2009-05-12 PC Agenda Packet
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL – ADOPT AGENDA
2. MINUTES
March 10, 2009 Planning and Zoning Meeting (pages 1-6)
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Wagener Conditional Use Permit for a second accessory building over 150 square
feet and variance to the side yard setback for a 216 square foot detached accessory
building to be used as a personal storage shed. (pages 7-19)
4. OTHER BUSINESS
a. Subdivision Ordinance Amendment: Section 11-1-3, Definitions of Storm Water
Management Terms; Section 11-6-2, Preliminary Plat Submittal Requirements;
Section 11-7-5, Lot Areas to Accommodate Structure Elevations; Section 11-7-
10, Drainage System Designs; Section 11-7-12, Erosion and Sediment Control;
Section 11-8-6, Drainage System Installation and Construction; Section 11-9-1,
Improvements Required for Drainage Facilities and Systems (pages 20-23)
5. ADJOURNMENT
“A quorum of Council members may be present.”
PLANNING and ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 10, 2009
Albertville Council Chamber 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL
Vice-chair Dorenbush called the Albertville Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order
at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Vice-chair Scott Dorenbush, Commission member Dale Edgren, Frank Kocon, and
Robert Olson, Council liaison Dan Wagner, City Planner Al Brixius, Zoning Administrator/
Building Official Jon Sutherland, and City Clerk Bridget Miller
ABSENT: Chair Sharon Leintz
ADOPT AGENDA
Vice-chair Dorenbush asked if there were any changes, additions, or deletions from the Tuesday,
March 10, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission agenda as presented.
Building Official Sutherland wanted to add Registration of Vacant Properties under Other
Business.
MOTION BY Commission member Edgren, seconded by Commission member Olson to
approve the Tuesday, March 10, 2009 agenda as amended adding Registration of Vacant
Properties under Other Business, which will be scanned and an electronic copy will be kept on
file in the office of the City Clerk. Motion carried unanimously.
MINUTES
Vice-chair Dorenbush asked if there were any changes, additions, or deletions on the Tuesday,
February 10, 2009 regular Planning and Zoning Commission minutes.
MOTION BY Commission member Kocon, seconded by Commission member Edgren to
approve the Tuesday, February 10, 2009 regular Planning and Zoning Commission minutes as
1
City of Albertville
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 10, 2009
2
presented, which a signed copy will be scanned and an electronic copy will be kept on file in the
office of the City Clerk. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
APPROVE ALBERTVILLE MARKETPLACE CONVENIENCE STORE – AMENDMENT TO THE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONCEPT PLAN AND A SITE AND BUILDING PLAN
REVIEW FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A CONVENIENCE STORE/GAS STATION/RETAIL
Vice-chair Dorenbush opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m.
City Planner Brixius reported that Phil Morris has applied for an amendment to the proposed
Convenience Store that will be located within the Albertville Marketplace Development. The
proposed changes included and are not limited to: increasing the size of the convenience store
floor plan from 4,700 square-feet up to 6,028 square-feet; moving the gasoline pump area
slightly; reducing the number of gas pumps from ten (10) pumps to eight (8) pumps; and adding
to the parking area. A car wash stacking diagram and exterior elevations have also been
provided to support the requested amendment.
Brixius explained that increasing the building size is to allow for the food service area, which
will include both a food preparation and seating area within the facility. The applicant is
attempting to upgrade the facility from the standard convenience store to having fresh food,
which is important to the concept.
Brixius noted that the gas pump area has been moved slightly to the east of its originally-
approved location and the number of pumps was reduced by two (2) to support a larger building
footprint. The number of parking spaces that was being proposed has increased from 35 to 55
spaces, which will accommodate the in-house dining that will be provided.
Brixius pointed out that there is a concern regarding the parking area south of the building.
According to the submitted site plan, it is difficult to determine if sufficient area is being
provided in order to accommodate theses necessary items; sidewalk south of the building; stall
depth of at least 20-feet; stall width of at least 9-feet; drive aisle width of at least 24-feet; and at
least a five (5) foot setback from the parking area to the private road, which provides space for
landscaping to be planted to act as a buffer between headlights and the private street.
There was discussion regarding the maximum allowance of impervious surface. According to
the Planner’s report, when the PUD was reviewed, the impervious surface of the entire PUD was
reviewed and came out to be 61%, which is well under the maximum allowed amount. Staff is
still recommending the three parallel parking spots north of the building should be removed and
replaced with green space; and the landscaping island located to the west of the car wash should
be increased in size, extending north and west, increasing the green space.
It was recommended that signage be provided within the site to assist in directing traffic. As for
the Car Wash stacking, cars are to enter from the east; therefore, it is recommended to install two
(2) “Do Not Enter” signs in the northwest corner of the lot facing west (one on either side of the
City of Albertville
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 10, 2009
3
drive lane.) Also, a “One Way” sign shall be placed across the drive aisle and slightly northeast
of the building, facing east.
In conclusion, staff recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept
Amendment for a Site and Building Plan Review of the expansion of the convenience store
within the Albertville Marketplace Development based on the following conditions:
1. A more detailed site plan shall be submitted that clearly indicates that the required parking
area standards are met in the parking area south of the building, including sidewalks,
parking stall sizes, drive aisle widths, setbacks, and the landscaping between the second
parking row and the private street. Staff would support the idea of moving the building
slightly to the north in order to accommodate this parking area.
2. A more detailed site plan shall be submitted that clearly directs traffic circulation with the
following updates:
a. The three (3) new parallel parking stalls located north of the building shall be
removed and replaced with green space;
b. The landscaping island located to the west of the car wash shall be increased in size,
extending north and west;
c. Two “Do Not Enter” signs shall be placed in the northwest corner of the lot, facing
west – one on either side of the drive lane exiting the site. A “One Way” sign shall be
placed across the drive aisle and slightly northeast of the building, facing east; and
d. The cars wash stacking lane shall be striped to delineate the stacking lane from the
drive lane that exits the site to the west.
3. The revised building shall be similar in design and exterior materials as the other
buildings is in the development;
4. Brick and stone shall compromise at least 50% of the exterior of the building; and
5. Colored renderings of the elevation drawings shall be submitted.
Vice-chair Dorenbush asked if any Commission members had questions or concerns regarding
the proposed approval of the Albertville Marketplace Convenience Store – Amendment to the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan and a Site and Building Plan Review for
Development of a Convenience Store/Gas Station/Retail.
Commission members had no additional comments.
Vice-chair Dorenbush asked if there was anyone in the audience that wanted to share comments
or concerns regarding the proposed approval of the Albertville Marketplace Convenience Store –
Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan and a Site and Building Plan
Review for Development of a Convenience Store/Gas Station/Retail.
Neil Weber, architect for Mr. Morris, informed the Commission members that Mr. Morris is in
agreement with staff’s recommendations. Weber went on to explain that when the plan was
City of Albertville
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 10, 2009
4
originally approved a general convenience store footprint was used as a prototype. Since the
approval, Phil Morris has taken the time to design a unique type of convenience store.
Weber demonstrated to the Commission members how the exterior brick design will be used.
Weber noted that the brick will not be the same as Emma Krumbees, but will compliment the
buildings exterior material.
Vice-chair Dorenbush closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m.
Vice-chair Dorenbush asked for a motion from the Commission members regarding the approval
of the Albertville Marketplace Convenience Store – Amendment to the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Concept Plan and a Site and Building Plan Review for Development of a
Convenience Store/Gas Station/Retail.
MOTION BY Commission member Edgren, seconded by Commission member Olson to
approve the Albertville Marketplace Convenience Store – Amendment to the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Concept Plan and a Site and Building Plan Review for Development of a
Convenience Store/Gas Station/Retail with staff’s recommendations, Engineer’s report dated
March 5, 2009, City Planner’s report dated March 5, 2009, and; contingent upon City Council
approval at the April 6, 2009 regular City Council meeting or a meeting soon thereafter, at which
time a Resolution including the Findings of Facts will be presented. Motion carried
unanimously.
APPROVE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (APPENDIX A, SECTION 300.1 AND 400.2) –
NUMBER OF COUNCIL VOTES NEEDED TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT (TEXT AND MAP) OR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Vice-chair Dorenbush opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
City Planner Brixius reported that staff discovered the current language in the Albertville City
Code is incorrect in regards to the number of Council votes needed to grant a variance,
conditional use permit, and amendment request. Staff is recommending amending Appendix A,
Section 300.1 and 400.2, which revises the number of Council votes needed to grant a
conditional use permit, a variance, or other such amendment from a four-fifths (4/5) vote to a
majority vote. Amending the City Code will be consistent with the Minnesota State Statute
ruling.
Vice-chair Dorenbush asked if any Commission members had questions or concerns regarding
the proposed approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Appendix A, Section 300.1 and 400.2)
– Number of Council votes needed to approve an Amendment (Text and Map) or Conditional
Use Permit.
Commission members had no comments regarding the text amendment.
Vice-chair Dorenbush asked if there was anyone in the audience that wanted to share comments
or concerns regarding the proposed approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Appendix A,
City of Albertville
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 10, 2009
5
Section 300.1 and 400.2) – Number of Council votes needed to approve an Amendment (Text
and Map) or Conditional Use Permit.
Vice-chair Dorenbush closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m.
Vice-chair Dorenbush looked to the Commission members for a motion regarding the approval
of Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Appendix A, Section 300.1 and 400.2) – Number of Council
votes needed to approve an Amendment (Text and Map) or Conditional Use Permit.
MOTION BY Commission member Kocon, seconded by Commission member Olson to
approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Appendix A, Section 300.1) – Number of Council
votes needed to approve an Amendment (Text and Map) or Conditional Use Permit with staff’s
recommendations, and; contingent upon City Council approval at the April 6, 2009 regular City
Council meeting or a meeting soon thereafter, at which time the Ordinance will be presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AMENDMENT (TITLE 10, SECTION 10-1-3) –
IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED ON A PROPERTY PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY OR REFUND OF AN ESCROW
City Planner Brixius reported that the City Attorney has prepared an amendment to the Building
and Development Regulations of the 2005 Albertville Municipal City Code Title 10 regarding
the improvements that are required on a property prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy or the refund of an Escrow. The amendment specifically addresses the removal of all
silt fencing on a property.
Brixius pointed out the proposed amendment adds language that specifies that the person or
company whom established the escrow must apply for a refund and that any silt fencing on the
property must be removed prior to the refund of an escrow of an escrow.
There were no comments from the Planning and Zoning Commission members; therefore, Vice-
chair Dorenbush asked for a motion to approve the ordinance amendment per staff
recommendations.
MOTION BY Commission member Olson, seconded by Commission member Kocon to
approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Appendix A, Section 400.2) – Number of Council
votes needed to approve an Amendment (Text and Map) or Conditional Use Permit with staff’s
recommendations, and; contingent upon City Council approval at the April 6, 2009 regular City
Council meeting or a meeting soon thereafter, at which time the Ordinance will be presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AMENDMENT (TITLE 11, SECTION 11-9-4 AND SECTION 11-9-5) –
DEPOSIT OR SECURITY AMOUNT REQUIRED BY CITY AND REQUIREMENTS OF A BANK ISSUING
A LETTER OF CREDIT
City of Albertville
Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes
March 10, 2009
6
City Planner informed the Commission that again the City Attorney has prepared an amendment
to the Subdivision Ordinance regarding the standards for a letter of credit, escrow deposit, or
certified check. The amendment proposes the following revisions:
1. adds language regarding the amount of deposit or security requires by the City; and
2. adds language regarding the requirements of a bank issuing a letter of credit.
Brixius continued by explaining recently the City pulled on a letter of credit, in which the bank
was located in Texas. According to the Developers Agreement, if the City is going to pull on the
letter of credit it needs to be completed in person. Changing the language under Title 11,
Chapter 9, Section 5: Financial Guarantee to read as such:
The irrevocable letter of credit must be from a bank which is insured by the FDIC and which
has a branch within 100 miles of the Albertville city hall where the letter of credit can be
drawn upon. All letters of credit must automatically renew annually unless the issuing bank
sends the city a letter via certified mail at least 60 days prior to expiration notifying the city
that the letter of credit will not be renewed upon its stated expiration date.
Commission members questioned whether other communities are considering the same language
restricting the location of a bank establishment. The Commission did not want to discourage
developers from coming to Albertville to develop because their banking establishment needs to
be one within a 100-mile radius of Albertville. Commission member Olson recommended
adding language that would include a fee to go beyond the 100 mile radius, or language to some
extent of allowing the fund via certified mail or another form of delivery.
Building Official Sutherland commented on the removal of silt fence(s) once the construction is
complete. Sutherland shared that the escrow is collected at the time a permit is pulled.
Vice-chair Dorenbush asked for a motion from the Commission as to how they would like to
proceed with the amendment to the 2005 Albertville Municipal City Code.
MOTION BY Commission member Edgren, seconded by Commission member Olson to table
the Subdivision Regulations Amendment (Title 11, Section 11-9-4 and Section 11-9-5) – Deposit
or Security Amount Required by City and Requirements of a Bank Issuing a Letter of Credit to
the April 14, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting or soon thereafter. Motion carried
unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION BY Commission member Edgren, seconded by Commission member Olson to
adjourn the March 10, 2009 regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 7:41 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
_______________________________________
Bridget Miller, City Clerk/Secretary
7
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Larry Kruse
FROM: Carie Fuhrman / Alan Brixius
DATE: May 6, 2009
RE: Albertville – Wagener Conditional Use Permit for Second
Accessory Building over 150 Square Feet and Variance to
Side Yard Setback
NAC FILE: 163.06 – 09.06
BACKGROUND
Pete Wagener has applied for a conditional use permit for a 216 square foot detached
accessory building to be used as a personal storage shed. The subject property is
located at 10690 56th St NE; is zoned R-1, Residential Single Family District (See
Exhibit A); and is owned by Connie Schuur. The requested detached storage shed has
already been constructed without permit approval from the City. The lot also contains a
single family home with an attached garage (see Exhibit B).
The Ordinance requires that a conditional use permit be obtained for a second
accessory storage building exceeding 150 square feet in floor area.
A second accessory storage building may not exceed 150 square feet in floor
area, when accompanied by an attached garage on the same lot, except by
conditional use permit (Section 1000.4B.2.b.4).
Although the applicants have applied for a conditional use permit only; a variance is
also required in order to allow the shed to remain located in its current position. The
Accessory Building Ordinance refers to each specific zoning district regulations when
applying side yard setback rules (1000.4B.1b.) The R-1 Zoning District requires a ten
foot side yard setback for accessory buildings; however, the shed is located seven feet
(7’) from the west (side) property line.
2. Side Yard:
a. Interior Lots: Not less than ten feet (10') each. (Section 1000.4B.8).
8
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A – Site Location Map
Exhibit B – Site Plan
Exhibit C – “Barn Storage Shed w/ Overhead Door” Drawing
Exhibit D – Left Elevation
Exhibit E – Right Elevation
Exhibit F – Front Elevation
Exhibit G – Site Photographs
ISSUES ANALYSIS
A private shed/detached accessory building is a permitted use within the R-1 Zoning
District. The following table illustrates the Ordinance requirements for an accessory
building, along with the proposed elements of the application:
Provision Required by Ordinance Proposed by Applicant
Size Not to exceed 1,000 SF 216 SF
Not to exceed ground
coverage of dwelling
216 SF < 970 SF (dwelling SF)
Cannot occupy more than 25%
of rear yard
216 SF < 1,407 SF [.25(5,628)]
2nd bldg not exceed 150 SF
(except CUP)
Requires CUP (216 SF)
Front Setback Not allowed in front yard (except CUP) Proposed in side yard
Side Setback
Interior Lot Line
Public Street
10 feet
20 feet
7 feet (west)
~75 feet (east/Kalenda Dr)
Rear Setback 10 feet ~62 feet
Height 16 feet 15 feet
As the table illustrates, the shed does not meet the required side yard setback to the
west property line – a 10 foot setback is required, however the shed is located seven
feet (7’) from the property line, requiring a variance. In addition, the size of the shed
exceeds 150 square feet; therefore requiring a conditional use permit.
Variance Standards (Section 500.1B). The following are the conditions governing
considerations of variance requests:
2. A variance from the terms of this ordinance shall not be granted unless it can be
demonstrated that:
a. Undue hardship will result if the variance is denied due to the existence of
special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land, structure
or building involved.
9
Staff Comment: Undue hardship will not result if the variance is denied.
There are alternative locations available to place the storage shed. The rear
yard has ample room for the storage shed, keeping in mind that all setback
requirements must be met. Another alternative would be to shift the building
towards the house, in order to meet the ten foot (10’) setback from the
property line. Staff will note that there are special Building Code provisions
relating to fire protection if the detached accessory building is located within
three feet (3’) of the dwelling.
(1) Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water
conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness,
shallowness, insufficient area or shape of the property.
Staff Comment: The subject parcel does not contain special conditions
such as: exceptional topographic or water conditions; narrowness;
shallowness; insufficient area or shape. The parcel provides enough area
so that the storage shed can be located in conformance with the required
setbacks.
b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the
applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district
under the terms of this ordinance, or deny the applicant the ability to put the
property in question to a reasonable use.
Staff Comment: Applying and enforcing the ten foot side yard setback
provision of the ordinance would not deprive the applicant of rights commonly
enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the
ordinance, nor would it deny the applicant ability to put the property in
question to a reasonable use. The parcel provides ample room for the
storage shed to be located so that it is in compliance with the setback
provisions.
c. The special conditions and circumstances causing the undue hardship do not
result from the actions of the applicant.
Staff Comment: The applicant is responsible for the location of the storage
shed. It was constructed without prior building permit approval from the City.
d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special
privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures or buildings
in the same district.
Staff Comment: Granting the requested variance would confer on the
applicant special privilege that is denied by this ordinance to other parcels.
10
e. The request is not a use variance.
Staff Comment: The variance request is not a use variance; it is a setback
variance.
f. Variance requested is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the
intended purpose of the applicant.
Staff Comment: The intended purpose of the applicant – to store personal
items inside an accessory building – can be accomplished without the need
for a variance.
Conditional Use Permit Standards for Accessory Buildings (Section 1000.4H).
Application for an accessory building conditional use permit under this section shall be
regulated by Chapter 400 of this ordinance. Such a conditional use permit may be
granted; provided, the following are met:
1. There is a demonstrated need and potential for continued use of the structure and
the purpose stated.
Staff Comment: There is a demonstrated need and potential for continued use of
the detached shed as residential storage space. The parcel contains a single family
home, which generally requires storage space.
2. The building has an evident reuse or function related to the principal use.
Staff Comment: The detached shed shall be used for residential storage, which is
a related function to a single family home. Staff recommends that a condition be
placed upon approval of the conditional use permit that no commercial uses or home
occupations may be conducted in either the attached garage or detached shed.
3. Accessory building shall be maintained in a manner that is compatible with the
adjacent residential uses and does not present a hazard to public health, safety, and
general welfare.
Staff Comment: The elevation drawings submitted with the application label the
building a “barn storage shed with an overhead door” (See Exhibit C). The exterior
of the shed contains white horizontal siding, similar to the house, and a gabled roof,
which differs from the roof structure of the home. An 8 ft by 7 ft overhead garage
door is located on the front elevation, with an 18 inch by 24 inch vent located above
it, and a sliding window on the right elevations (See Exhibit E).
4. The provisions of subsection 400.2.F of this ordinance shall be considered and a
determination made that the proposed activity is in compliance with such criteria.
Staff Comment: The detached accessory building is in compliance with the
following provisions of subsection 400.2F: the request is consistent and compatible
11
with the Comprehensive Plan and the present and future uses in the area; it
conforms with the performance standards; it shall not depreciate the area; it can be
accommodated with existing public services; and no additional traffic will be
generated by the request.
Building Type and Standards for Accessory Buildings (Section 1000.4F). The
proposed building shall meet the requirements of the Building Type Standards outlined
in Section 1000.4.F, which shall be added as a condition upon approval:
1) The same or similar quality exterior building material (meaning exterior finish and
color) shall be used in the accessory building and the principal building; and
Staff Comment: The exterior finish and color (white, horizontal siding) of the
detached accessory building is similar to the principal building (See Exhibit G).
2) The accessory building shall be compatible with the principal building on the lot.
“Compatible” means that the exterior appearance of the accessory building is not
different from the principal building from an aesthetic and architectural standpoint, as
to cause:
a) a different to a degree to cause incongruity as determined by the City Council;
or
b) a depreciation of neighborhood or adjacent property values.
Staff Comment: Although the exterior finish of the shed is the same as the principal
building, the roof structures are different from an architectural standpoint.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff recommends denial of the variance request to place the detached
accessory building within the required 10 foot side yard setback to the west property
line, based on the following findings:
1) Undue hardship will not result if the variance is denied due to the existence of
special conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar to the land,
structure or building involved because of the following:
a) There are no special conditions and circumstances, which are peculiar
to the land, structure, or building involved.
b) The parcel provides alternative locations to place the storage shed and
still meet setback requirements; and
2) The applicant is responsible for the current location of the detached
accessory building. It was placed there without prior building permit approval
from the City.
12
Planning staff recommends approval for the conditional use permit request to allow the
detached accessory building to occupy more than 150 square feet when accompanied
by an attached garage on the same lot, based on the following findings: there is a
demonstrated need and potential for the shed; the shed has an evident function related
to the principal use; the exterior finish of the shed is similar to the house; and the
request is compliant with Section 400.2F, and subject to the following conditions:
1) The applicant shall receive building permit approval from the City.
2) The detached accessory building shall meet all setback requirements. If the
detached accessory building is located within three feet (3’) of the dwelling,
the Building Code calls for special fire protection measures.
3) No commercial uses or home occupations may be conducted in either the
attached or detached accessory building.
4) Screening from the accessory building shall be provided on the side yard.
Staff recommends three evergreen trees planted six feet on center.
c: Bridget Miller
Jon Sutherland
Tori Leonhardt
Mike Couri
Adam Nafstad
Pete Wagener & Connie Schuur, 10690 56th Street NE, Albertville, MN 55301
13
EXHIBIT B 14
EXHIBIT C 15
EXHIBIT D 16
EXHIBIT E 17
EXHIBIT F 18
Photographs of Detached Accessory Building
10690 56th Street NE
Possible Relocation
Areas in Rear Yard
Setback Encroachment
to Side Property Line
EXHIBIT G
19
20
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Larry Kruse
FROM: Carie Fuhrman / Alan Brixius
DATE: May 6, 2009
RE: Albertville – Subdivision Ordinance Amendment (Title 11 –
Subdivision Regulations) – Deposit or Security Amount Required by
City and Requirements of a Bank Issuing a Letter of Credit
NAC FILE: 163.05 – 09.07
BACKGROUND
An amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance was brought before the Planning and
Zoning Commission at their March 10, 2009 meeting. The amendment involved the
standards for a letter of credit, escrow deposit, or certified check. The amendment
proposed the following revisions:
1. To add language to the Subdivision Ordinance detailing the deposit or security
amount required to be submitted by the applicant in a Developer’s Agreement for
the improvements involved in the platting process, whether through an escrow
deposit, an irrevocable letter of credit, or a certified check to the City (Section 11-
9-4B); and
2. To add language to the Subdivision Ordinance detailing the requirements if an
irrevocable letter of credit is called for by the City (Section 11-9-5B).
The Planning Commission discussed the possibility that the proposed amendment,
which requires that an irrevocable letter of credit must be from a bank that has a branch
within 100 miles of the Albertville city hall, may discourage national developers from
proposing projects in the City. Therefore, staff has proposed to add language to the
Section 11-9-5B amendment, allowing the City Council to make an exception to this
requirement.
21
ISSUES ANALYSIS
The additional language proposed by the City Council to be added to Section 11-9-5B is
found in bold italics below:
11-9-5: FINANCIAL GUARANTEE:
B. Irrevocable Letter Of Credit: If an irrevocable letter of credit is required, it shall
be payable to the order of the city and delivered to the city treasurer and city
administrator in a sum equal to the amount calculated, as provided in section
11-9-4 of this chapter, as estimated by the city engineer for all the
improvements to be furnished and installed by the applicant pursuant to the
contract (developer's agreement), which have not been completed prior to the
approval of the plat. The total cost shall include costs of inspection by the city.
The irrevocable letter of credit must be from a bank which is insured by the
FDIC and which has a branch within 100 miles of the Albertville city hall
where the letter of credit can be drawn upon, unless an exception is
approved by the City Council. All letters of credit must automatically renew
annually unless the issuing bank sends the City a letter via certified mail at
least 60 days prior to expiration notifying the City that the letter of credit will
not be renewed upon its stated expiration date. The irrevocable letter of credit
shall be approved as to form by the city attorney and filed with the city
administrator.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of
the enclosed Ordinance Amendment, including the additional language regarding the
City Council approving an exception to the location of the bank that provides a letter of
credit.
Encl: Exhibit A: Ordinance No. 2009-010 (Subdivision Ordinance – Letter of Credit)
c: Bridget Miller
Tori Leonhardt
Jon Sutherland
Mike Couri
Adam Nafstad
22 EXHIBIT A
CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2009 – 010
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11-9-4 (AGREEMENT FOR
INSTALLATION) AND SECTION 11-9-5 (FINANCIAL GUARANTEE)
OF THE ALBERTVILLE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS (TITLE 11)
OF THE 2005 ALBERTVILLE MUNICIPAL CITY CODE, RELATING
TO DEPOSIT OR SECURITY AMOUNT REQUIRED BY CITY AND
REQUIREMENTS OF A BANK ISSUING A LETTER OF CREDIT.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 11-9-4 (Agreement for Installation) of Chapter 9 (Improvement
Requirements), relating to the specific amount of deposit or security required by the city, is
hereby amended as follows:
11-9-4: AGREEMENT FOR INSTALLATION
B. The agreement shall require the applicant to make an escrow deposit or furnish an
irrevocable letter of credit or a certified check as is determined by the city attorney, city
engineer, and city administrator. The amount of the deposit or security is to_be based upon
the city engineer's estimate of the total cost of the improvements to be furnished under the
contract, including the cost of inspection. The deposit or security shall equal one hundred
percent (100%) of the city engineer's estimate of all municipal improvements, plus 150% of
the estimated cost of all landscaping to be installed, plus 50% of the cost of on- and off-site
improvements such as bituminous driveways, sod, and seeding. This amount may be reduced
or increased upon approval of a city council resolution based upon such consideration as the
size of the project, past performance by the applicant and/or financial credibility of the
applicant, but in no case shall the amount be less than fifty percent (50%) of the city
engineer's estimate. On request of the applicant, the contract may provide for completion of
part or all of the improvements covered thereby prior to acceptance of the plat. In such event,
and if evidence is presented that the described work and improvements have been paid for,
the amount of the deposit may be reduced in a sum equal to the estimated cost of the
improvements so completed prior to the acceptance of the plat. (Amended Ord. 1988-8, 9-8
1988; amd. by 2005 Code)
SECTION 2. Section 11-9-5 (Financial Guarantee) of Chapter 9 (Improvement Requirements),
relating to the requirements of a bank providing an irrevocable letter of credit, is hereby amended
as follows:
City of Albertville
County of Wright
Ordinance No. 2009 - 010
Subdivision Regulations re: Deposit or Security Amount Required by City & Requirements of a Bank Issuing a
Letter of Credit
23 EXHIBIT A
11-9-5: FINANCIAL GUARANTEE:
B. Irrevocable Letter Of Credit: If an irrevocable letter of credit is required, it shall be payable
to the order of the city and delivered to the city treasurer and city administrator in a sum
equal to the amount calculated, as provided in section 11-9-4 of this chapter, as estimated by
the city engineer for all the improvements to be furnished and installed by the applicant
pursuant to the contract (developer's agreement), which have not been completed prior to the
approval of the plat. The total cost shall include costs of inspection by the city. The
irrevocable letter of credit must be from a bank which is insured by the FDIC and which has
a branch within 100 miles of the Albertville city hall where the letter of credit can be drawn
upon, unless an exception is approved by the City Council. All letters of credit must
automatically renew annually unless the issuing bank sends the city a letter via certified mail
at least 60 days prior to expiration notifying the city that the letter of credit will not be
renewed upon its stated expiration date. The irrevocable letter of credit shall be approved as
to form by the city attorney and filed with the city administrator. (Amended Ord. 1988-8, 9-
8-1988)
THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING ITS PASSAGE AND PUBLICATION.
Approved by the Albertville City Council this ____ day of May 2009.
Ron Klecker, Mayor
______________________________
Bridget Miller, City Clerk