HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-12 CA Ltr to Fredrikson & Byron Re Developers Agreement Changestoo
LAW OFFICES OF 4e
Eckber Lammers, Bri Wolff & Vierlin P.L.L.P
James F. Lammers
Robert G. Bri
A/lark J . Vierlin •
Thomas J. Weidner
Susan D. Olson �
David K. Sn
Sean P. Stokes
Baiers C Heeren
Laura L. Doma
Joshua D. Cluistensen
Ms. Sue Steinwall
F_L"edrit..-son & Br
200 South 6'" Street, Suite 4000
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
Re:
1835 Northwestern Avenue
StiEwater, Minnesota 55082
(651) 439-2878
FAX (651) 439-2923
Writer's direct dial number.
(651) 351-2118
April 12, 2005
Redline Chan on
Dear Ms. Steinwall.-
L J. Eckberg,
(1916-2003)
Paul A. Wolff
(1944-1996)
• -------------------
Qualified. Neutral Arbitrator
Certified Real Estate Specialist
�Qualified Neutral Mediator
Via Fax and U.S. Mail
Wal-Mart/Oak Park Hei Developers Aareemenff
I have received b e-mail y our redraft of the Development A with
redlined chan which y ou forwarded me and which I have as bein received in m e-mail
inbox as of Saturda April 9. 1 will, of course, forward a cop over to Cit staff for their review
and comment. Please understand that the comments of this letter are subject, of course, to their
commentar that ma be received. There are issues that I see will not be acceptable to the Cit
staff. The are as follows:
1. Paragraph K on Pa 3, Tree Protection and Clea Your proposed
chan in terms of the strike out provisions referencin the authorit of the Cit Arborist and
her re for fencin and protection of trees, which is that which he has in work with
other developments and which has been established over time is not g oin g to be acceptable. We
certainl have no objection to the Developer submittin a final landscape plan alon with y our
buildin permit when that time comes, but the tree protection protocols developed b the Cit
will remain in place as currentl drafted.
2. Easements.. There needs to be some chan between Para 3 on
Pa 5 and Para 5(e) on Pa 8. Actuall I do not believe that the Cit will re an or
need an easements to be conve relative to Plan A Improvements as y our redlinin notes in
Para aph 3(c), but 3 deals of course with the Plan A Improvements. The Cit will re
easements and/or dedication ri and other easements within the plat as part of the
ownership Plan B Improvements and the construction of those. Because of the dela in the plat
recordin I can foresee a desire from the Cit to perhaps implement those constructed easements
h at a time prior to the actual recordin of y our plat since we don't know for sure
when that is g oin g to happen. Conse the provisions of Para 5(e will have to
provide not onl for the recordin of the final plat, but also the assurance and the conve to
the Cit of permanent and temporar easements necessar to construct the Plan B Improvements
April 12, 2005
Page 2
if indeed they are to be constructed by the City prior to the recording of the plat. Dedication of
the rights -of way within the plat would certainly duplicate those easements if the plat is recorded
at a time after the construction of the Plan B Improvements. The referenced easement or right -
of-way conveyance to the City in Paragraph 3(c) will not be needed.
3. Paragraph 3(d). The time limitations that you have prescribed as 30 days
should be reduced to 15 days.
4. Paragraph 3(e). The proposed additions to Paragraph 3(e) provides for
you the opportunity to actually restructure the security for Plan A Improvements and given the
fact that your Plan A Improvements will not be constructed for potentially quite a period of time,
I can understand that. However, that security will have to be reestablished based upon the
actual amount of your bids, related materials and other line items otherwise generally noted
within the list of the Plan A Improvements. All of your actual bids, as well as the detail
necessary to assure that the appropriate items have been bid and supplied will have to be subject
to the review and the approval of the City Engineer.
5. Paragraphs 4(b) and 5(a }. Your suggested changes to Paragraph 4b)
referencing the attached Exhibit B will not be allowed by the City. The City has not seen nor
confirmed all of the plans that were previously proposed to be attached as an exhibit to this
document and, given the fact that there will be substantial delay in the actual construction of
these improvements, we anticipate that those plans will change in any event.. Further, the City
will not build those until after there has been application for a building permit and, therefore,
your proposal to strike that section of the language in Paragraph 4 is also not acceptable. For the
same reason, your proposed changes in Paragraph 5 on Page 7 is also problematic. The same
issues also present themselves in Paragraph 5(a).
6. Paragraph 7. Your proposed changes to Paragraph 7(b) conflict with the
requirements of the permit which require lot combination and are problematic. Your proposed
changes to Paragraph 7(f) are also problematic as the City would not accept the deposited
security until there is an application for the building permit.
, Yours very truly,
Mark J. Vierling
MJVlsdb
cc: Eric Johnson, City Administrator