Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 [08] Aug 12 {Book 25} · ity of St. Joseph 2S College Avenue NW P.O. Box 668, St. Joseph, MN 56374 St. Joseph City Council (320) 363-720 I August 12, 2002 Fax: 363-0342 5:30 PM CLERK! 1. Call to Order ADMINISTRATOR Judy Weyrens 2. 5:30 PM - Discussion on the right-of-way acquisition for Field Street and Callaway Street 3. 6:00 PM - Review Proposed 2003 Budget MAYOR 4. Adjourn Larry J. Hosch COUNCILORS 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Bob Loso Cory Ehlert St. Joseph City Council Kyle Schneider August 19 and August 20, 2002 Alan Rassier 7:00 PM The Council will be hosting discussion meetings on the proposed one-half cent sales tax. The purpose of the meeting is to gather public input for proposed projects to be placed on the November 5,2002 ballot. · 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 St. Joseph City Council August 21, 2002 6:00 PM 1. Call to Order 2. 6:00 PM - Review Proposed 2003 Budget 3. 7:00 PM - Award Bids, SE Utility Extension Project 4. Adjourn 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 St. Joseph City Council August 22, 2002 5:30 PM 1. Call to order 2. 5:30 PM - Hookup Fee discussion with developers 3. Adjourn Note: The meeting scheduled for August 7, 2002 at 6:00 PM to discuss the budget has been · canceled and rescheduled for August 12, 2002. · MEMORANDUM Date: August 9,2002 To: Honorable Mayor Hosch and Members of the City Council From: Judy Weyrens Re: Graceview Estates During the course of the week I have had requests to review minutes and payables regarding the Graceview Estates Addition and securing of ROW. Due to the requests, the Office staff has compiled all the minutes regarding Graceview (both the Planning Commission and Council) and a detail payables list for all expenses. For your review they are all attached. Regarding the appraisal cost - as of today the City has only incurred the cost for an opinion · letter. Leigh Lenzmeier stated that he will be billing the City approximately $ 2,000 for such opinion. If the process is to continue and he has to formalize the opinion for legal proceedings the estimated cost is an additional $ 4,000. Leigh called to inform the City that - a sale is pending in St. Joseph that will affect the current opinion/appraisal value. John Scherer and Joe Bettendorf will both be present for the meeting on Monday night. For your convenience I have enclosed a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding as proposed by the College of St. Benedict, it is the same MOU that was presented on August 1, 2002. · · CHRONOLOGY OF GRACEVIEW ESTATES December 3, 2001 St. Joseph Planning Commission conducts public hearing for the Graceview Estates Development. Testimony is (Page I - 4) received with a special meeting set for December 19, 2001 for'discussion. No action is taken. December 19,2001 St. Joseph Planning Commission meets to discuss the preliminary plat of Graceview Estates. Recommendation (page 4 - 6) is forwarded to the City Council to approve with contingencies. January 17, 2002 St. Joseph City Council considers the PURD request of Graceview Estates and tables approval for 60 days in an (Page 6 - 8) effort to secure necessary ROW from the College of St. Benedict. February 6, 2002 College of St. Benedict was sent a letter of request for ROW along with the information requested by Jim Fredricks. The letter indicated all the options available to the City including eminent domain. February 19,2002 Mayor, Engineer, Attorney, Administrator meet with · representatives of the College to discuss the needed ROW. College does not commit and states they cannot make a decision until April 25, 2002. . February 21,2002 St. Joseph City Council reviews the PURD application of Graceview Estates and approves the preliminary plat (Page 8 - 9) stating that the final plat cannot be approved until the access issues have been resolved. February 27,2002 Mayor, Engineer, Attorney and Administrator meeting with representatives of the College with the City leaving with an understanding that an understanding had been reached. Scherer prepares a Memorandum of Understanding memorializing the agreement. March 4, 2002 St. Joseph Planning Commission considers final plat for Graceview and recommends approval contingent upon the (Page 9) securing of the needed ROW to County Road 121. March 7, 2002 St. Joseph City Council considers the PURD Application for Graceivew Estates and recommends approval contingent upon a Memorandum of Understanding being (Page 10 - 11) executed between the City of St. Joseph and College of St. Benedict regarding the needed ROW. Approval is also contingent upon execution of a Developer's Agreement. · April 10,2002 Jim Fredricks (CSB Representative) infoTI11s City that he · has made some changes to the MOD and will forward to the Council. April 16, 2002 City receives revised MOD April 18, 2002 City Council considers the revised MOD and states the MOD is not acceptable to the City and requests a letter be forwarded to CSB notifying them the City will not accept the revised MOD and stands behind the original MOD drafted. If the College does not accept the MOD the Council will consider using eminent domain to secure the ROW. April 24, 2002 City Council authorizes execution of a developer's agreement with the understanding the developer's will be (Page 11 - 12) required to cost share if eminent domain is required. May 2, 2002 City Council authorizes the use of eminent domain to secure the needed ROW of ingress/egress to CR 121. (Page 12-13) July 11, 2002 City Attorney, Engineer and Administrator meet with representatives of St. Benedict. CSB requests reconsideration of the North road and they will agree to the south road. · July 18,2002 City Council reviews appraisal opinion as prepared by Leigh Lenzmeier. Cost per acre for acquisition is (page 13) estimated at $13,029. July 22, 2002 City Council meets with representatives of the College, including a Board of Regent member. CSB agrees to accept appraisal price for south road and requests a two year planning window for the north access. The City agrees to discuss this matter at a later meeting and requested the College submit a final proposal. August 1, 2002 City Council receives a final proposal from CSB agreeing to pay the appraisal price for the southern road contingent upon the City waiting for two years before taking the north property. Council agreed to meet specially on August 12, 2002 at 5:30 PM to consider this matter. · Chronology of Graceview Estates Page 1 of 13 e Bob Herges, Rick Reid - Graceview Estates Preliminary Plat: Chair Utsch called the hearing to order at 7:00 PM and stated the purpose of the hearing is to consider a preliminary plat, P.U.R.D. application to develop approx. 91 acres with mixed housing, and to rezone the property from current Agriculture to Rl Single Family. The property is located South of Baker Street and West of ih Avenue NE/95th Avenue. Legally described as follows: The request for preliminary plat and P.U.R.D. development has been submitted by Bob Herges and Rick Heid; 25 N 11 th Avenue, St. Cloud MN 56303. Bob Herges stated that he and Rick Heid recently purchased property from St. Benedict's Monastery to develop with mixed residential housing units. The property contains approximately 91 acres and is located between south of Kennedy School, south of Baker Street East and west of 95th Avenue. Herges stated that in an effort to provide quality development, he hired a landscape designer to plan the development. The proposed development has been named Graceview Estates. At this time Herges introduced landscape designer Rick Harris. Harris stated that he has worked in over 250 communities providing planning services. Harris presented some basic information on planning and discussed how he prepares a development. The process used by Harris includes integrating the characteristics of the community while maximizing the use of the land. Harris stated that when he plans a development, a typical design has 32% less streets, larger lots and providès for significant side and front views. . Graceview Estates has been designed as life cycle housing, housing for all levels of living. The development will include bay homes, townhomes, single family homes, multiple family homes and senior units. The development includes ten ingress/egress with an average lot size is 14,253 square feet. Chair Utsch opened the floor for questions and comments. Art Budde of 1 06 - ih A venue SE stated that he is pleased with the concept of the housing development and types of housing. However, Budde questioned why the extensions of 4th and 5th Avenues do not match the existing street alignment. In his opinion the lack of a four way intersection will create poor visibility. Therefore, the streets should be aligned to match. Budde also questioned if access to County Road 121 will be provided. Herges stated that the plat has been redesigned eliminating the extension of 5th A venue and a four way intersection has been created at 4th Avenue. This change has been made as a result of input received from the public prior to the public hearing. Bettendorf stated the long term plans include a connection to County Road 121. Bettendorf further stated that he had the plan reviewed by a traffic engineer and he is recommending that a second ingress/egress to CR 121 be provided near Kennedy School. The development is large and traffic needs to be moved efficiently to major roads. Herges stated that he and Rick Heid do not own the property that connects to County Road 121. However, they did meet with the property owner, (College of St. Benedict), and they are not supportive of extending a road through their property. . Steve Schirber of 30152 - 95th Avenue questioned if the new development plans include the reconstruction of 95th A venue, and will the City require access to County Road 121 before construction can begin. Chronology of Graceview Estates Page 2 of 13 Utsch stated that the Planning Commission and City Council will be meeting in December to discuss the Transportation Plan for St. Joseph and the need to establish the east I west route · planned for south of the proposed development. Bettendorf stated at this time there are no plans to reconstruct 95th A venue. It would be prudent to install utilities simultaneously with the installation in Graceview Estates, the City Council has discussed the island of property on 95th Avenue that is still in St. Joseph Township and the process of annexing those properties. At the time of annexation utilities will be available and the street will be improved. Herman Gangl of 30084 - 95th Avenue questioned the future alignment of 95th Avenue if the street is improved. It is his understanding that the current road is off center and the road will be moved. Bettendorf stated that when the road is improved or reconstructed, the road will be placed in the correct location. Without completing survey details and viewing the property the exact location of the road cannot be determined. Bettendorf stated he will review the matter. Kathy Salzer of 131 - 4th Avenue SE questioned the amount of traffic that \vill be generated by the proposed housing development, both during construction and after the homes are constructed. Salzer questioned how traffic will be controlled during the construction season and after the development is completed. Utsch reiterated the City Council and Planning Commission will be meeting on December 17th to discuss the future roads. The Planning Commission understands the need to establish connections to County Road 121 and construct an east I west corridor at the southern end of the development. Bettendorf stated the City could require the developer to provide a temporary road for construction traffic. This road should be connected to County Road 121. The temporary road · could be installed at the same location the traffic engineer is requesting a second ingress/egress. The developers will need to negotiate an agreement with the College of St. Benedict as they are the owners of the property which abuts County Road 121. Mike Philip of 30018 - 95th Avenue questioned the future street design for 95th Avenue from Baker Street East to the Palmersheim property, what accommodations have been made regarding the natural gas line and if a holding pond or storm sewer is planned for the area being developed. Bettendorf responded that the developer and City are aware of the gas line and have made provisions for it in the design. The easement for the gas line prohibits any construction in the easement area. As far as surface water and drainage, the development is engineered with storm sewerlcatch basins and the surface water will be drained to the existing holding ponds as well as the new ponds proposed in the development. Bettendorf further stated the housing development has been planned with catch basins. Brian Donnay of 202 - 7th Avenue SE reiterated the need to provided alternate ingress/egress for the development and encouraged the Commission to require a road to County Road 121. Bob Kroll read a statement concerning planning and the need to consider public input in the decision making process. Bettendorf stated that he agrees with the need to involve the community in the planning of the development and that is the purpose of the public hearing. All testimony received at this meeting will be considered before a decision is made. Rick Schultz of 30054 - 95th Avenue questioned the design of the proposed development. Schultz stated that it is his opinion that comparable housing should be constructed adjacent to the existing housing stock. · Therefore, the rental units proposed adjacent to his property should be changed to single family homes. Chronology of Graceview Estates Page 3 of 13 Herges stated the area adjacent to the 95th Avenue is proposed to be upscale attached housing. · The homes are not rental units, rather town homes. The proposed value of the attached housing will exceed the value of the existing house stock adjacent to the proposed development. Art Budde of 1 06 - ih Avenue SE restated that he would like the Planning Commission to require an access to County Road 121 and questioned the rationale for requiring an ingress/egress to County Road 121 adjacent to Kennedy School. Bettendorf responded that when determining the location of roads there is a minimum distance that must be considered. The City's transportation plan has always included an east/west corridor running parallel to the proposed development. The City placed the two accesses using the original one planned. Further, it is important to construct roads where they will be used. A portion of the property retained by the College of St. Benedict is in the process of being sold for a commercial use. Therefore, the proposed road near Kennedy School would no only serve the housing development but the commercial development as well. The Planning Commission may consider using this proposed road as a temporary construction road as well. Mary Ann Graeve of 619 Minnesota Street East questioned who owns the property referred to as Field Street and how close will proposed development and roadway be in relation to the existing wetland. If the proposed development allows for surface water to drain into the wetland there is a possibility the wetlands will become contaminated. It seems to be a common trend for people to use chemicals in lawn care and ifproper drainage is not provided it could be detrimental to the residents of St. Joseph. Graeve stated that when making decisions the City needs to look at the quality of life and how the proposed development will affect the lives of the residents of St. Joseph. Bettendorf stated that the College of St. Benedict owns the property referred to as Field Street. · The current construction plans for County Road 121 include providing water and sewer lines in the same area. Therefore, it is certain the èity will be able to secure the necessary right-of-way for the construction of an east/west corridor. As far- as the surface water drainage, the development will be drained with holding ponds and storrp. sewer outlets so that the wetlands will not be disturbed. Herges stated that he has been researching the possibility of internalizing the sanitary sewer system and water for the proposed development in the event that an agreement cannot be reached with the College of St. Benedict. In discussing this matter with his engineers, it appears as though it would be a feasible alternative. Therefore they may not have to use the proposed Field Street. Jean Marthaler of 139 - ih Avenue SE questioned the ingress/egress for the development and who will have the final authority if the access to County Road 121 is required. Marthaler also requested the developer be required to provide a temporary road for construction vehicles. Marthaler also questioned the depth of the proposed holding pond that to be located near 4th Avenue SE and Baker Street East. Bettendorf responded that the Planning Commission will review the testimony presented at this meeting and make a recommendation to the City Council; at which time the City Council will make the final decision. As far as the depth of the pond, it is proposed to have a maximum depth of six feet. Gladys Schneider of 118 - 3rd Avenue SE stated she is not opposed to the development and is impressed with the presentation. However, Schneider questioned if anyone has considered the affect the development will have on the current City water supply and storage capacity. The residents have recently · paid for a new water storage facility and she does not feel that she should have to pay for another tower in the near future. Bettendorf responded that the City has recently purchased additional sewer capacity / conveyance trom the City of St. Cloud. Therefore, the City will have a sufficient sewer capacity for many Chronology of Graceview Estates Page 4 of 13 years. The City will have to begin researching an additional site for a second water storage facility and land for additional wells. The cost of the future improvements will be paid for by . hookup fees for all new developments. In 1986 the City implemented water and sewer hookup fees and these fees have paid for many improvements to the utility systems. The City Council will be reviewing the current fees in the upcoming months to assure that the fees collected will cover the future utility expenses created by the growth the City is experiencing. Duane Giada of 29772 - 95th Avenue questioned the proposed east/west extension referred to as Field Street and the redesign of 95th Avenue. The proposed housing development vacates a portion of the existing 95th Avenue realigning the road around the proposed development. Gaida questioned the need for the realignment. Bettendorf responded that the road referred to as Field Street is proposed to be located south of the wetland area near the existing gas shelter. There being no additional testimony Kalinowski made a motion to close the public hearing at 9:10 PM; seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously. The Commission agreed to discuss the testimony received on December 19,2001 at 7:00 PM in the St. Joseph City Hall. At that time a recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. Chair Utsch will meet with the City Engineer, Attorney, Developers Rick Hied and Bob Herges and City Staff to review the items of concern and present the information to the Planning Commission on December 19, 200 I. -- - - - - - ---- , - - - - - . ~. -- - - .- - -- - - - - - - I>epeIl1þer 19, 2001- Extract~ofThel'Ianriil1gQijmmission1\1H1Utés- Bob Hemes. Rick Heid - Graceview Estates PreliminarY Plat: Utsch stated that he along with the City Engineer, . City Administrator and Public Works Director met with the developers to review the proposed development. The follO\ving is a list of issues raised at the public hearing along with possible resolutions. CONCERN RAISED A T HEARiNG POSSIBLE RESOLUTION The proposed development will create additional traffic 4th, 5th and 7th Avenues will be posted with seven ton through residential neighborhoods. weight restrictions. Construction delivery vehicles cannot access seven ton roads. Rather than extending 4th Avenue SE, 5th Avenue SE could be extended. This change would not move traffic straight through to County Road 75 and people may choose an alternate route. A temporary construction road should be installed adjacent to Lot 5 Block 8 Residents on 95th Avenue requested the developer The developer has already changed the plan to change the design so that similar style of homes will be construct bay homes adjacent to 95th Avenue rather adjacent to their property. than the original design where Town homes would abut 95th Avenue. Access to County Road I2l/College Avenue South The developers do not own the property that abuts . should be required. County Road 121· Therefore, they cannot construct a road from the proposed development to County Road 121. However, the property owner, (College of Chronology of Graceview Estates Page 5 of 13 St. Benedict), has agreed to allow a temporary . construction road. The City Council and Planning Commission have agreed that an east/west corridor (Field Street) needs to be constructed at the southern edge of the proposed development. However, the construction ofField Street will not occur until at least 2006. Park Dedication Fee The Park Board will be meeting to discuss allowing the developers to pave walking trails and connect the trails to Klinefelter park in lieu of payment of the Park Dedication fees The Commission spent considerable time discussing access to County Road 12 1 (College Avenue South). Herges stated that he and Heid recently met with the College of St. Benedict to discuss access to County Road 121. The College is in the process of selling a portion of the property in question for a commercial building. The proposed access to County Road 121 has the potential of benefiting the commercial project. Therefore, Herges stated that he and Heid are trying to come to an agreement with the College. At this time the College is in the process of appraising the land and once the appraisal is completed they will meet again with the College of St. Benedict. Herges is hopeful that they will reach an agreement with the College. Deutz questioned if the City has the authority to condemn property for the purpose of providing access roads. Weyrens stated that although the City does have the that authority it is hoped that the College and the developer will come to an agreement. Schneider questioned if the City could give the developers a deadline as to when they have to have the access completed. Weyrens stated that the issue before the Planning Commission at this time is the preliminary plat. It is important to make sure the road connections are planned and secured within the development. . After the preliminary plat is approved the developer will come back to the Planning Commission requesting [mal approval of the first phase of the development. The Planning Commission could consider limiting the number of homes to be built before the access to County Road 121 is complete. Herges stated that if they owned the property to County Road 121 they would build the access in the first phase. However, since they do not own the land they have no right to construct the proposed road. Graeve stated that the road to County Road 121 is crucial in making the downtown area easily accessible to residents of this area. Rassier made a motion to recommend the City Council adopt the following Resolution of finding, approving the Preliminary Plat for Graceview Estates; the motion was seconded by Kalinowski and passed unanimously. Resolution of finding The request of Bob Herges and Rick Heid for a P.U.R.D. application and rezoning request came before the Planning Commission at a public hearing held on December 3, 2001. The purpose of the hearing was to consider a preliminary plat, P.U.R.D. application issuing a special use permit to develop approx. 91 acres with mixed housing; and to rezone the property from current Agriculture to R-l Single Family. The property is located south of Baker Street and West of 7th Avenue SE/95th Avenue. The property is legally described as: The Southeast Quarter of The South East Quarter (SW v.. SE v..) of Section Ten (10) in Township One Hundred Twenty -Four (124) North, of Range Twenty-nine (29) in Stearns County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT; The North 66 feet thereof AND ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT the East 30 feet thereof. The Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NE v.. NE 1/4) of Section Fifteen (15), in Township One Hundred . Twenty-four (124) North, Range Twenty-nine (29) West n Stearns County, Minnesota, LESS AND EXCEPT: Commencing at The Northwest corner of said NE 1/4 NE v..; thence East on an assumed bearing along the North line of said NE v.. NE v.., a distance of 500 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence South 00 degree 09 minuets 26seconds East parallel with the West line of said NE v.. NE Y4 a distance of 1330.93 feet to the Chronology of Graceview Estates Page 6 of 13 South line of said NE \I. NE \I.; Thence North 89 degree 57minutes 43 seconds East along said South line of NE 'I. NE \I.; a distance of 819.95 fee to the East line of said section; thence North 00 degree 10 minutes 42 seconds West · along said East line a distance of 1330.38 feet to the Northeast corner of said Section; Thence West along the North line of said Section 819.47 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. AND The Northwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter (NW \I. NE \I.) of Section Fifteen (15), in Township One Hundred Twenty-four (124) North, of Range Twenty-nine (29) West in Stearns County, Minnesota, LESS Ai'.¡D EXCEPT: That part of the NW 'I. NE \I., of Section 15, Township 124, Range 29, described as follows: Beginning at the 1\TE Comer of said Quarter-Quarter, said Point being south 89 degrees l1minutes West, 1320 feet from the NE Comer of said Section; Thence along the East line of said Quarter-Quarter, due South 310 feet; thence South 89 degrees 11 minutes West 250 feet; thence due north 310 feet to a point on the North line of said Section; thence along said North line North89 degrees 11 minutes East, 250 feet to the point of beginning. The request for preliminary plat and P.U.R.D. development has been submitted by Bob Herges and Rick Heid; 25 N 11th Avenue, St. Cloud MN 56303. In consideration of the information presented to the Planning Commission and its application to the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances of the City of St. Joseph, the Planning Commission makes the following [mdings: The proposed development is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and meets the requirements of the St. Joseph Code of Ordinances. Therefore, based on the above [mdings, the Planning Commission makes the following recommendation: Approval of the P.U.R.D. application granting a special use permit to allow for the development of91 acres with mixed housing and to rezone the above mentioned property from Agricultural to R-l Single Family. Approval is contingent upon the following: · 1. 4 th, 5th, and 7th A venues are posted as 7 ton roads 2. The northern access to County Road 121 will be moved to Lot 5 Block 8 3. The property abutting 95th Avenue will be developed with Bay homes rather than the proposed Townhomes. 4. The Park Board approves the Park Dedication Fee - allowing the paved walking path to meet the park dedication requirement. 5. A temporary construction road will be installed at the access mentioned in #2 above. 6. Only phase one of the development can be approved without a paved access to County Road 121. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to come to an agreement with the adjoining property owner for access to County Road 121. If an agreement cannot be reached the developer should notify the Planning Commission. 7. Approval of the City Attorney and Building Inspector 8. Approval of the City Engineer - meeting all the requirements detailed in a letter dated November 28,2001 (See exhibit "A") Lesnick made a motion recommending the City Council mapping the northern County Road 121 extension to Graceview Estates on the Official Transportation Map; and, if the developer cannot reach an agreement with the property owner the City will construct the road within the means available to municipalities assessing affected property owners. The motion was seconded by Deutz and passed unanimously Graceview Estates. Bob Herges and Rick Heid: Bob Herges and Rick Heid approached the City Council requesting · approval of the preliminary plat for Graceview Estates. The Planning Commission on December 19, 2002 Chronology of Graceview Estates Page 7 of 13 recommended the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat for Graceview Estates with the following . contingencies: Thefollowing Avenues are posted as 7 ton roads: 4th, 5th, and ¡th The northern access to County Road 121 will be moved to Lot 5 Block 8 The property abutting 95th Avenue will be developed with bay homes rather than the proposed townhomes. 1 The Park Board allows the paved walking path to meet the park dedication requirement. 1 A temporary construction road will be located at the access mentioned in #2 above. 1 Only phase one of the development can be approved without a paved access to County Road 121. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to come to an agreement with the adjoining property owner to secure access to County Road 121. If an agreement cannot be reached the developer should notifY the Planning Commission. 5. Approval of the City Attorney and Building Inspector. 6. Approval of the City Engineer - meeting all the requirements detailed in a letter from the Engineer dated November 28, 2001 Herges stated that the fIrst phase of development will include 27 single family homes and 28 bay homes. In an attempt to resolve the access issue, Herges stated that he met with representatives of the College of St. Benedict and they have not expressed interest in selling any additional property. The College is working with Centra Care to construct a medical facility near this site and the proposed road would abut this property. Rassier stated that the Planning Commission has concerns if the development proceeds without an access to County Road 121. The residential streets adjacent to the proposed development were not designed to handle the volume of traffIc that would be generated by this development. Herges expressed frustration and stated that he started the platting process in October, and the access was not discussed until December. Based on the favorable response of the Planning Commission and City Council Herges received in October he closed on the property. Ifhe had been aware of the concern there is a good chance this issue . could have been resolved. However, Herges stated he has made numerous attempts to purchase the property to provide an additional access and has not been successful. City Attorney John Scherer responded that the City is supportive of the development and is willing to work together to resolve the outstanding issues. However, the concept plan presented in October is not a detail plan and until engineering reviews the plan and the public hearing is conducted the issues cannot be identifIed. City Engineer Joe Bettendorf stated that the access to County Road 121 may not be logistically possible for 2002 as County Road 121 will be reconstructed. When questioned if Steams County will grant an additional access to County Road 121, Bettendorfresponded that the accesses will be limited with stricter provisions for driveways. The proposed road recommended by the Planning Commission would serve both the Graceview development and the remaining property owned by the College of St. Benedict. Loso questioned the need for the additional access and indicated in his opinion the additional access could cause a traffIc problem at County Road 121. Hosch stated that a road needs to service the proposed development so that excessive traffIc is not routed through existing neighborhoods. Loso responded that constructing a road does not guarantee that people will use the road and typically people will take the shortest route possible; which in this case may be the residential neighborhood. Ehlert stated that he is not in favor of generating additional traffIc through the Eastern Park Addition. The roads were not constructed to handle considerable traffIc and the roads are narrow. Ehlert suggested that as an alternative the Council look at East Baker Street and change the characteristics similar to that of Minnesota Street. Removing the stop signs would move traffIc faster and may entice residents to use this route. Bettendorf stated that before the Council accepts the preliminary plat the access issue and utility easements should be secured. At this time the utility lines are proposed to be extended along the southern property line of the College . of St. Benedict and then into Graceview Estates. The developer should negotiate the easement and include the document with the preliminary plat. Ehlert concurred with Bettendorf that the two remaining issues should be resolved, as it is his understanding once the preliminary plat is approved it cannot be altered. Chronology of Graceview Estates Page 8 of 13 Hosch stated that he has some concerns as to where the proposed southern access, (known as Field Street), has been placed on the preliminary plat. At a recent meeting facilitated by the St. Cloud Area Planning Organization they · informed the City that before a road can be mapped an extensive study must be completed. Therefore, Hosch requested the Council consider requiring the developer to designate the southern 60 feet of the plat as a right-of-way easement. Herges stated that he is willing to change the plat to accommodate the 60' right-of-way for the purpose of construction of a roadway. Herges questioned whether the preliminary plat can be approved and at the same time he would continue working on the access and easement issues. Herges stated that due to the cost of holding the property, he would like to continue in an expedient manner so that construction can begin this summer. Scherer recommended that the preliminary plat approval be tabled until the issues have been resolved. However, in an effort to assist the developer the final plat and preliminary plat could be worked on simultaneously with one presentation to the Council. Linda Brown and Tom Herkinoff, engineers for Graceview, stated they could make the changes as requested by the Council and have the information ready for the next meeting. Hosch concurred with Scherer and the proposed developers along with City Staff should meet with representatives of the College to further discuss the access. Herges questioned the fate of the project if the access issue can be resolved. Scherer stated that the City has the ability to use eminent domain, but considers this a last resort. He is confident that an agreement can be reached. Ehlert requested that Scherer provide the Council with an outline of the condemnation process. Hosch made a motion to table the PURD application requesting a special use permit to develop 91 acres known as Graceview Estates until February 21, 2002. The tabling is necessary to try and secure right-of-way for an access to County Road 121 and utility easements along the southern property line with that owned by the College of St. Benedict. The motion was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously. Rassier made a motion to extend the 60-day action requirement on a land use request until February 21, 2002. The tabling is necessary to secure the road right-of-way and utility easements. Discussion: Ehlert requested clarification on the motion and if the property owner is required to request extension of the 60 day requirement. Scherer responded that the City can extend the 60 days if additional · infonnation is needed and at the time of the extension the Council must clarify what info17nation is needed. The motion was seconded by Schneider and passed unaIÙmously. -- - . - - - Febrtiary2'1~2002-'- Extract of iheCitý ,Council Minutes Preliminary Plat. Graceview Estates - Bob Herges and Rick Heid: Bob Herges and Rick Heid appeared before the Council requesting approval of the preliminary plat of Graceview Estates. Herges stated that he along with the City Engineer, City Attorney, Mayor and City Administrator Clerk have met with representatives of St. Benedict's regarding an ingress/egress on the northern section of property owned by the College of St. Benedict abutting County Road 121. The ingress/egress has been requested by the Planning Commission and Council to assist with the efficient movement of traffic ÍÌ'om Graceview Estates. At this time the College has not indicated willingness to release property so the ingress/egress can be completed. Hosch elaborated that the City submitted four alternative to the College of St. Benedict for consideration and have not received a favorable response. The College has submitted a letter stating they need additional information before making a decision and do not anticipate making a decision until April 25, 2002. Hosch stated that the road is an essential element before the fInal plat can be considered. Herges expressed fu.¡stration with the process and stated that he needs to move his project forward and cannot wait until April. He was of the understanding that the College would render a decision on February 14 and now the date has been pushed back further. Herges stated that he has attempted to resolve the outstanding issues of Graceview Estates but cannot go further without owning the property in question. At this time Herges requested the City · approve the preliminary plat of Graceview Estates as presented. Chronology of Graceview Estates Page 9 of 13 The Council was of general consensus that before final approval of Graceview Estates, the developer must secure a . temporary construction easement rrom the College of St. Benedict to allow ingress/egress rrom County Road 121 to the proposed development. Further, the developer must provide the City with executed utility easements rrom the College of St. Benedict to allow the installation of utility lines along the southern edge of their development extending to County Road 121. The Council agreed to consider this matter again· on March 7, 2002. Scherer recommended the Council resolve the ingress/egress issue or at least have an understanding of the status of the proposed northern access before approving the fmal plat. Bettendorf questioned if the outlots/drainage areas provided in Graceview Estates would be privately owned or if the developers will be requesting the City to assume ownership upon platting. Linda Brown stated that the development assumes that all the holding ponds/drainage areas would be privately owned either by an association or individual property owner. Bettendorf requested the engineers for the developer verify the width of the proposed roads. In reviewing the plat it appears as the roadbeds will only be 32 feet in width and typical residential streets in St. Joseph are 36 feet in width. The developer agreed to review this matter before submitting the fmal plat. Bettendorf also questioned the vacation of an easement as requested in the development application. The easement vacation is for a portion of 95th Avenue that will be redesigned. Scherer stated that the vacation of easement should not be considered until construction of the affected phase. The developers agreed withdraw the easement release request at this time. Hosch made a motion to approve the preliminary plat of Graceview Estates with the following contingencies: 1. The developer will continue to secure a temporary construction ingress/egress from the College of St. Benedict for temporary construction in phase one and work with the City to secure a permanent ingress/egress for future development. Phase two of Graceview Estates cannot be approved until an access to County Road 121 is secured. 2. The developer will secure a utility easement for the installation of water and sewer lines from the College of St. Benedict. 3. The Engineer verifies the width of the roads in the development to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. . The motion was seconded by Loso and passed unanimously by those present. Graceview Estates, Final Plat: Bob Herges and Rick Heid appeared before the Planning Commission to request fmal plat approval for phase one Graceview Estates. Herges stated that phase one will include 27 single family homes, 28 bay homes, 10 four plex and one eight plex. Linda Brown, Engineer for GraceviewEstates stated that the fmal plat has been re-designed with the recommendations ofthe City Engineer. The holding ponds in Phase I of Graceview Estates will be part of the association, so maintenance will not be an issue. Brown stated that the road right-of-way on the southern edge of Graceveiw Estates has been widened to 50 feet and a provision has been included for the northern access. Rassier stated that the Council is committed to providing a temporary construction access on the southern edge of the development as well as an ingress/egress on the northwest edge of the development. The City and the developer have been working with the College of 81. Benedict to secure the necessary right-of-way for the needed sewer utilities and road access. Kalinowski made a motion to recommend the City Council approve phase one of Graceview Estates and authorize execution of the developer's agreement with the following contingencies: -7 Securing of an easement on the southern edge for utility easements and temporary construction access. . -7 Approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney Chronology of Graceview Estates Page 10 of 13 ~Mar~h1~ZQOî-'E:xJr..stCt of 4héÇitçr .cöupcîÎMillutes Bob Herges/Rick Heid - Graceview Estates PURD and Rezoning Application: Scherer presented the Council with a · brief outline of the recent meetings with the College of St. Benedict regarding the sewer easements and north access for Graceview Estates. The highlights of the letter are as follows: 1) The City will not commence eminent domain proceedings for a period of at least two years; 2) The College would grant a permanent utility easement and a temporary construction easement along the south edge of their property; 3) Over the course of the next two years the City would continue to work with the College to frod an acceptable north access; 4) The City provide some alternatives for assessments whereby the College is only being assessed if the property owned by the College is developed and services are needed. Scherer stated that developing a Memorandum of Understanding as stated above will be of no cost to the City at this time. The agreement will allow the City and College to continue working together in an effort to fmd a mutually acceptable location for the road. The College has stated at this time that they do not have a use for the property and would like an opportunity to plan for the use and highest use of the property. Scherer stated that there would be some expense if the City would go through the eminent domain process. However, as the road will not be needed until the second phase of Graceview Estates it does not make sense to pursue that option at this time. In budgeting for the construction of a north access, the City may consider requiring the developer to contribute a fixed amount per acre. Loso stated that he is comfortable with the information presented at this time and encourages the Council to move forward. The Council agreed to allow staff to work out the details for the Developer's Agreement and present a fmal document for the Council to consider. Loso made a motion to approve the PURD application requesting a Special Use Permit to develop the property know known as Graceview Estates with mixed housing and to rezone the property from agricultural to single family. Approval is contingent upon the execution of a Developer's Agreement between the City of St. Joseph and Pond View Ride LLP and the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of St. Joseph and the College of St. Benedict. The motion was seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously. . I :>'p#I;<8;200Þ-'.9.¡lx:è;Ù~$i¡~,,~J ..- .. - ] Graceview Estates: Graceview Estates developers Bob Herges and Rick Heid appeared before the Council to discuss the proposed Developer's Agreement. The City Attorney has prepared a draft Developer's Agreement with the developers questioning the following: 1. Section 2.11 Warranty Period: Herges and Heid have requested the City reduce the term required for the warranty bond from two years to one year. Bettendorf stated a two-year warranty is industry standard and requested the Council keep the current policy in place. Resolution: Section 2.11 will remain as drafted with a two-year warranty bond. 2. Section 4.11 Grading Requirements: Herges and Heid have requested that this section be removed from the Developer's Agreement as it is cost prohibitive and in their opinion does not resolve drainage concerns. Ehlert stated that it is his understanding that most of the drainage issues arise when the property owner completes the landscaping. If that is the case then the survey requirements in the Developer's Agreement do not serve a purpose. Bettendorf disagreed with Ehlert stating that once the developer has completed the final grade he is no longer responsible for drainage issues that arise. If the grading requirement section remains, the City can go back to the developer for those issues. Ehlert stated that it is his understanding that when the City adopted the grading requirement for a one-year trial period. That time has lapsed and the Council needs to review the effectiveness of this policy. Ehlert stated that grading plans add approximately $ 750 to the cost of each lot. Loso . concurred with Ehlert and stated that he would like to review the existing policy. Chronology of Graceview Estates Page 11 of 13 Herges stated that within the fIrst phase of Graceview Estates, 75% of the lots will be governed by · an association and drainage issues between neighbors will not be an issue. Resolution: Section 4.11 will remain as drafted with the Council reviewing the grading policy and amending the Developer'sAgreement at a later time if needed. 3. Section 4.13 Park Dedication: Herges and Heid have requested that the City clarify in the agreement that the Park Dedication fee is being satisfIed by the paving of the walking path. Resolution: The Council agreed to clarify Section 4.13. 4. Section 4.19 Road Contribution Costs: Herges and Heid have requested that payment for the future north road be established at $ 250 per acre payable upon the completion of each fmal plat. In addition, they would request that if the road is not constructed within a six year period the money is refunded and that the funds can only be used for the construction of the north road. Resolution: The Council agreed to revised section 4.19 as follows: a) future road contribution will be $ 250 per acre; b) the road contribution will be due at the time of final plat approval; c) if the road is not constructed within six years the road contributions will be returned to the developers; d) the road contributions will be dedicated for the construction of the north road only. Graceview Estates, Memorandum of Understanding: Weyrens presented the Council with a revised Memorandum of Understanding prepared by the College of St. Benedict. The revised agreement waives all future assessments to the College of St. Benedict for the construction of the north road and extension of utilities. The revised agreement further states that the need for the road and utility is a result of the development and St. Benedict's should not be charged for such. Hosch expressed frustration with the revised Memorandum as the City had meet with College representatives on numerous occasions and had reached a tentative agreement. The Council agreed that the revised Memorandum was · unacceptable. Hosch made a motion to notify the College of St. Benedict that the revised Memorandum of Understanding is unacceptable and the City is willing to consider the following two options: 1) Sign the original Memorandum of Understanding as drafted by the City Attorney; or 2) Separate the north and south access issues and only deal with the southern easements and temporary construction road. If neither option is accepted by the College the City is willing to begin the condell1..11ation proeess. The motion was seconded by Ehlert and passed unanimously. Graceview Estates: Weyrens reported that the City has not received a response from the College of St. Benedict regarding the access for Field Street and the north access road. City Attorney John Scherer reported that he and Weyrens met with representatives from the College of St. Benedict to discuss the revised Memorandum of Understanding. The revised document submitted by the College included language that precluded the College property adjacent to County Road 121 fÌom being assessed in the future. It was the opinion of the College that the proposed north road only benefits the developers of Graceview Estates, therefore they should not be assessed. The College has also linked the two roads for discussion purposes and the City does not have an agreement for utility easements or the requested construction road. Scherer stated that the Council may wish to include language in the Developer's Agreement requiring the developer to deposit with the City a per acre road fee that would be used for the construction of a future road. This fund would assist the City when traffIc warrants the construction of an additional ingress/egress from Graceview Estates. Scherer stated for discussion purposes he included in the Developer's Agreement, a $ 250.00 per acre road fee that is · paid as each phase of Graceview is developed. The funds would be held by the City and accrue interest. If after six or eight years the road is not constructed, the funds would be returned to the Developer's. Chronology of Graceview Estates Page 12 of 13 Hosch questioned Scherer as to the cost if the City authorized the condemnation process for securing the needed right-of-way. Scherer responded the legal costs would be minimal as we have recently completed the same process . for the County Road 121 project. While the legal fees should not exceed $ 1,000, the City will have to bear the cost of an appraisal. Scherer recommended the Council move forward with an appraisal of the property and once the appraisal is received an offer for the ROW purchase should be forwarded to the College of St. Benedict. If the College rejects the offer to purchase the needed ROW the City could then proceed with condemnation proceedings. Rassier stated it is his opinion that if the City must go through the condemnation process for Field Street the City should also do the same process for the north access. EWert concurred with Rassier and stated that purchasing the property at this time \viII be the most economical to the City as an appraiser will have recent property sales to base the market value. Heid questioned the south access and where the road will be placed. Bettendorf responded that it is his opinion that Field Street could qualify as a Federal Road. As such, 80% of the road costs will be paid through federal funding. However, before the road can be classified for federal funding, a significant amount of work must be completed, including an environmental assessment and placement study. Herges stated it is his understanding that utilities will be installed in the north access and will be of benefit to the College of St. Benedict. Scherer stated that while that is true, the College is contending that the only purpose they have for that property is athletic fields. As such they do not require utilities. Scherer stated the proposed Memorandum of Understanding prepared by the City only required cost participation for utilities if the College used the services. Under this scenario the College would be assessed based on the use of the property. The Council agreed that before a Developer's Agreement can be executed for Graceview Estates, the developers must make a commitment to the City with regard to any additional costs incurred by the City if condemnation is required for the roadways described above. Hosch made a motion authorizing execution of the Developer's Agreement for Graceview Estates contingent upon the developer cost sharing in the eminent domain expenses for the right-of-way acquisition of Field . Street and the Northern access. The Developer's Agreement will also be amended to include a S 250.00 per acre charge for future roads. This fee is paid at the time of executing a Developer's Agreement for each phase of Graceview Estates. The motion was seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously. Ehert requested the Council begin the process for identifying the location for the south and north road, preparing legal descriptions and securing an appraisal fee for the acquisition of such. I' . ""·t2yio~z~·Gity<Co..cil:¡;Unut" I Graceview Estates: City Attorney John Scherer updated the Council on the status of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of St. Joseph and the College of St. Benedict. At this time the College of St. Benedict is willing to execute the lease agreement for the temporary construction road and discuss the utility easements. While they agree to the easement, compensation for the easement has not been determined. The College is objecting to being assessed for the proposed north access and would like assurance from the City that they would not be assessed in the future. Scherer stated that when meeting with CSB representatives two weeks ago he indicated the City could not waive future assessments, but would be willing to look at assessing the property based on the use or development of such. At this time it appears as if the City and College have reached an impasse. If the City wishes to pursue the needed easements and right-of-way condemnation may have to be considered. The condemnation process includes the court appointment of three independent appraisers to determine the fair market value based on comparable sales. The advantage to the City is that comparable sales are recent and it should be relatively easy to determine a fair market value. If the City is to pursue condemnation approximately 3 to 3.5 acres of property will be sought. EWert stated that the Council made a commitment to the neighborhood regarding the ingress/egress. He further . stated it is his opinion that the construction road should be provided on the north access as construction companies Chronology of Graceview Estates Page 13 of 13 are less likely to use the southern access. Hosch stated that in his opinion the City has exhausted all possible e altematives and therefore must pursue this course of action. Loso stated that he does not feel the City should pursue the north access as we have previously indicated that we would be willing to wait for a period of two years. Hosch stated that while the City originally agreed not to pursue the north access, it was in compromise to receiving the southern utility easements and construction access. Scherer stated that the City can continue to negotiate the easements and road right-of-way while preparing the necessary paperwork for condemnation. Before the proceedings can be filed, Bettendorf will need to prepare legal descriptions for the property sought to be acquired. Ehlert made a motion authorizing the City Engineer and City Attorney to prepare the necessary papers to begin condemnation proceedings for the securing of utility easements and road right-of-way from the College of St. Benedict. The motion was seconded by Rassier and passed unanimously. Eminent Domain Proceedings. College of St. Benedict: City Attorney John Scherer appeared before the Council and updated the Council on the status of the eminent domain proceedings with the College f St. Benedict. Previously the Council authorized an appraisal for the possible taking of land for two roads on the property owned by the College of St. Benedict that is adjacent to County Road 121. The road on the southern end has been identified as Field Street with the northern road being identified as Callaway Street. The legal descriptions have been prepared for the taking and Field Street requires 4 acres of land with Callaway requiring two acres. Scherer presented the Council with the appraisal for the possible taking of ROW ftom the College of ST. Benedict. . The appraisal has been prepared by Leigh Lenzmeier. The appraised cost of the land for the Field Street and Callaway street is approximately $ 13,000 per acres. The appraisal does not include a acreage reduction for the obstruction ofthe major gas line nor does it deduct any cost for the street that would be required if the property were built. Scherer stated that the proposal is based on four comparable land transactions. Scherer stated recently representatives of the City meet with representatives of the College of St. Benedict, including a one of the members of the Board of Directors. It was the opinion of the College that the Callaway Street does not serve a purpose to anyone other than the developer of Graceview Estates and they do not want their property divided for this purpose. They further indicated that they are supportive of the extension of Field Street and would be willing to execute the utility easements near this area and come to resolution on the placement of the road. The College has requested the opportunity to meet with the City Council to further discuss this matter which has been scheduled for July 22, 2002. Hosch expressed frustration with the process and stated that he was one of the City Representatives that originally met with St. benedict and he felt that an agreement had been reached. When the agreement was memorialized for signature, the College changed the terms of the agreement. Hosch further stated that he would prefer to negotiate an agreement with St. Benedict. However, if it cannot, the City will have no option but to pursue eminent domain. Ehlert concurred with Hosch and stated that while he too would prefer to reach an agreement, the City may have to pursue its other options. If the City is required to purchase the property through eminent domain, this is the best time to do so. Ehlert stated that the appraiser will have comparable sales to base the compensation on and with land prices escalating this may be the best opportunity for the City. The Council feels strongly that the north end road should go in. There is pro's and con's, pro could do as cheap as possible. Con if the property is developed at that time we could require the road to be put in and by waiting it will cost more. Scherer stated the only change is the Board participation ftom St. Benedict. . City of S1. Joseph Graceview"Condemnation Issue Invoice · Number Date Description of Services Fees Rajkowski Hansmeier Ltd. 10366 12/14/2001 Meeting with S1. Bens re: Road Issues 234.00 10680 1/17/2002 Prepare and Attend Meeting 130.00 10680 1/22/2002 Research Condemnation Issue; Draft opinion letter to city 160.00 10680 1/23/2002 Travel to S1. Joseph; attend meeting with City Officials; attend 240.00 meeting at St. Ben's; e-mail to Joe & Judy 10680 1/30/2002 Meeting in St. Joe with Joe, Judy, Rick Heid and Larry 190.00 11027 2/14/2002 Review correspondence and other information 30.00 11027 2/19/2002 Review letter from S1. Ben's; attend meeting in S1. Joe 130.00 11027 2/21/2002 Attend meeting 100.00 11027 2/27/2002 Telephone conference with Judy re: easements; prepare first 26.00 draft of two easements 11027 2/27/2002 Telephone conference with Judy review plat for legal; draft 110.00 easements 11027 2/28/2002 E-mail easements to Judy 6.50 11347 3/712002 Telephone conference with Judy 10.00 11347 3/7/2002 Attend meeting with S1. Ben's; Draft memorandum to council 320.00 11347 3/8/2002 Draft St. Ben's memorandum of understanding 70.00 11347 3/19/2002 Telephone conference with Judy; revise developers agreement 60.00 11564 4/5/2002 Telephone conference with Judy; review easement legal; e-mail 40.00 Judy 11564 4/15/2002 Review file; meeting with developer; e-mail Judy; telephone 180.00 conference with Judy 11564 4/17/2002 Review redraft of memo of understanding; draft correspondence 60.00 to Judy 11564 4/23/2002 Meeting with St. Ben's Officials; telephone conference with Tom 100.00 · Matthews 11564 4/30/2002 Revise development agreement; draft correspondence to client 110.00 and Joe; draft correspondence to Tom Matthews 11830 5/2/2002 Telephone conferences with Judy; telephone conference with 160.00 Joe; telephone conference with opposing counsel re: road; review applicable law 1183Q 5/2/2002 Attend meeting 70.00 11830 5/8/2002 Telephone conference with Judy 30.00 11830 5/9/2002 Telephone conference with Judy re: College of St. Benedicts 30.00 11830 5/10/2002 Telephone conference with S1. Ben's Attorney; Telephone 60.00 conference with client re: S1. Ben's Position 11830 5/14/2002 E-mail developer's agreement to Judy and Joe 6.50 11830 5/15/2002 Telephone conference with Judy; draft proposed resolution for 70.00 eminent domain re: St. Ben's 11830 5/21/2002 Telephone conference with Lenzmeier 20.00 12164 6/4/2002 Telephone conference with Tom Matthews 30.00 12164 6/21/2002 Telephone conference with Judy; fax to Judy 13.00 12166 6/27/2002 Review drawings and legal description for Callaway and Field 19.00 Street takings 2,815.00 S.E.H. 89466 06/1/02 - 06/30/02 Prepare easement drawings and legal descriptions for Field 1,729.10 Street and Callaway Street Condemnation 83037 12/1/02 - 12/31/02 Transportation planning - meeting with S1. Ben's & City 700.00 Administrator 2,429.10 Lenzmeier Appraisal Service · Appraisal opinion letter 2,000.00 (Note: If city moves forward with condemnation estimated cost of completed report is $6,000) 7,244.10 ..A - · ATTORNEYS AT L A \VI KEVIN J. HUGHES THOlvlAS E. MATHEWS PAUL R. HARRIS TAD S. PETHYBRIDGE KATHLEEN M. PREMO RYAN R. MANTHEY August 5, 2002 Ms. Judy Weyrens City of St. Joseph 25 College Avenue N.W. P.O. Box 668 St.Joseph,~ 56374-0668 Dear Judy: · Enclosed is a clean copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the College of St. Benedict and the City of St. Joseph. This Memorandum has been approved by the various boards and the President of the College of St. Benedict. It is my understanding that the Memorandum will be one of the subjects discussed at the special meeting of the City Council to be held on August 12th at 5:30 p.m. Either myself or someone from the college will be in attendance at that meeting. Very truly yours, ~~~~ Thomas E. Mathews Enclosure cc: John Scherer (with enclosures) Jim Fredricks (with enclosures) TEM:nao F:lCLIENnI03100031IrorresI020805jw-teml'jJd · 110 SIXTH AVEKUE SOUTH, SUlTE 200 . P.O. Box 548 . ST. CLOUD, MINNESOTA 56302'0548 £.!'vhll.' attorneys@hughesrnathews.c01TI . y.,rww.hughesnurhews.com TELEPHONE: 320.251.4399 . FAX: 320.251.578] - MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING . This Memorandum of Understanding has been entered by the College of Saint Benedict ("College"), a Minnesota Educational Institution, and the City of Saint Joseph ("City"), a Minnesota political subdivision. RECITALS: A. For many years, the College has cooperated amicably with the City to provide services needed in the community. B. The College wishes to accommodate the City in the location of improvements that are currently needed on property owned by the College. The legal description of such property is described on the attached Exhibit A and is referred to as the "Field Road Parcel." C. College and City believe it is in both parties best interest to cooperatively examine and develop the location of a potential street on property owned by the College. Such property is described on the attached Exhibit B and is referred to as the ''North Road Parcel." D. College has agreed to transfer to the City the Field Road Parcel for the payment . of$57,100, the "Transfer Payment." E. It is College's opinion that the Transfer Payment does not represenf the full fair market value of the Field Road Parcel, and both parties acknowledge that any further land transactions between the parties shall not be determined on the basis of the Transfer Payment. F. College and City wish to memorialize the agreements reached relative to the Field Road Parcel and the North Road Parcel. IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL PROMISES OF THE PARTIES EXPRESSED HEREIN, City and College agree as follows: 1. College and City shall enter into a purchase agreement regarding the transfer by College to City of the Field Road Parcel. Such agreement shall provide for the payment of$57,100, cash made by City at closing. College shall provide an updated abstract of title to the Field Road Parcel. College shall deliver a warranty deed, subject to the recorded easements of record. Closing shall occur on or before November I, 2002. . I / · 2. During the two (2) years following the execution of this Memorandum, the College and City, together with IDS #742, shall work together to determine whether a street is needed over the North Road Parcel, and if needed, the location of such street. Such street shall connect Stearns County Road #121 (College Avenue) to Graceview Estates, connecting with Graceview Estates at the southeast comer of the Kennedy Schòol property where shown on the final plat of Graceview Estates, Plat 1. If the road is eventually constructed from Graceview Estates to Stearns County Road # 121, either by dedication of right-of-way by the College or condemnation by the City, the City agrees to work with the College to locate that street where it will best compliment and cause least interference with the College plans for use or development of the property located east of Steams County Road 121 and west of Graceview Estates, hereinafter referred to as the "College Future Development Property. .. 3. Parties also agree that any hook-up fees for sewer and water connection to the College Future Development Property will be based upon the policies adopted and in effect for sewer and water hook-up fees within the City. To the extent that the formulas or schedules then in effect may not accurately account for the potential sewer or water usage, which will occur on the College Future Development Property, the parties will proceed with negotiating a hook-up charge, consistent with the guidelines contained in the City policy, but appropriate for the actual usage anticipated for the property. · Dated: , 2002. College of Saint Benedict Title By Date City of Saint Joseph Title By Date F:\CLIEN1\! 03\00031\docs\Memo of Understanding(rev! ).doc · 2 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING · EXHIBIT A: Field Road Parcel That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 124 North, Range 29 West lying southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter; thence northerly along the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter on an assumed bearing of North 00 degrees 58 minutes 54 seconds West for 60.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 89 degrees 00 minutes 08 seconds West, on a line parallel to and 60.00 feet northerly of the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter, for 367.71 feet; thence westerly along a tangential curve concave to the north having a central angle of 24 degrees 09 minutes 26 seconds and a radius of 690.00 feet for 290.92 feet; thence North 66 degrees 50 minutes 26 seconds West, tangent to said curve, for 201.15 feet; thence along a tangential curve concave to the south having a central angle of 24 degrees 13 minutes 53 seconds and a radius of 810.00 feet for 342.57 feet; thence South 88 degrees 55 minutes 41 seconds West, tangent to said curve, for 150.29 feet to the west line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and there terminate said line. Containing 4.383 acres, more or less. Subject to roadway easements over the westerly and southerly parts thereof and any other easements of record. Less and except the following tract described in Book 346 of Deeds, Page 527, as on · file and of record in the Office of the Stearns County Recorder: A tract of land in the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 124, Range 29 West described as follows: Beginning at a point in the East right of way line of County Road No. 121 that is 1352.9 feet north and 33 feet East of the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 15; thence East 100 feet; thence North 75 feet; thence West 100 feet; thence South 75 feet along said right of way line to the point of beginning. EXHIBIT B: North Road Parcel That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 1 A, Township 124 North, Range 29 West lying Northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the northeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence southerly on an assumed bearing of the South 00 degrees 11 minutes 23 seconds East, along the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, for 752.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 89 degrees 28 minutes 37 seconds West for 1319.38 feet to the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and there terminate said line. F :\CLlEl\rn 103\00031 \doc.s\Jega!-tem.wpd ·