Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-09-18 PACKET 04.G.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # ��' DATE 9/18/13 . PREPARED BY Community bevelopment Jennifer Levitt . ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR *************�*�*:�*�***�***�***************�*�:�* COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST 1. Consider amending the City's Subdivision Ordinance to allow only the City Engineer to prepare the plans and specifications for all public infrastructure; require the developer to submit a cash deposit with the City in the minimum amount of 12 percent of the 125 percent estimated construction cost for the public improvements; a 125 percent financial surety for the total cost of the public improvements; and a 150 percent financial security for site grading, erosion control and landscaping improvements as recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. Consider authorizing.the publication of this Subdivision Ordinance amendment by title and summary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt the ordinance amending the City's Subdivision Ordinance regarding public improvements in developments. 2. Adopt the resolution authorizing publication of the ordinance amendment by title and summary. BUDGET IMPLICATION: $N/A $N/A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNTFUNDING SOURCE /_\1�1�Y�7�'��Zi��l �l��yC�]�1;L��[�7�� /1 - • SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED 8/26/13 ❑ � ❑ � MEMO/LETTER: Memo from Jennifer Levitt and John McCool dated 9/5/13 � RESOLUTION: Draft - Ordinance Summary � ORDINANCE: Draft ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: Excerpt from minutes of the 5/20/13 and 8/26/13 Planning Commission meetings ��►I ► :� •: •►I►I__► �i �� ti i y Administrator Date �:*****�***�************************************* COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER Cottage J Grove � Pride andPr�sPerity Meet TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: Jennifer Levitt, Community Development/City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner DATE: September 5, 2013 RE: Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendment — Sureties and Plan Preparation Proposal Amend the City's Subdivision Ordinance to only allow the City to prepare the plans and specifi- cations for the public improvements and change certain financial sureties to remain competitive with other communities. The proposed ordinance amendment continues to allow developers the opportunity to construct the public improvements within their project or to petition the City for the construction of the public improvements. In either scenario, the preparation of plans and specifi- cations is proposed to be perFormed by the City. The ordinance amendment also proposes to reduce the financial sureties that developers must submit to the City for public improvements from 150 percent to 125 percent and require a 12 percent cash deposit of the 125 percent esti- mated construction cost for the public improvements. A 150 percent financial surety is recom- mended for site grading, erosion control, and landscaping. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Subdivision Ordinance text amendment at their August 26, 2013 meeting. No written or oral testimony was received. The Commission was interested in understanding other cities' regulations for new development. Staff reported that other cities require a 125 percent financial surety for the estimated construc- tion costs of all the public improvements versus the 150 percent that Cottage Grove's ordinance currently requires. The Commission supported the idea to continue offering developers the option to construct the public improvements or petitioning the City according the assessment procedures allowed in Chapter 429 of the MN Statutes. Based on the development processes by other communities, the Planning Commission unanim- ously (7-to-0 vote) recommended to the City Council the approval of the proposed ordinance amendment. An excerpt from the Planning Commission's unapproved minutes is attached. Ordinance Requirements Background Prior to June of 2010, the City's Subdivision Ordinance required subdividers to petition the City to design and construct the public improvements. The City constructed the public improvements Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendment — Sureties and Plan Preparation September 5, 2013 Page 2 of 4 under contracts let by the City. The total project costs were then assessed to the properties within the project area. These projects al1 followed the rules of State Statute, Chapter 429. The Planning Commission approved an ordinance change on June 28, 2010, to allow subdi- viders to either petition the City for the improvements or to construct the improvements privately. As part of that ordinance change, the subdivider was able to prepare the plans and specifica- tions and submit them to the City for review and comment. This development option was used by Lennar Homes for the private design and private construction of the single-family residential subdivisions known as Pinecliff 3rd, 4th, and 5th Additions. The City did not have a smooth or successful experience with this methodology. Even though the City has detailed plates and standards for all public infrastructures, it is the opinion of City staff that preparing the plans and specifications for the public improvements should be done by the City Engineer/City consulting engineer. In doing this, the City controls the design for the public improvements, which ensures that the proper specifications are provided and there is de- sign consistency within the public infrastructure. The goal is to make the project designed and constructed in the most cost-effective manner. In review of the City ordinances regarding financial sureties that a developer must post with the City, it was found that our current requirement of 150 percent of the construction cost is higher than most other communities in the metropolitan area and Greater Minnesota. Staff reviewed a number of other cities regarding the financial securities they require of developers and found most cities required a 125 percent surety of the cost estimate for the public improvements. The following is a list of what other communities are requiring: • Centerville: 125% • Farmington: 125% • Maple Plain: 125% • Maple Lake: 125% • Woodbury: 125% • Stacy: 125% • Hinkley: 125% • Rockford: 110% • Carver: 125% • Forest Lake: 125% • Dayton: 110% (125% after 1 st reduction) • Sartell: 125% • Harris: 125°/o • St. Joseph: 125% In order for the City to stay competitive in the residential housing market, it is important that our fees and financial sureties be in line with the market and economic conditions, yet at the same time not put the City at risk for needing to financially cover the cost of public improvements pro- posed by new development. It is important to note that development pays for itself, and it is not an additional burden to existing taxpayers for the new public infrastructure. This still holds true for the proposed ordinance changes. The process for the development or subdivider's project stays the same. The City Engineer pre- pares preliminary cost estimates for the public improvements, called a feasibility report. The report outlines how the development will be served by sanitary sewer, water, storm water, roads, trails, and parks. The feasibility report outlines all of the costs associated with the public infrastructure within the development, along with all necessary work for grading, erosion control, and landscaping. The report also outlines the costs associated with engineering, legal, fiscal, Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendment — Sureties and Plan Preparation September 5, 2013 Page 3 of 4 and administrative related to the project. Based upon the feasibility report, a development agreement between the City and the subdivider is then prepared and signed by both parties. On May 20, 2013, City staff reported to the Planning Commission that the City's Subdivision Ordinance should be amended to only allow the City to prepare plans and specifications for the public improvements and that the surety requirements are modified as the result of current mar- ket conditions. The development process and a variety of options were briefly explained to the Commission. The Planning Commission did not take any action but did support the idea of con- sidering an ordinance amendment and scheduling a public hearing for a future meeting. The public hearing was scheduled for the June 25, 2013 regular Planning Commission meeting. At this meeting, the proposed ordinance amendment was not discussed and the public hearing was continued to July 22, 2013 and then extended to the August 26, 2013 meeting. Planning Considerations The City has adopted the position that subdividers should continue to be given the opportunity to petition the city for the construct the public improvements or privately finance and construct the public improvements. A development agreement between the City and subdivider will still be required and the construction of the improvements must comply with city plans and specifications. The City will inspect the work during construction before the City accepts the improvements upon completion. The proposed ordinance amendment establishes a set of regulations that requires the subdivider to provide certain financial sureties to the City. These sureties cover the total cost of the public improvements, landscaping, lot grading, mailboxes, utility repair/adjustment, etc. An engineering/ administrative escrow must also be deposited with the City to cover city services and expenses perFormed in the processing of the improvements. The ordinance still allows a subdivider the option to petition the City for the construction of the public improvents and have the total construction costs assessed to each benefited parcel or allow the subdivider to finance and construct the public improvements according to the approved plans and specifications. A copy of the proposed ordinance amendment is attached. Public Hearing Notice A public hearing notice was initially published in the South Washington Bulletin on June 12, 2013. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing at their June 25, 2013 meeting and continued the public hear to their July 22, 2013 and August 26, 2013 meetings. Recommendation That the City Council adopt an ordinance approving the proposed Subdivision Ordinance text amendment to Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 1, General Overview of the Subdivision Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. A copy of the proposed Zor�ing Ordinance text amendments is attached. The Council is asked to take the following actions: Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Ryan Schroeder Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendment — Sureties and Plan Preparation September 5, 2013 Page 4 of 4 1. Adopt an ordinance amending the City's Subdivision Ordinance to allow only the City Engi- neer to prepare the plans and specifications for all public infrastructure; require the devel- oper to submit a cash deposit with the City in the minimum amount of 12 percent of the 125 percent estimated construction cost for the public improvements; a 125 percent financial surety for the total cost of the public improvements; and a 150 percent financial security for site grading, erosion control and landscaping improvements as recommended by the Planning Commission; and 2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the publication of this Subdivision Ordinance amendment by title and summary. ORDINANCE NO. XXX 2 AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA AMENDING 3 TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 1, GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE 4 SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY CODE 5 6 The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, does 7 hereby ordain as follows: 8 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 1; General Overview, of the 9 City's Subdivision Ordinance is amended and shall read as follows: 10 10-3-1: GENERAL OVERVIEW: 11 Minnesota statutes section 462.358, subdivision 2A, authorizes the city to condition 12 approval of the subdivision of property on the construction and installation of certain utilities. The 13 intent of this chapter is to specifically set out the required improvements which promote and 14 protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The city reserves the right to require 15 additional improvements if deemed necessary by circumstances and conditions unique to these 16 particular lands. No subdivision of land is allowed unless storm sewer, sanitary sewer, a 17 municipal water supply, streets and other public improvements are constructed to serve the area 18 being divided unless some other ordinance or statute specifically authorizes said division. (Ord. 19 880, 7-21-2010) 20 SECTION 2. AMENDMENT. Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 3; Subdivision Agreement, of 21 the City's Subdivision Ordinance is amended and shall read as follows: 22 10-3-3: SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT: 23 A. Contents of Agreement: The city shall enter into a contract, known as a subdivision 24 agreement, with the subdivider/developer. The agreement shall provide for the completion of 25 the improvements required by this title. Prior to the subdivider or city initiating the 26 improvements, the final plat and resolution shall be recorded, the subdivision agreement and 27 petition under Minnesota statutes chapter 429 shall be signed, all cash deposits paid, the 28 financial guarantees shall be posted and approved by the city attorney, and land required to 29 be dedicated is conveyed to the city. Until completion of the foregoing, only rough grading or 30 other minor forms of construction can begin. 31 B. Public Improvements: 32 1. The agreement shall require the subdivider/developer to furnish and construct at the sole 33 expense of the subdivider and at no expense to the city all the public improvements in 34 accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by the city 35 engineer or require the subdivider/developer to petition the city to furnish and construct 36 improvements in accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by the city 37 engineer. The city engineer shall prepare preliminary cost estimates for the public 38 improvements, together with the costs for engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative 424359v1 SJS CT155-46 Ordinance No. XXX Page 2 of 7 39 costs related to the project, which shall be incorporated into the subdivision agreement. 40 (Ord. 880, 7-21-2010) 41 2. (Rep. by Ord. 880, 7-21-2010) 42 3. The completion date for the public improvements shall be reasonable, considering the 43 work to be done, the season of the year and proper correlation of the improvements with 44 construction activities in the subdivision and other projects which are included within the 45 city improvement contract(s). 46 4. No subdivider who has previously defaulted on work or commitments on the phases of 47 the original preliminary plat or other projects in the city less than five (5) years old shall 48 be permitted to start work on any other subdivision until the defaults are remedied. 49 5. The subdivision agreement shall contain provisions for park dedication as required in 50 section 10-4-3 of this title. 51 C. Boulevard And Yard Improvements: 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 1. The subdivider/developer shall be required to assure the performance and/or installation of the following: a. Rough grading of all public rights of way. b. Grading and seeding of vacant lots. c. Cutting of grass and weeds, in excess of eight inches (8") in height�, on vacant lots. d. Street sweeping and cleaning of storm sewers and holding ponds. e. Installation and maintenance of erosion control devices. f. Boulevard sod, boulevard trees, and yard sod. g. Replacement of trees removed from the right of way. h. Monument replacement. i. Surveyor's certification of individual lot grading compliance. j. Drainage and erosion control plan compliance. k. Final grading of each lot in subdivisions in compliance with the approved plan. I. Driveways compliant with section11-3-9, "Off Street Parking And Loading," requirements of this code. 2. The subdivider shall not transfer or assign its obligations to install and pay for boulevard trees, sod and hard surFace driveways to the home builder or purchaser of any lot. 424359v1 SJS CT155-46 Ordinance No. XXX Page 3 of 7 69 D. ��i� Private Utilities: 70 1. New Lines To Be Underground: All electrical distribution systems (excluding main line 71 feeders and high voltage distribution lines), telephone service lines, gas lines, 72 telecommunications lines, cable lines and services constructed within the confines of and 73 providing service to customers in a newly platted area, shall be buried underground; 74 unless the city council, by resolution, determines that: 75 a. Such requirement would result in unnecessary duplication of facilities where the 76 property to be served abuts an existing development already served by overhead 77 facilities; or 78 b. That based upon engineering considerations, underground installation of such facilities 79 is not feasible in a particular plat or portion thereof; or 80 c. That the size of the subdivision is too small to justify the underground installation of 81 such facilities. (Ord. 880, 7-21-2010) 82 10-3-4-1: SUBDIVIDER PETITIONED PROJECTS: 83 A. Financial Guarantees Required Generally: The subdivider shall be required to post financial 84 guarantees to ensure completion of all improvements required by this title, the preliminary 85 and final plat resolutions, and the subdivision agreement. The financial guarantees shall be 86 in the form of cash de� ,°c�� e� irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of financial 87 securitv found to be acceatable bv the citv. .. . :• ti� y y ,� B. Public Improvements: One hundred percent (100%) of improvements including, but not limited to, street lighting, �-�i� sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, curb and gutter, street grading and street bituminous surFacing, shall be assessed against properties in the subdivision. The developer shall provide the city with a letter of credit in an amount of forty percent (40%) of the estimated cost of the improvements, which letter of credit shall guarantee payment to the city of the assessments. 94 C. Boulevard And Yard Improvements: 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 1. The subdivider shall be required to post financial guarantees in the amount of one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the estimated costs to assure completion of the items listed in subsection 10-3-3C1 of this chapter. The financial guarantees shall be subject to approval by the city attorney before acceptance by the city. The subdivider shall deposit with the city, from a bank or other reputable and financially sound institution subject to the approval of the finance director, a letter of credit guaranteeing perFormance and completion of improvements/work required by the subdivision agreement. 2. If there is noncompliance with the requirements of this title, at any time, the city administrator can direct the performance of any work required of the subdivider. Specifically, if on site improvements have not been installed or structures occupied for forty five (45) days or longer, the city administrator shall direct an inventory for noncompliance on June 15 and September 15 of each year and may direct the performance of any work heretofore required of the subdivider. The cost of the city's 424359v1 SJS CT155-46 Ordinance No. XXX Page 4 of 7 108 performance of any such work, including labor, equipment and material, shall be paid 109 from the posted financial guarantees. (Ord. 880, 7-21-2010) 110 10-3-4-2: SUBDIVIDER FINANCED AND CONSTRUCTED PROJECTS: 111 A. �r-etfe� Financial securities: The development contract provided by section 10-3-3 of this 112 chapter must require the subdivider to provide s�e#-i�s financial securities to the city by a 113 cash deposit, ��i#+e�c�-iesk� irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of financial securitv 114 found to be acceptable to the citv as follows: 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 1. �°�t�� Public Imarovement Financial Securitv a. A�}f financial securitv must be provided to the city in a sum equal to one hundred #+f� twentv five percent (�8-°,� 125%) the total cost of the improvements as estimated by the city engineer. Of the total amount, #+ve twelve percent (C 12%) or two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), whichever is the greater, must be posted as a non- refundable cash de osit es^r�,�oo �^ "� ho�,� ;n ° nnr�in���h��ori n��Gnn���.+�Q 0 T���� '+�� Tho�o n„�r�r+oo� The financial securitv and the cash deaosit must be filed with the city prior to release of the final plat for recording. If the �e�� financial securitv is a letter of credit, +"° �°^„r;+„ it must contain a provision that � prohibits the issuer or surety from terminating the s'°"� letter of credit without first giving forty five (45) days written notice to the city of the proposed termination or expiration �t�c���;r-�. Failure of the developer to post a substitute security within five (5) days after notice by the city shall constitute a default that shall be grounds for drawing on the letter of credit. The city council may grant a reduction in the financial security upon written request by the developer based upon the value of the completed work at the time of the requested reduction. The financial security may not be reduced to less than twenty percent (20%) of the original amount until all work required of the developer by this agreement has been completed and accepted by the city. Upon failure of the developer to perForm, the city may declare the agreement to be in default and the amount of the financial security shall be paid over to the city. From the proceeds of the financial security, the city shall be reimbursed for any attorney fees, engineering fees or other technical or professional assistance, including the work of the city staff and employees, and the remainder thereof shall be used by the city to complete the °ryr°�;� work. The developer shall be liable to the city to the extent that the financial security is inadequate to reimburse the city its costs and pay for the completion of the work. b. Items covered by these guarantees must include, but not be limited to, water mains, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, bituminous streets with concrete curb and gutter, streetlights, ,a� trails. sidewalks, and park features. These financial guarantees are for all of the improvements to be furnished and installed by the subdivider, pursuant to the development contract, and which have not been completed prior to filing of the final plat. - - -. . _ - - e 424359v1 SJS CT155-46 Ordinance No. XXX Page 5 of 7 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 : 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 , ����ed-�e-t��-s�b�+v+� require reimbursement for additional expenses if the enaineerina, inspection, testina. leaal, or administration exceeds the 12 aercent cash deposit or reauire an additional cash deaosit be made in order to cover these exaenses. 2 n_°�t° °'� Site Gradina. Erosion Control. and Landscaaina Financial Securitv a. A°� �ro+„ +„ +►,o �,+„ financial securitv must be provided by the subdivider to the citv in a sum equal to one hundred f� percent (100% 150%) of the amounts established for on-site improvements by the department of community development. �'���° �°r^°„+ 0 0 .,� ,.-.�h „r .,,, ;rro,,,,,,..h�o �o++or „f �ro�;+. This financial security must be automatically renewed and shall not expire until released by the city. This °"� securitv must be filed with the city prior to release of the final plat for recording. b. Items covered by this °„� securitv must include, but not be limited to, landscaping as required by resolution, mailboxes, utility repair, adjustment site aradina. erosion control boulevard trees, landscapina. irriaation and lot grading, as well as costs for any entryway sign. These financial guarantees are for all of the improvements to be furnished and installed by the subdivider, pursuant to the development contract, and which have not been completed prior to filing of the final plat. c. The city is entitled to roimh� irco ;+�.o�f ,,,,+ �,f +ho ,,,�h ac nr��ni seek reimbursement from the financial securitv for any cost and expense incurred by the city for completion of the work in case of default by the subdivider. Upon completion of the work and termination of any liabilities to the city by the subdivider under the contract, the balance remaining of the ^�°" °c^r^ financial securitv must be refunded to the subdivider. B. Engineering/Administrative €�e� Cash Deaosit: ... . . - . •. - -. -. - - - • - - .. - .. . - - . -- •.• - - -- - •- �• • • - - •- - '� � - • - • -• - .- - '� . • . . - . . . . - e - - - - � - - - � ��� �� - - - - - - - � � � � � � r � � � • � � - - -: - - - -- - - - - •: - - - - - 2. The cit mav use the cash deposit to reimburse itself for Scosts of city services, expenses, and materials provided in reviewing and processing of the final plat including, 424359v1 SJS CT155-46 Ordinance No. XXX Page 6 of 7 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 2�� 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 but not limited to, staff time, legal expenses incurred in plat approval, office and field checking, �°�g ryr°�-� office and field grade verification, erosion control insaection estabfishina elevations, and drainage requirements, general supervision, staking, inspection, purchase and installation of street identification and traffic control signs, drafting as built drawings, and all other city staff services performed in the processing of the improvements and plats, and administrative and legal expenses in examining title to the property being developed. m„�+ ho nhoryo�J + � ±�- ariy�r�ooriny/�+rlminio�r�+ o��r,,,�, _ .,� w., .,,,� ,,,, ,�..,,,,,,,,,,��,u�,,.z.���,o�o �nnni m� �nrJ mi �o� ho nro�i�orl +n 4ho ni}�i nf ('n#�rro (�rr��io vva.���� aa��.a ���WV� vv v�v�w�w�w w u�v vi�y v� vvuua��. v�vva... 3. , � , � . ' ocnrn�ni �rnn� in+ mi �o�� � ��p��S�,o fi_�ar�jho���qpa��t���°�=c�Tnr�� If the .�.� ....r � amount of the deposit is sufficient to reimburse the citv for its costs under this aaraaraph. the balance of the deposit shall be returned to develoaer without interest. If it appears that the actual costs incurred will exceed the amount of the deaosit, the developer and the cit shall review the costs reauired to comalete the aroiect and the develoqer mav be re uired to deaosit additional sums with the citv. � - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - -- - - - � : - •• - • - • - - - - e - - - - . - 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 � 4. If all, or a part, of a development has been completed, inspected and accepted, a!{ —���►, o��r,,,�, mnnioc financial securities for that portion accepted by the city, may be reduced by the city council and full or partial payment be returned to the subdivider with the exception of the nonrefundable public imarovement cash deposit reauired bv paraaraph A(11 (al of this sectionl. Any balance remaining in the account upon completion of all platting conditions must be returned to the depositor by the finance department after all claims and charges thereto have been paid and after approval by city council (with the exception of the nonrefundable aublic imarovement cash deposit reauired bv paraaraph A(1)la) of this section). (Ord. 880, 7-21-2010) 226 SECTION 3. AMENDMENT. Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 7; Subdivider Request for 227 Construction of Improvements is amended and shall read as follows: 228 10-3-7: CONSTRUCTION PLANS: 229 A. Construction plans and specifications for the required improvements conforming in all 230 respects to the standards of the city engineer and the ordinances of the city of Cottage 231 Grove must be prepared at the subdivider's expense by ' r'r�foccinn�l or�rvinoor ,�,h„ ;� 232 233 e�ir�ee� the citv enaineer. 424359v1 SJS CT155-46 Ordinance No. XXX Page 7 of 7 234 B. 235 ' 236 • . • 237 . 238 23g ;n +ho onrrinoorinn �o���+,,,on+, At the inspection, all required improvements on the site that 240 are to be installed under the provisions of this chapter must be inspected during the course 241 of construction by the city engineer at the subdivider's expense, and acceptance must be 242 subject to the city engineer's certificate of compliance with the contract. (Ord. 880, 7-21- 243 2010) 244 Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after 245 its adoption and publication according to law. 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 Attest: Passed this day of , 2013. Myron Bailey, Mayor Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk 424359v1 SJS CT155-46 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-XXX RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. XXX BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove adopted Ordinance No. XXX, which amends City Code Title 10, Chapter 3, Section 1, General Overview of the Subdivision Ordinance, to allow only the City Engineer to prepare the plans and specifications for all public infrastructure; require the developer to submit a cash deposit with the City in the minimum amount of 12 percent of the 125 percent estimated construction cost for the public improvements; a 125 percent financial surety for the total cost of the public improvements; and a 150 percent financial security for site grading, erosion control and landscaping improvements as recommended by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, subd. 4 allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. XXX to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance: Public Notice The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove has adopted Ordinance No. XXX. The ordinance amends City Code Title 10-3-1, General Overview of the Subdivision Ordinance, to allow only the City Engineer to prepare the plans and specifications for all public infrastructure; require the developer to submit a cash deposit with the City in the minimum amount of 12 percent of the 125 percent estimated construction cost for the public improvements; a 125 percent financial surety for the total cost of the public improvemen#s; and a 150 percent financial security for site grading, erosion control and landscaping improvements as recommended by the Planning Commission. The entire text of Ordinance No. XXX is available for inspection at Cottage Grove City Hall during regular business hours and is posted at the Washington County Park Grove Library. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a complete copy of the ordinance is kept in the City Clerk's office at City Hall for public inspection and a copy of the ordinance will be posted on the Public Notice Bulletin Board at City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South. Ordinance No. XXX Page 2 of 2 Passed this 18th day of September 2013. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk EXCERPT FROM UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 26, 2013, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6.3 Public Improvements Surety Text Amendment — Case TA13-016 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment to the City's Subdivi- sion Ordinance to allow subdividers of property to construct the public improvements within their projects either privately or publicly, with publicly designed plans and specifi- cations; and to change the amount of financial sureties that developers submit to the City for public improvements, site grading, erosion control, and landscaping to 125 per- cent of the construction cost. McCool summarized the staff report and recommended approval. Reese asked if changing the preparation of the plans and specifications to the City will add more time for an applicant. McCool said no. If the developer wanted an earlier start on their project, the developer can deposit a specified amount of money to the City to start the prepa- ration of the plans and specifications. If for any reason the project did not proceed forward, the developer does not get back that deposit. Rostad asked McCool about the 125 percent versus 150 percent and asked if he had looked into what other cities were doing regarding their planning, and if most of the cities maintain control of that or do the developers. McCool stated the proposed amendments to the Subdi- vision Ordinance are consistent with what other cities were doing. Rostad asked if developers will object to the proposed amendment that the city prepare the plans and specifications. McCool stated that some developers still might want to prepare their own plans for the public improvements, but the City's past experience resulted in more engineering time because of the review and revision process in developing a complete set of plans that could be accepted by the City. Even with the City's detail standard plates, other engineers would propose alternative designs that the City would not accept. Rostad asked if the City uses the developer's general layout in preparing the construction plans. McCool responded affirmatively and explained that the City works with the developer's consultant throughout the plan preparation process. Reese asked if that was consistent with how other cities operate. McCool stated he would assume so, but was unsure how much communication takes place by other communities and developers. Pearson asked if the City was opening itself up to additional liability if the City prepares the plans. McCool stated there is no additional liability because the City already has detail plates and specifications and anyone preparing the plans and specifications must comply with the city approved standards and specifications. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Public Improvements Surety Text Amendment — Case TA13-016 August 26, 2013 Page 2 Rostad asked if other neighboring cities have a different design process that is preferred by builders and developers. He does not want a developer to nof consider developing in Cottage Grove because they are not allowed to prepare their own plans and specifications. Brittain stated that he thought the city was already preparing the plans and specifications. McCool explained that the current ordinance allows a developer to prepare the plans and specifications. The City did prepare the plans and specifications for the two residential sub- divisions approved this year because both developers agreed to allow the City to prepare them. The proposed text amendment changes the ordinance regulations to specifically state that only the City will prepare the plans and the developer has the option to finance and con- struct the public improvements or petition the City to construct the improvements. Brittain stated that he sees this as a significant value based on past experience and continuing to maintain a uniform construction standard throughout the community. Rostad agreed there was some benefit to uniformity, but is concerned if a builder or devel- oper would not want to develop in the City because they were unable to prepare their own plans and specifications for the public improvements. McCool stated that the City does have standard detail plates and design standards that all developers must follow, but occasionally additional time is spent because other consultants want to change those standards. Rostad opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Rostad c/osed the public hearing. Brittain made a motion to recommend approval of the zoning text amendment. Pearson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7-to-0 vote). EXCERPT FROM APPROVED MINUTES OF THE MAY 20, 2013, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7.2 Subdivision Ordinance Surety Text Amendment — Case TA13-016 An amendment to the City's Subdivision Ordinance to change the amount of financial sureties that the City requires from developers for construction of public improvements. Levitt summarized the staff report. She stated that this amendment will be brought back to the Planning Commission for a public hearing at the June meeting. Johnson asked if other cities had recently dropped their requirements or has Cottage Grove always been higher. Levitt responded the City was probably high for a period of time. Johnson asked if there was an experience that put those fees at that level. McCool responded that historically for landscaping improvements it has always been 150 percent, and a lot of cities have probably reduced their percentage recently. He also stated other entities, such as financial institutions, the developer, and title com- . panies, want their certain percentage of guarantee, and the City felt that there were enough guarantees by these other agencies that the City would not need 150 percent. Werhle asked why the on-site surety would remain at 150 percent. Levitt explained that typically landscaping improvements on commercial sites are 150 percent, so_to stay consistent with requirements for the commercial sector, that same principle is being applied to residential developments. Rostad stated that it makes sense to be competitive with other cities.