shown on the \
Concept Plan as golf course land. Said % of value of the land shall
be determined as of the time the golf course land receives final plan approval.
21
, ,;
The land shall be valued at such time based upon its zoning for a golf course
use, but any improvements made to the land (including grading, turf seeding,
parking lot or building improvements) shall not be included in said valuation
(i.e. the land shall be valued as "raw" land, zoned for a golf course use).
Valuation shall be determined based upon the assessed value of the land as
shown at the Wright County Assessor's office or, if either the City or the
Developer so requests, by appraisal by a licensed real estate appraiser. If an
appraiser is used for the valuation, the Developer shall have the option of
jointly choosing an appraiser with the City, provided the Developer pays half
of the cost of the appraiser. If the Developer does not agree to pay half of the
~ \V' cost, the City shall choose the appraiser. In either case, the appraiser's
\ S\! l~ valuation shall be binding upon both the City and Developer for purposes of
~ 1{\ this subparagraph.
.:J \? ~^~f<~
1'1 ~^r_ . J cJ F. All trails shall be dedicated and paved by developer consistent with the
'6 .n (~~~K:,r CJ1!:~ \ Concept Master Plan attached as Exhibit B. The cost of
~. .. ; ....\:.. lJ X . ~ ~ paving said trails shall be deducted from the total park dedication fee owed by
~~ ry "V' A .., (}l the Developer. The cost shall be determined based upon the lowest
~ {/;1f'(v ~\f'.vY( '>(.. ~ responsible bidder as determined by the Albertville City Council, plus
,,\"'~ (~." ..,(~ '7 % for engineering. The plans and specifications for any such trails
\r \ \..i ~,y. shall be approved by the City Engineer.
~(',. ~ ,1J.r G. Developer shall provide the City wi~ easements over e~h pond into which
e r:.r ~ ~ storm water from any Phase will dram. Upon the grantIng of final plan
/:~.rJ- ^' ~ ..N. \\, ,yapproval for any given Phase, Developer shall provide said easements for the
\ \; ~~' ~'{\ i'('!' corresponding ponds into which storm water from said Phase will drain. All
~"\ \;~ lY ~ b- said easements shall be approved by the City Engineer and the City Attorney.
\Ie S~ \. ~ J( .ltl~ Developer (or any successor owner(s)) of the lands designated as golf course
-. ~ if ~ land shall maintain all ponds located upon the golf course land. Said
rJI' ~ ^ ~ ^ ~"V-~. maintenance shall include cleaning of ponds as necessary to maintain good
~~ R\..rJv., ~ :l~' and proper drainage from the adjacent residential Phases which drain into said
_ l'rf' "'.. \ ~ ~ ~ ponds. In the event Developer or said successor owner( s) fail to adequately
~"- ~ ~, maintain said ponds, the City shall have the right to perform said maintenance
1\ ~ \"t- _,j,/Y' and the then owner of the golf course shall pay all costs incurred by the City
~ # ~ in perlorming said maintenance.
~~.~
1.
All lots which are to remain non-buildable due to the presence of wetlands
shall be deeded to the City by the Developer upon the granting of fmal plan
approval for the Phase or Phases adjacent to said wetlands.
22
..... ! }. )
20. Phased Development. The City may refuse to approve final plans of subsequent
Phases until public improvements for all prior Phases have been satisfactorily
completed. Developer shall enter into a supplemental contract for each Phase
addressing the particular aspects of said Phase not specifically addressed in this
agreement, including the amount of surety to be posted, the amount of park
dedication funds to be paid to the City, the timing of installation of Municipal
Improvements and on- and off-site improvements, the payment of Trunk Line Fees
and Lift Station fees, and other such items deemed necessary by the City Councilor
required by ordinance. In the event that Developer breaches any of the terms of this
agreement or any supplemental contracts referred to in this paragraph, the City shall
have the right to deny approval of any subsequent Phases until such breach has been
cured.
21. Indemnity. Developer shall hold the City and its officers and employees hannless
from claims made by Developer and third parties for damages sustained or costs
incurred resulting from Said Plan approval and development. The Developer shall
indemnify the City and its officers and employees for all costs, damages or expenses
which the City may payor incur in consequence of such claims, including attorney's
fees. Third parties shall have no recourse against the City under this contract.
22. Assignment of Contract. The obligations of the Developer under this Contract
cannot be assigned without the express written consent of the City Council through
Council resolution.
23. Professional Fees. The Developer will pay all reasonable professional fees incurred
by the City as a result of City efforts to enforce the terms of this Agreement. Said
fees include attorney's fees, engineer's fees, planner's fees, and any other professional
fees incurred by the City in attempting to enforce the terms of this Agreement. The
Developer will also pay all reasonable attorney's and professional fees incurred by
the City in the event an action is brought upon a letter of credit or other surety
furnished by the Developer as provided herein.
24. Notification Information. Any notices to the parties herein shall be in writing,
delivered by hand (to the City Clerk for the City) or registered mail addressed as
follows to the following parties:
City of Albertville
c/o City Clerk
23
"",'" A .t
P.O. Box 9
Albertville, MN 55301
Telephone: (612) 497-3384
Pilot Land Development Company, Inc.
c/o Kent Roessler
13736 N.E. Johnson Street
Ham Lake, MN 55304
Telephone: (612) 757-9816
25. Agreement Effect. This agreement shall be binding upon and extend to the
representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE,
By
Its Mayor
By
Its Clerk
PILOT LAND DEVELOPIvfENT
COMPANY, INC.
By Kent Roessler
Its President
By
Its
24
~ (~ . to'::: )'
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1997, by Mark Olson, as Mayor of the City of Albertville, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the city and pursuant to the authority of the
City Council.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1997, by Linda Houghton, as Clerk of the City of Albertville, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the city and pursuant to the authority of the
City Council.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1997, by Kent Roessler, as President of Pilot Land Development
Compaily, Inc.
Notary Public
25
. r ;.1-.. ;:Y~
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF WRIGHT )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 1997, by of Pilot Land Development
Company, Inc.
Notary Public
DRAFTED BY:
Radzwill & Couri Law Office
P.O. Box 369
705 Central Avenue East
81. Michael, MN 55376
(612)497-1930
26