Planning Commission Agenda 08-02-2005
.
.
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 2nd, 2005
6:00 p.M
Commissioners:
Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and
Sandy Suchy
council Liaison:
Glen posusta
Staff:
.IetT O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and
Angela Schumann
2. APproval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, July 5th,
2005.
I. Call to order.
3. Consideration of adding itemS to the agenda.
5. Cnntinued Public Hearing _ Cousideratinn tn amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
relating to Open and Outdoor Storage.
Applicant: City of Monticello
4. Citizen comments.
6. Continued Public Hearing _ Cnnsideratinn of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development for TacO John's Restaurant, a convenience food establishment in
a B-4 district.
Applicant: JA T Restaurants
7. Pub lie Heartin g __ Cons ideration of a reqnest for a Cond it ional Use Permit allowing open and
outdnor antomobile sales within a B-3 (Highway Busioess) Zoniog District.
Applicant: Gould Uros.
8. Puhlic Hearing _ Consideration of a request for Conditional U>c Permit to allow a real estate
agency in a PZM (Performance Zone-Mixed) District.
Applicant: Professional Brokers Realty
9. Pub! ic Hearing _ Cons ideration of a request for Cond iti ona I Use perm it to allnw a drivc-
throngh facility in the Central Community District and to allow joint parking and drive<, and
cons ideratinn of a request for Variance from parking lot standards as required by the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
Applicant: Masters 5th A venue
10. puhlic Hearing _ Considemtion of amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating
to joint access and joint drives and parking lot setbacks.
Applicant: City of Monticello
\.
11. Considcration to adopt resolution finding that a modification to the rcdevelopment plan for
Central Monticello Rcdevelopment Project No.1 and TIF Plan for "fIF District No. 1-35
conform to the gencral plans for the devclopmcnt and redevelopment of the city. Applicant:
Mastcr's Fifth ^ venue, Inc.
12. Considcration to adopt resolution finding that a modification to the redcvelopment plan for
Central Monticcllo Rcdevelopment Projcct No. I and TIF Plan for 'III" District No. 1-36
conform to thc gcneral plan for the development and redevclopmcnt of the city. Applicant:
Rocky Mountain Group, LLC
13. Consideration of schcduling upcoming Planning Commission Workshops
14. Adjourn.
.
.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TlJESDA Y, JlJL Y 5th, 2005
6:00 p.M
I.
Comm issioners:
Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, and Sandy Suchy
Commissioners Absent:
William Spartz
Council Liaison:
Glen posusta
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and
Angela Schumann
\. Call to order.:.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and declared a quorum, noting the
absence of Commissioner Spartz.
2. A rova I of the minutes of the s eeial Piano i 0 ' Com 01 iss ion meet in held l' uesda J u oe 7th
;?oOOS.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES OF TUESDAY, JUNE 7'", 2005, NOTING THAT THE MINUTE
HEADING SHOULD READ "REGULAR MEETING" RATHER THAN "SPECIAL
MEFrtNG".
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED.
.
3. Consideration of addin items to the a enda.
Cha irman F rie asked that staff look into the s ignage and Ii ghtin g 0 f the Dairy Queen Grill and
Chill entrance off of Chelsea. O'Neill stated that they will check the plan for accesS, signage and
lighting details.
4. Citizen comments.
NONE.
Grittman noted tu the Commi"ion that the outdoor storage item had been on the
Commi"io,,' agenda for a couple of mouths. In that time, staff has been meeting with an ad
hoc committee of industrial business represeutatives on this item. Gritiman explained that
there are still items for discussion among the group.
Frie asked if the issues have been resulved. Grittmau stated that the group is in general
agreement, but they would like to see the ordinance again unce more before it comes to the
Commission.
Dragsteo asked ifthe height of storage would be defined. Grittman confirmed that it would
be, also indicating lhat screening requirements bad been discu"ed. Suchy asked if all ofthe
5.
\.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05
indu'trial "eaS affected were represented. Grittman indicated that there were quite a few
representatives and that a cross-section of the indu,trial commonity had been contacted.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO CONTINUE THE AMENDMENT Of
THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO OPEN AND OUTDOOR
STORAGE TO TH E AUGUST, 2005 MEETING Of THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED.
6.
Grittman provided the staff report, stating that the intent ofthe amendment is to restructure
the ordinances relative to proceaSing planning applications. Grittman referred to state
statutes, indicating that the propo,ed ordinances are consistent with state law.
The proposed changes alloW applications to be proce,sed such that they can be both timely
and well_reviewed. The amendment abo clarines the application proce>> and requiremcnts
for simple subdivisions.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman rrie closed the public hearing.
Dragsten inquired about thc reasuns for increasing the allowable processing time. Grittman
stated that in many case', the nrdinance was not con,istent, in some case' allowing 21 days,
in othcrs \ 5 day'. Tho,e t imel i ne' were nnt allowing staff proper ti md orreview, and in
some cases, woold not even meet statute for publication of notice. 1'0< that purpnse, staff
recommend' extending the application deadline to ju,t onder 30 day' prior to the public
hearing. This al,n gives stafftimc to meet with applicant' regarding conditions
Grittman noted that in ,ome cases, such as platting, the review' may take longer than the 30
dayS. In ,uch case, the City ha' the option by statute to extend review to the 60 day
timeframe. Dragsten stated that his only concern with extension of review times is
compatibility with the boilding sea,on. Grittman ,tated ,talf can work with applicants at a
pre-design meeting to di,cu>' timeframe, and requirement' to eliminate potential delays
Suchy .,ked if the amendment would help eliminate ,ome of the lengthy Exhibit Z
condition,. Frie agreed witb the rationale of the extension processing time in tho,e cases
where condition, for approval could he reduced. Grittman ,tated that while it wouldn't
cI i m i nate all of the cnnd itions, it wi II help to eI i m i nate many. 0' N ei II also noted that this
proceSS will abo alloW the applicant an opportunity to respond to the conditinn,.
MOTiON BY COMMISSIONER fRIE TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL 01' THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED, BASED ON A fiNDING THAT THE
AMENDMENTS WILL PROVIDE rOR INCREASED EHICIENCY IN REVIEW, AND
EXPEDITED PROCESSING FOR PRIV ATE APPLICANTS.
MOTiON SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED.
2
Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05
.
7. Continued Publ ic Hearinr - Consideration of are uest for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Conce t Sta re Planned Unit Develo ment for Monte Club Villas a 14.18 acre residential
develo ment consistinu of26 detached townhome units. A licant: L & G LLC
(Jrittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the Planning Commission had previously
heard discussion on this request and tabled action on the item to allow further discussion
between staff and the developer on parkland alternatives. Grittman reviewed the project
concept, stating that it consists of26 detached single t~unily units, developed within an
association with a maintenance agreement. The top of hill has access from a central drive to
19 of the units. A second private drive would access another 7 units, creating two tiers of
homes. Grittman identified some of the surrounding developments and noted that the site is
currently guided as commercial and medium density residential. The project as shown here
eliminates the commercial and would develop the site as residential. Grittman explained that
this concept represents low density residential development.
Grittman stated that the units have been represented to staff as a high-end project. The entire
site would be regraded, and the developer has proposed an extensive landscape plan.
Applicants have provided drafts of both the elevations and landscaping for Commission's
revIew.
Grittman indicated that a majority of staff and Commission's discussion related to the view
and treel ine of the site. One of the solutions staff had suggested was a trade of City land to
create a park corridor. The applicants and Parks Commission were not receptive. At this
time, the applicant want to proceed with their original concept.
Grittman commented that Fenning will be upgraded to an urban street, which will carry a lot
of traffic, given the residential uses and new interchange. Grittman stated that there would be
a pathway along Fenning.
.
Grittman stated that in Parks Commission's most recent review, a third option was to
preserve an entire corridor along the north side, which would eliminate the private street, and
develop only the upper tier of homes. The City could apply the standard park dedication
formula for this scenario. For this density, Grittman stated that the requirements is a little
less than I acre,. The balance could be acquired by purchase of the lower area not included
in the dedication area. That scenario would create a development of 19 units with the public
park area about 250 feet wide. Grittman stated that the option would not change the
development density, there would be less units in the entire development. The issue is being
able to come to an agreement with the applicant on the acquisition.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
John Bogart, project engineer; Butch Lindenfelser, developer; and Skip Sorenson, project
architect, addressed the Commission. Bogart stated that at this time, the developer is asking
the Planning Commission to approve the presented concept. They will work with staff to see
if the Parks Commission's recommendation is feasible. However, they would like a
recommendation in order to move forward to Council.
.
Rene McCullouch, 8829 Fenning Avenue, asked if the Planning Commission approves what
is presented, docs that allow the developer can move ahead with what is presented. Frie
stated that this proposal is concept only. The developer will next have to go through
preliminary plat and development stage PUD public hearings, which will give the
Commission more data.
3
Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05
hie asked if there was an opportun ity for the deve lopers to voiee input at the last Parks
Commission meeting. Bogart stated that they had not attended the meeting.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Hilgart stated that he liked the project and inquired about park dedication requirements.
G ri ttman stated that the City has the option of choos ing land or cash. The nrd i nance actually
requircs land, unle" the City decides to accept cash. Hilgart asked if what was laid out in the
cuncept was acceptable for parkland. Grittman stated that the vcry northeast corner wuuld he
the more desirahle park area. Hilgart asked how much land the north area would be. Bogart
stated that it would require about 2 acres, for a total of three acres, including required
dedication.
Dragsten referred to the fact that the City keeps trying to get upper end housing. While
Dragsten granted that he doesn't like to see trees cut down, he recognized the trade-olHor
upper-end housing. If the City can work out a purchase for the parkland with the devcloper,
that would be ideal. Otherwise, Dragsten stated that he is in favor ofthe full 26 units.
Such y stated thaI shc is not wi II i ng to com prom ise on one 0 f thc City's most identi fiah Ie
landma rks. Suchy i nd icated thaI she is in to vor of Parks Com m i" i on's pruposa I. Shc stated
that she would not approve the plan any other way. Suchy "ked ahout the width of the
private strects in tenns of fire safcty. Bogart stated that fi<ctfUck access will not be an issue.
There will be parking on one side in certain circumstances where roads are narrow.
posLlsta stated that he would like to see elevations of the tiering on paper.
posusla referred to tbe public comment letter regarding the retention of a sccnic overlook
posusta statcd that tbe letter confirms tn him that mnst people do not know that there is
already a park with overlook near the site. Additiunally, preserving trees is contradictory to
scenic overlooks. posusta commented that it is too bad that more people don't know that the
park exists. lie stated that the Parks Commission would do better by accepting money for
dedication and in this case, adding amenities to the park that already exists.
Frie asked about home values expected to be in range of $380,000-$450,000. Bogart
confirmed that price. Frie restated that high-end housing was one oftbe goals of the
Commission. Frie confirmed with Bogart that there were no archeological issues with the hill
site. Frie inquired about the landscaping <cquired. Bogart referred to the provided
conceptual drawing as their preliminary plan. Grittman stated that with next application, the
City will have the opportunity to review landscaping in detail.
Cjrittman stated that the applicants have been the subject of some pressure regarding
developi ng the City's parkland due to the idea 0 f a land trade. Grittman stated for the record
that much of that discussion has been unfair. The developers have been very cooperative in
terms of developing the housing product and parkland.
Frie noted whatever decision is made, the developer will havc had the opportunity to identify
how they have satisfied the park dedication.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE
CONCEPT STAGE PUD FOR 26 UNITS AS PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER,
SUBJECT TO NORMAL PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE PARKS COMMISSION.
.
.
.
4
Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, who questioned whether
anothe, meeting with staff should be added to conficm the paek dedication. O'Neill stated
that should be determined in terms of identifying a number of units within the motion.
Bogart stated that the develope" would like approval on all 26 units. If later on, it is feasible
to come back and work with Parks Commission, they will do so.
posusta asked if the proposed unit count of 19-21 was because they would take a chunk out
for park in the northeast. O'Neill confirmed that it was to provide a corridm connection
Grittman illustrated the proposed corridor area, which could take out all seven units. If
achieved by dedication, the City would only take the northeast two or three lots. posusta
doesn't agree with that plan as he believes that the applicants should he able to develop their
land as they see lit.
O'Neill noted that the topography of site in that area may result in significant cost to
developer for the 7 lower tier units due to grading and retaining walls. In that circumstance,
it was felt that the parkland dedication may be something that the developer would want to
look at.
posusta responded that it should be the developer's decision.
r,ie stated that Commission is ,ceommending the concept as shown, subject to the normal
park dedieatiun, although leaving the door opeo fo' an a"angement nfthe parkland.
O'Neill asked Frie to define "normal" park dedication, as normally, the Parks Commission
would choose to blend the far east with their parkland. Frie stated that the requirement may
end up just being dollars. Bogart stated that they will do what is required.
VOTE ON PREVIOUSLY MADE AND SECONDED MOTION CARRIED 3-1, WITI-l
COMMISSIONER SUCHY IN DISSENT.
.
8.
Patch ,cviewed the staff report, statiog that the applicant is seekiog a cooditional use permit
to huild an accesSOCY structure in the rear yard of their property. Patch iodicated that with a
reduction of 40 square feet, the structure would meet the requirements of ordinance. The
reductioo would he required tu comply with the mdinance regulatiog the ratio between the
size uf the reae yard and the size ofthe proposed structure, Staff recommends approval with
the conditions that the garage is reduced as noted, shrubs are added to sohen impact to the
areas, and no driveway is constructed to the structure.
Chairman f'rie opened the public hearing.
Barry Spiers, 3623 Brentwood Drive, thanked Commission and City staff for their
consideration of the request. Spiers questioned the size reduction, stating that he is trying to
maximize the square footage of the garage, but still keep green space.
Patch responded that allowing the 40 square feet would ,equi,e a vaeiancc in addition to the
conditional use permit. Grittman confirmed that item would require a vaeianee and a separate
public hearing.
.
5
Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05
Frie asked Spiers if he would be receptive to reduetion. Spiers indicated that hc would be.
.
Suchy stated that some R-l home foundations are as large as this garage in base square
footage. Suehy noted previous approvals of such requcsts and expressed concern that the
City could potentially have a wholc neighborhood of these buildings. Suchy commented that
in some cases, these structures are large enough to run small businesses in, which is a
concern. Suchy recommended discretion in allowing these request and recommended that
property owners research rental of storage units.
Patch stated that about 3 years ago, the Commission gave great consideration to the
allowance of accessory structures. At that time, Commission felt it was important to get
materials indoors. The Commission also spoke to the conditions that Commissioner Suchy
referred to in terms of small businesses.
Frie stated that the focus at the time was on keeping all storage inside. Frie stated that at
some point in the suture, the Commission may need to address how large the structures are.
Suchy agreed that she would like to consider size limits, especially as lots are getting smaller.
Frie asked to add that to a future agenda. Patch stated that in discussions with Suchy on the
size, he noted that some communities require a minimum depth in garages. This may also be
something the Commission may want to consider as part of a future ordinance review.
Dragsten referred to the four points outlined in the ordinances. Spiers confirmed he would
meet those requirements. Dragsten asked how high the side walls of the proposed garage
would be. Spiers answered 9 feet.
.
Hilgart agreed that the square footage should be reduced to 800 square feet, as no variance
would likely be granted.
Spiers noted that the existing garage is the minimum currently allowed, and he has to touch
the front bumper of his truck on the wall to fit it inside. For this reason, he wanted to be able
to put larger items inside the proposed garage.
Frie asked if he was agreeable to other conditions. Spiers stated that he intended to do rock
and shrubs all the way around.
Dwayne Sherwood, 10 \ 40 Park Place Drive, commented to the Commission that he agrees
with the applicant on the size of current attached garages, as he had extended his garage. He
stated that he supports this request.
posusta agreed with Commissioner Suchy that it is a large garage for this space. POSLlsta
asked if the gables, overhangs, and pitch would be the same as the house. Spiers confirmed.
Spiers asked the Commission to keep garage size concerns in mind, noting Monte Club Hill
garages at 22 feet in length.
Suchy asked if Spiers had ever eonsidered adding on to his existing garage. Spiers stated that
he could only add on to the third stall and it would encroach on a window in the rear of the
home.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman hie closed the public hearing.
MOTION 13Y COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY GARAGE, WITH THE
CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS.
.
6
Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05
a) The applicant meet each of the requirements ofthe zoning ordinance, ineluding
the \ 0% of rcar yard and \ ,500 sqnare foot thresholds, and all applicable
setbacks. This condition reqnires a reduction of 40 square feet from the proposed
garage.
b) Landscape pia nti ngs are added to the s ide,and rear to soften the impact 0 f thc
building on adjoining parcels.
c) No driveway should be extended to neW accessory building.
Fric conflnned that no driveway would be provided to the garage. Spicrs stated that were not
be.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED
9. Public H eari n ' _ Cons ideration of a reI uest for Variance to allow encroachment of an entr
vestibule into the re uired 30' front ard setback in an R-l district.
Applicant: David Vukeli~
G rittman rev icwed the staff report, dcscri bi ng the conditions of the site. Gri ttman stated that
the existing house was built e10se to the front yard setback. The current front entrancc
arrangement creates difticulty with mobility in the entrance and that maintenance has also
bccome an issue for thc owncr. Grittman explained that when lonking at varianccs, the City
is requircd to look at physical hardships. The applicant maintains therc are hardships",
noted and Grittman stated that staff agrcc with the applicant Grittman stated that the
addition would still be consistent with the ncighborhood and single family usc.
.
Chairman frie opened the public hearing.
A ppl icant Dav id V uke! ich, 548 \ Mallard Lane, spoke to thc Commission. V ukel ich stated
that when the front door is opened, it hrushes thc carpet of the down staircasc. Thc size of the
entryway allows space for only one pcrson; any more than that disrupts the flow of the home
Vukelich referred to the cantilever, from which the pruposed vestibule would extend.
Frie asked ifhe built or purchascd the home. Vukelich stated that hc had purchased the
home. Frie agreed that a hardship was present.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie c10scd the public hearing
Suchy asked Grittman what the purposc ofthe 30 foot front yard setback is. Grittman stated
that while any violation of the ordinance should be taken with due consideration, the idea
behind the ordinance is to preserve sume sense of spaciousness and area in yard. This
variance would not infringe unnecessarily on that idea.
Such y asked V uke I ic h if he is planning an entrance slab off the addition silO i lar to what is
existing. Vukelich conlirmed it would be similar, with some landscaping.
posusta agreed applicant needs more space.
Patch commentcd that while some homes may mcct the code requirements, you can't regulate
good design. In this case therc seems to have been a lack of understanding about thc usability
of thc home. Frie agreed that there may be many homes that are in the same situation.
7
.
Schumann refe"ed to lot sizes that havc recently come before the commission and
recommended that the designs for particular lots be considered clnsely in relationship to the
lots themselves.
Planning commission Minutes 07/05/05
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FOR
FRONT YARD SETBACK ENCROACHMENT OF 3 FEF;1 TO ACCOMMODATE
A FRONT ENTRY ADDITION, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE CURRENT
DESIGN INTERI'ERES WITH REASONABLE USE 01' THE PROPERlY DUE
TO MOBiLITY AND MAINTENANCE.
MOTiON SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED
\ O.
Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating tl,.t C it)' is required to rcV iew any CUP for drive
through proposed in thc CCD. In this particular ca>e, the applicant is seeking a change to the
co"ent curb cut on site. There are cu"ently twn curb cuts nnto 4'" street The applicant'S
changes would be to alter the westerly curb cut to create a neW exit lane. The circulation plan
shoWS that traff,c enters in the middle and exist> either easterly or westerly through the drive
through. The exit lane is verY close to the inteesection. Grit"nan noted that one of the
cond itions of a potentia I approval is thatthe City Engineer certi fy that the desi gn is exit on Iy.
Grirtman stated that the cnde actually requires thar only 2 curh cuts se<ye a drive through
w indnW. The applicant's cuncem is that a single floW wi II comprnm ise the loading area for
the ad.iacent tcnant.
Grittman stated that staffs recommendatinn is approve the CUP for drive-thrnugh, but keep
tWO curh cuts and have all traffro circulate counterclockwise through the site. This would
extend the distance of acces> tn the inteesection. With a right turn only design, it would
m in i m i ze con II ict at intersection. As this is a pharmacy, tralf,c wi II be fairly light compared
to a convenience food estahlishment drive-through. Grittman encouraged the sidcwalk to be
included in the design, "' the cnmprehensive plan calls for it in order to increase pedestrian
traffic in the downtown area.
Grittman noted thaI the applicant is still working on tinal signage. If they do intend tn change
the design from what is shown, they will work with DAT to frnalil~ thOSe details. Staff
believe the landscapc plan is complimentary tn the site.
Grittman stated that with those comments, staff recommends approval
Chairman Fric opened the public hearing.
Kev in Keamer, 2 \ 10 I \ 6'" Street, asked if the store is on the ri ght side, hoW would the drive
through function with driver being on the \eft side. Grittman replied that the drive-through
would be u,ing pneumatic tobe delivery to the drive-side
Dave Leonard addres,cd the commi"ion, repre,enting Snyder Drug Stores. frie asked if
applicant is prepared to provide vehicle stacking numbers. Leonard responded that they had
originally corne forward with one entrance, however, the neighboring o,er wanted two.
Leonard stated that with a drive-through pharmacy, custumer> do not wait for their
presc,iptions. They d,oP theln off and return later. frie referred to Well> rargo Slacking
issue on 4'" Street, stating his concern for safety and traflic in the area. Leonard indicated
8
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05
that this plan would allow stacking mom for at least six oe seven cacs, which is unlikely.
Hilgart stated that he would like to >ce the plan with only twU curb cuts. Dcagsten and Suchy
agreed with the tWO curb cut plan.
Frie asked Leonaed ifhc was familiae with the conditions. Leonaed confirmed that they had
been reviewed with staff.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman hie closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE
CUP, BASED ON FINDINGS THAT THE FACILITY WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH
HIE REQUIREMENTS AND INTENT OF THE CCD DISTRICT, WITH THE
CONDlTIONS AS NOTED BELOW
a Work with City Engine" 10 eosure de;ign of exit drive is right-10m only.
b. Reduce curb cut locations to a total of twO, or
c. Work with De;ign Advisory Teem to ensure consistency of sign age with ceD cequiremcnls
d. Verify consistency of lighting fixtures with zoning ordinance.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED.
Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the applicant is >ceking approval for additional
wall and pylon signage at the Monticello Dodge/KIA car dealership. The proposed pylon
signage for the Kia dealecship, at 27 feet high, would be in addition to 3 other free standing
signs on the site, twO of which are along the 1-94 frontage, and the third along Chelsea Road.
Grittman noted that the zoning oedinanee only provides for I pylon sign per site. Grittman
stated that in the past, the City h" made an allowance for autnmobile dealecships, at one sign
per frontage. When looking at variances, the Planning Commis>ion is reqoired to fmd a
physical hardship condition on site. With signage, Grittman explained that this is a difficult
threshold to meet. The current amount of exposure and wall signage on site already seems to
be reasonable in this circumstance.
Grittman noted that Planning Cnmmis>ion had approved an interim u>c of the D & D Auto
site hased on a future KIA dealership at that location. That site would be c1igible for a pylon
sign. !Iowever, the applicant is using that site for used car "les.
Grittman stated that based on the finding that there is no physical hardship to warrant a
variance, staff are recommending denial of pylon. The pylon would need hoth the variance
and amendment of CnnditionalUse Permit as it changes the original site plan. The variance
for wall signagc would be recommended for approval," it is consistent with what has heen
allowed for other dealerships.
Dragsten "ked if there was a KIA sign currently on the building. Grittman stated that they
would be replacing the existing sign with a manutactured sign. Dragsten asked ifthis was a
9
Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05
violation in itsclf and should have had a vaeiance to begin with. Grittman stated that he was
unsure of that.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Bill Ramho, representing Monticello Motor>, indicated to the Commission that the noted
Suzuki pylon is actually on the D & 0 property and had previoUsly received a variance. In
regard to the wall sign requested for the north side, Rambo stated that the hardship is that
they need to sell more K\As.
Frie asked staff to eonl,rm that the Suzuki sign is on the D & D site. Grittman stated that
regardless ifthe Suzuki sign is already on the 0 & D property, the Dodge site still has
exceeds the allowed amoont of pylon signage and needs a variance.
Ra mho i nd ieated that they arc in the process of buyi ng 33 feet of adjacent property, and if
purchased, eoold the sign be placed on that location. Frie asked if a variance could specify
location. Grittmao stated that they could recommend a location in granting the variance.
O'Neill asked Rambo if the Dodge and KIA signs could be located 00 one pylon. Rambn
stated that the manufacturers wi II not allow that.
Doane Sherwood, 10140 Park place Drive, addre"ed the Commission. Sherwood stated that
he is in objection to the variance aod ameodment. Sherwood commeoted 00 the existiog light
aod ooise pollutioo from the car dealer>hips to Park Place Drive. He recommended that the
City do better in separating and regulating uses.
Frie noted that there are light aod soond ordinances. Frie asked if Sherwood had discos>ed
this previously with the City. Sherwood said that he had not. O'Neill clarified that the light
on the dealership site techn ica lIy does meet the code. However, the re lIection olf of the cars
isn't accounted for in photometries.
Frie asked about the dealership speaker systems. Sherwood stated that they eoold hear both
Dodge and West Metro.
Ramho stated that they oWO the property that West Metro is on. Ramho commented that
when the store closes, there is 00 re",on for the soond system to be on. Ramho stated that
lighting has been checked on numerous occasions.
Patch stated that when the lighting plan was submitted, it did measore 1 foot candle at ceoter
line of street light, which meets the ordinaoee. That docsn't aecoont for bounced light, which
is difficult to measore. Patch stated that maybe the City should look at regolating light
pollotion, as perhaps there isn't enoogh control 00 those items.
Patch stated that he had spokeo with the auto dealer>hip maoager ahout the speakers, which
were subsequeotly turned down. Rambo stated that all dealers should have volume cootrols
on their speakers.
O'Neill noted that there were glare i"ues ioto the Groveland neighborhood that Denoy
Hecker did take care of on the Ford Dealership site.
Dan Lem m, 113 Cameron A veo ue, recommended that staff encourage higher bu i Id ings in the
buffer area to shield light and noise
.
.
10
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 07/0S/0S
Heacin" nO furthe, comments, Chai,man hie c1o>cd the public heaciog
Hi I gart asked if staff was awa,e of the p,evious va,iance to put up the Suzuki, sign. G,ittman
statcd that he was unawace that they had made a ,equest fo' such a variance. Regacdless, the
site is entitled to twO signs, one on each right of way, which they already have.
Rambo agreed, stating that they have twO nn the Dodge p,operty, and twn on D & D site,
with one being a pylon.
Hilgart "ked ifthe applicant could get ,id of the mooument and put up the requested pylon
instead. Patch conD'med that they could, answeeing that the ordinance doesn't differcntiate
between the twO type> of signage; they are simply allowed two.
O'Neill stated that the commission has the authocity to act on the vaciance. G,ittman
conftrmed, stating that the pylon's CUP will go to Council, but the Planning commission acts
on the Yaciance. The applicant can appeal to council. F,ie stated that they will take action
on both.
Hilgart asked what the rationale foc the hardship allnwing mnce wall signage but not more
pylnn would be. G,ittman stated that wall signage allowed the applicant the visibility they
cequested while still within the total allowable cange foc signagc square footage.
posusta pointed out that ifthey had 5 diffecent lots, they would bc allowed a sign on each
Hilgart refecced to the fact that ifthc dealee had moce company cac makes, they wuuld cequest
mure signs. Thei, curpucate cequicements ace not ceally Cummission's prublem
Dcagstcn is cuncemed about setting a pcecedent allowing so much signage on a site.
F,ie c1acif>ed that the pcoposed wall sign would ,eplace existing signage and add one wall
sign. Rambo confirmed.
Suchy stated the additional wall signage seemed acceptable. She stated that she is cunwned
about additional pylon signage.
Rambn stated that the site had 360 feet offrontage. Fcie asked if f,ontage was taken into
considecation in othee cequests. Patch stated it had been in snme cases, but only as a part of a
PUD.
Fcie asked if they would be in compliance in teemS nfthe size nfthe pylon. Rambo
confirmed.
posusta stated that he has been trying to get ,id of the Monticello Liquor sign because it
dnesn't fIt the property. Similar situatiuns should be treated the same way.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY APPROVE THE Y ARIANCE FOR
ADDlT10NAL WALL SlGNAGE FOR THE K1A DEALERSHIP, BASED ON A
FINDiNG THAT
\.
The wa\l signage is n"e"ary tn put the pmperty to ,,",onabk U,", induding a fmding that
addit iuna \ identilkation of the Kia deok"hip is appropciate to avnid con fusion
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED
11
Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO DENY THE VARIANCE AND
RECOMMEND DENIAL Of THE CUP, BASED ON A FINDlNG THAT:
\. No ha<d,h;P ;s p""nt, ,"d that the ,pphcont con make """nable u" of the pwperty undo<
the current regulations without the additional pylon sign.
MOTiON SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED
WITH CHAIRMAN FRlE DISSENTING.
Frie noted that the applicant could appeal to council.
12. Public Hca<;n" _ Con,;de"tion of a" uest for Conditional Use Pe,mit for a Planned Unit
Devclo ment for Taco John' s Rcslaurant a convcn ience food cstabli sbment in a 13.4 district
Applicant: JAT Restauran~
Grittman reported tbat the applicants and staff had requested tabling Ibe item" further site
plan review was needed.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO CONTINUE HIE REQUEST FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMETN FOR TACO
JOHN'S RESTAURANT, A CONVENIENCE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT IN A B.4
DISTRICT.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED
Grittman reviewed tbe staff "po,t, noting location site along Inter>tate 1.94 in the area of
Silver Springs Golf Course. Grittman stated that the proposed project consists of about 890
acres with a mix of housing styles; "taiJlcommcrcial development and business: and
renovat ion of the go I f course. Action on the item had been contin ued from the prev ious
Planning Commission meeting. Since that time, the applicants have made adjustments to
their concept plan. Grirtman reported that the concept plan included the commissioner's
packets ret1ects the updated plan.
Grittman highlighted the changes made to the plan. The previous version propo"d 2700 total
,esidential units. The current plan illustrates a total 012300 units with 400 nfthose heing
senior housing. The applicant has Suggested that the senior housing be excluded t,om density
calculations in ordcr to focuS discu"ion on attacbed and detached "sidential unit ratio
specifocally. As such, this plan showS 802 detached single.family units on varinus Int widths.
and 106 I attached units. Grittman calculated that the attached units represent 46% of units.
A second issue cited at the previous meeting was related to the proposed phasing ofthe
project The phasing concentrated on the multi.family units being constructed in the first
phases. With the revised plan, Grittman commented that a better mix of single and multi
family units has been achieved in this plan. Grittman stated that the applicant, have also
expanded the [nst phase to include the husine" park area, which was made larger tn be more
consistent with the original comprehensive land use plan.
12
.
13.
.
In the southwest corner, Grittman reported that the revised plan illostrates a signif,cant
increase in detached units in this area.
Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05
In termS oHhe attached onits themselves, Grittman provided a staff overlay oHhe revised
plan showing that more than 25% of units directly fronting the golf course, a marked
impruvement uver the previuus plan. Grittman noted that it waS critical to obtain more units
with that exposure, as those unit> will be of higher value units due to the golf course
Grittman reported that the developer has also provided snme of the smaller unit clusters as
requested. Also, beyond the 25% of units directly fronting the course, some are also acrnSS
the street from the course or adjacent to wetlands.
A third concern waS the previous plan's potential eonl1iet with neighhoring uses. Grittman
explained that in that regard, the applicants have added buffering around existing residential
areas. Additionally, Grituuan stated that housing ha been remuved from freeway exposure,
replaced in some areas by public park.
Grittman indicated that staff alsu had concerns over the propused eO't to west phasiog. The
original design allowed for mnre townhomes io ftrst phases. The applicants have proposed
that mther than change the pbasing due to restriction of utilities, they would cbange the unit
mix within tbe phasing as nnted. Grittman stated tbat appears to be the case with this
concept.
Grittman explained tbat otber detailed ebanges bad been made. Uue to the scope and sealc of
the project, he noted that all review is general at tbe concept stage, and intended to focuS on
the larger issues. Assuming tbe project proceeds, Grittman assured tbe commission tbat
there would be a sign ifrcant amount of reV iew. At tb is time, the rev iew is focused on general
numbers and land use.
Grittman identifred the series of issues for consideration hy commissioo, wbieh were
out lined in the prev ious staff repnrt. Grittman stated that from staff s perspective, a number
of those have been addressed, at least in part.
.
3.
~. This is ~till a relevant question. Grittman stated tbat staff
belreve tbat th" project needs to be vrable and pay for serv,ee extensron as well as
generate taX revenue for nn-going maintenance.
~ Grittman commented that the developer's bave provided a
prcliminary market report, whicb provides an overview of market ennditions and
absorption fnr tbis type of product. It will require furtber detail and study at the next
stage.
~ Similar developments have amenities sucb as d'".eour>e being built
hrst. Gnttman stated tbat th" rs s,,1I a concern lor stalf, as tbe applrcant rs sull seekmg to
bu i Id the course in phases, with the comp let inn of the total course in 20 I 0-201 I .
Grittman reported that tbe developer's contention is tbat tbe course will still be operable
as development proceeds and will he used to support development.
4. ~ Grittman stated tbat the density number bas been reduced. While staffbasn't
bad an opportunity to completelY analyze neW numbers, generally, the detached number>
arc up and the attached are down.
~. Grittman commented tbat the high number of units witbout
exposure to amenities had been addres>ed with the revisions to the proJect as noted.
Grittman stated that while tbe ratio of single family bll' gone up, there arc still'
signifreant number of attaebed units with exposure.
com,uerei,l/lndustri,1 Land lIse. Tbis was ,ddressed thruugh the expansion of the
bns i ness park, U5 ing both sides of Che hea Road. Grittman stated that staff bel ieve tbat
5.
\.
2.
.
6.
13
Planning Commission Minutes 07105/05
.
the revision is more consistent with eomp plan. Grittman explained that it accomplished
both a reduction in the number of attached units and resulted in increased
business/industrialland.
7. Density. In this area, Grittman stated that the developer's revision showed an elimination
of nearly 400 units.
Grittman also highlighted the distinctions between land uses, again noting the reduction in the
number of attached housing without exposure to amenities and the increase in single t~lInly
unites. Grittman referred to the fact that the single-family units occur on a variety of lot
widths. Therefore, they will still need to rely on the golf course to boost values. For the
upcoming submittal. Grittman reported that the developer will need to generate proposals for
the single t~lInily detached neighborhoods.
Finally, Grittman stated that one of the discussions at the last Commission meeting was in
regard to how the plan complies with the existing land use plan. Grittman contirmed that it
clearly it does not. Grittman reported that the applicant wasn't intending it to, and understood
that the plan would require a comp plan amendment. Griltman referred to the land use plan's
requirement of 50% open space and stated that Planning Commission will need to discuss if
the City is going to change the plan for open space, and docs it reflect the City's goal. Also,
does this plan show an increasing variety of housing, particularly high value housing as
desired by the City? Grittman stated that if Commission feels this plan meets these, the
Commission should be free to change land use.
.
Gritttnan reported that staff is recommending approval of the concept stage PUD, with the
notations as stated. I Iowever, the recommendation is made with a narrowly drawn approval
that is based generally from a unit and land use standpoint. Grittman indicated that staff
believes it is closer to where the City has wanted to be when looking at mixed-use projects. It
also balances Council's goals for the ability to economically pursue a new interchange in this
area and funds to acquire the YMCA property.
Posusta stated that he was at the last meeting with the developers. He stated that he was
under the impression that they were at 2000 units. Grittman stated that their detached and
townhouse unit count is at approximately 1880, due to request to exclude the 400 senior units.
posusta noted the significant drop. Grittman stated that with the senior units excluded, it does
change the numbers.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
John Uban of Dahlgren, Shard low and Uban, project planners; and Mike Moriarty,
representing Heritage Development, project applicant, provided a brief presentation on the
revised plan.
Uban stated that the developers had worked hard to create a good project that could meet
their goals and requirements and to adjust the plan to meet the City's objectives, as well.
Uban stated that it is critical that the project is viewed as a whole, with interconnected pieces.
Uban stated that in proposing this development, Heritage is trying to set a new standard for
Monticello.
.
Uban stated that there arc many benefits of a large, master-planned community. He
recogniled that it brings challenges, and raises lots of issues. At the same time, Uban
indicated that there arc many opportunities. He cited specifically the continuity of
development, the coordination of utilities, long-term value and consistent quality. Uban
noted that the developer has to do well in the early part in order to do well later. Uban noted
14
Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05
that quality is important to that success.
Uban explained that the project will neate it' own identity as a golf course develupment He
stated that everyone would bave iotemction with the golf course. Uban indicated that the
master plao is based around the golf course. Tbey have also m.,ter-plaoned the open space.
throu gh a un i \;ed park and trail plan. He noted that a single developer is respons i b Ie for the
big picture ofthe green spaces. A homeowner's assnciation would maintain all open spaces.
Uban refereed to the devcloper's concept of life-cycle housing, which attempts to bring
together all modes of housing into one community. Uban .,ked the Commission to consider
changing demographics, stating that developers are currently building for baby boomers.
Ubao referenced the fact that boumers are now looking at rctirement and muving into
differcnt kinds of housing. He rcported that they want many different choices. That is the
reason for the variety shown in this plan. Uban stated that the plan also accommodates first-
time home buyers, f am i I Y formation hous in g, move-up go I I' course hous i n g and empty -nester
housing. It also incorporates neighborhood commercial areas.
Uban referrcd tu the plan changcS a> noted hy Grittman. He stated that they have moved in
the direction of upper-eod housing and reducing attached unils. Uban stated that out of 2272
units, \13 of the multi-family units are upper-scale townhomes on the golf course
In rcgards to phasing, Uban said they have kept the actual phasing areas the same, but as with
the \" phase, the have changed the mix of un its to meetthe City's expectations
In response to the concerns about gulf course pha>ing, Uban commented that the
developmeot site isn't a field that they can simply build a course 00. There is an existing
cuurse. Uban stated that they beheved it should be a place that people can continue to play
golf. Their pi", is to adjust and pull it apart to build newly enhanced holes while maintaining
play. Uban reported that the first phase would inclode 3 new hulcs, the 2"' would include 9
ho les. On pha," 3, they would concentrate on thc back 2 \. U ban notcd thatthe cuu"e would
interconnect with trails to the rest of the development There are also small, private
recreational areas within each phase.
Uban stated that there are Mteen hundred units of what the developer terms "muve-up
housing". He stated that they have begun charting values, with the top being the Argus
product developed specifically for this project. Uban illustrated the differing styles of
proposed town hornes, ind icati ng that they would be between \400-\900 square feet U ban
noted that variation in rouflines, whieh was something they realized the Commis>ion was
looking for.
00 smaller luts, Uban stated that the design was reminisceot of traditional neighburhoods
with tWO story homes on smaller lots. The rest of the siogle family is a variety, with huilde"
that have not yet been selected. Uban assured that they would be by the tirne the process is
completed with the City.
Uban stated that Heritage is trying to work with the City in terms of meetiog City goals and
balaocing their oWO. Ubao eommeoted that while it may be diff.eult to comprehend at this
point, they are trying to put it in a cnmplete package. Uhan asked lor partne"hip in obtaining
that goal.
Jim Moore, 296 I \ \ 6'" Streets N E, addre,"ed the Comm i," ion. Moore i nd icated that he hves
in the adjacent township subdivision nfOevroo Greeos. Moore stated that he has come to the
conclusion that this project will happen. He explaioed that he had bought a house next to a
golf course, and while he realized that it wasn't guaranteed, he is just asking for somethiog
15
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05
nice next dom. Mome ,tated that he knoWs that his property values w;U decrease
Moore referenced the potential interchange in this ",ea, noting its proximity to the nuclear
power plant. Moore indicated that he had spuken tu local and state legislators, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and others.
Frie asked if those he had spoken to are concerned ahnut the interchange or the location.
Monre indicated that many had concerns about interchange's location, citing specifically that
a legislator's office had cnntacted the Department 0 f Hume land Security aboutthe i>sue
posusta stated that the alternative location puts the interchange further to the east, puttiog it
even closer to Moore', bume. Moore asked why it cou Id n' t be located closer to Couoty 39.
posusta referred to MNIDnT and the DNR's desire to have it located at the propo,ed position
Moore indicated that he had talked with Terry Humbert at MNIDnT. Humbert had stated that
nn one has ever talked to them ahout an interchange at this location. posu,ta stated he
believed that to be incorrcct.
Frie asked if Moore has met with the developers since the I"t commission meeting and
asked what changes have been made in relatinnship to his property. Moore stated that they
pu,hed the rnad back, although he w;U still have a four-lane road hehind him.
Mike Cyr, 2770 County Road 39, spuke tu Cummi>sion on his cuncems. He indicated that he
is adjacent to the proposed project un the cast side. Cyr confirmed with Grirtman that the
plan he had obtaioed earlier was the most recent comp plan for long range land use plan. Cyr
referred to the plan, which guides the area for open space, low density residential, and
industrial uses. Cyr stated that he is wondering why project is moving forward when it
due,n't addre>s what the City has stated it wants. Cyr admits that he h" concerns about the
neighburhuod services, which he believe, is a euphemism for convenience store. Cyr
commented that the people going to the development will be comiog from east or south and
pa>sing by a numher of convenience stores on their way home. He dnes not believe this ",ea
need morc.
Cyr noted that this project area is a blank slate at this point. Thcre is nothing tn prevent it
from being exactly what the City would like it to be. Cyr stated that frum everything he has
heard su far tcOIn the Commi>sion and Council, they are Inoking for ,ingle-family, move-up
homes. Cyr cited PnsuSt.s comments nn this development's single-family to townhome
ratio being "up' ide down". posusta had cited the developer's then ratio of 4 townhomes for
every single-family home. Cyr nuted that the comp plan goal is actually 3 single-family for
every I townhomc. Cyr questioned why the development plan doesn't reRect 1600 single-
family home'. lie again expressed concern that his home is oext to the only retail in the
whole development. Cyr "ked why the City is purting retail in a residential area. He stated
that he docs not helieve it helongs there. cyr ended hy stating that he thinks that Commi>sion
and Council should just say "no" to this developmcnt.
Frie asked Gritlman to respond to Cyr's low deosity concern. GirUman replied that the area
to the east 0 f the go I f cou"C is gu ided for low density on the comp plan. The blue area on the
guide map is indu,t,ia\. He noted that these are hasically the two uses identified in that area.
Grirtman acknowledged that this plan ,equests a chaoge from that.
MeI Enger, 9234 woodlark Way, Maple Grove, addressed the commission. Enger stated that
he owns 200 acres just west o\the development, horderi ng the property. Enger stated that he
wanted to go on record supporting this p,oject. Enger had two questions. tie asked ifthi,
development woold provide road accesS into thci, property, and noted that as over half of his
16
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 07/0S/0S
property is in the annexation area, wonld the utility service capacity be able to suppnrt his
property.
Grittman stated that thc City Engineer would need to respond to those questions. It is his
understanding that utilities are being designed to service at the very minimum the annexation
area and possibly to the township border.
Daniel Damiani, 1171 I Cameron Avenue stated that he is concerned about the lot sizes for
single.family homes. He stated that he wmks in the community, and the homes he h., becn
working on have heen nn 80 foot lots, which tend to he small for upscale homes. Damiani
wanled to go on record Ihat lots sizes will need to he looked al. Frie asked Damiani what he
believcd should bc the bottom end. Damiani stated thaI 80 should be minimum. Frie asked
Grittman for daril,cation. Grittman stated that the 50 foot lots shown are intended to creale
more of a traditional single family home neighborhood.
Frie askcd the commissioner> if, in Iheir point of view, the developers have made proactive
changes.
Suchy stated that she Ihinks Ihey are heading in the right direction. She commenled Ihat she
is starting to understand the whole concept and believes that they are tryiog to create a good
product. Suchy staled that she is still concerned about the ratio of single.family to
townhomes and the overall projecl density. Suchy noted that the more Ihat she is learning
about lifeeyle housing, Ihe more it does seem In be the trend in the market. Suchy slated that
at Ihe nexl slage, the commission will need 10 look harder al the project. For example,
perhaps the lot sizes need to be larger. Suchy noted that the townhomes the developers are
proposing aren't similar 10 what is currently in Monticello.
Dragsten slaled that he had attended Ihe last meeting with the developers. Dragsten
commented Ihat he sees that the single to multi.family ralios are dropping. Hnwever, he
stated thaI a fair amount of questions remain. Dragsten indicaled that they wnuld need tn be
addressed as the project moves forward.
Suchy .,ked what percentage of homes the developer categorizes as single.family high.end.
U han slated that he thoughl it was about I of every 3, with the majority 0 f those on the golf
course or in the northern area, near the wetland.
Dragsten queslioned the detached single.family numbers. Dragsten asked for the number
hreakdown b.,ed on lul size. Uban replied that their were 117 at 50',332 at 60', and 353 at
80' or greater. U ban noted that they do have lots up to 120 feet in width. Dragslen asked
how Ihey would ensurc Ihat this development attracts the higher.end in the forsl pbases. Uban
staled that Ihe forst phase will nOW have mnre upper.end homes. The current plan shoWS I I]
single-family homes on a mix of 60' and 80' lots.
Dragslen stated thaI he is also still cnncerned about phasing in the amenities. He also staled
Ihal slyles needs to be betler del,ned. Dragslen queslioned why the retail shown in southeasl
corner is among single.family homes. With so much busines> focused in Ihe north, is il
needed in Ihe soulheasl'> Dragslen asked specifocallY if there had been any changes around
Devron Greens. Moriarty staled that they have realigned Ihe road, and added an additional
50' buffer. These adjuSlments crcate a bulTer trom home 10 home of over 300'. Moriarty
stated that Ihey had also increased lot sizes on the south boundary. Dragslen asked about
slyle of home proposed for Ihal area. Moriarty staled thaI il will be high.end homes in thaI
location.
17
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05
Hilgart asked the developers and staff to confinn the 3 units per acre calculation. Hilgart
stated that he doesn't think them i x 0 f single. fam i Iy and detached shown is necessari Iy a bad
thing. If they did the whole development with single.family and tore up the multi.family, it
doesn't necessarily guarantee a nice product. Hilgart stated that ifthe commission held to]
units per acre, the development would be at 1900 units. Hilgart stated that he believes they
should comply with that strict standard and make the PUD work the way it's supposed to
work. The proposed upper.end areas should also be responsihle to the R. I A standards.
Hilgart asked about the road connections. Moriarty stated Jeffe,"on Parkway would be a 4.
lane road, as it was determined to be the best way to carry traffic. Moriarty stated that it
wou Id be a pa<k way bou levard, with a tree line down the cente<, with 45' .50' green space
median. O'Neill stated that it will have a slower design speed, and twO below.grade
era>> in gs for pedestrians. He exp la ined that the planned overall right of way is 120' at
intersections, with 100' at straight locations. Frie asked who would maintain the median.
Uban stated that it would be maintained by the development's homeowner's association.
Frie stated that he still has reservations aboot the City's ability to fmance this development
Frie stated that while he understands this is a concept only, the availability 10 [mance il is a
major concern that Ihe Cily can'tjusl keep talked about He inquired at what point will the
financial issues be resolved. O'Neill staled that presumiog this is a supported plan, the
number> will be caleulated. However, at least in preliminary form, unit numbers need 10 be
established, so Ihat the city aod develope," can then work backward on caleulations
F rie stated that in terms of the smaller issues noted, they arc actually i>>ues of some concern.
Frie asked when Ihey will be addre>sed. Moriarty stated that they have done a 101 of
preliminary archilecture, roadway desigus, etc. They will conlinue working on them as Ihe
process move forward.
Grittman explained that all details will be provided with preliminary plat and development
stage PUD. Once Ihe City and developers have settled on a general layout, the City can start
discussing aboul what it likes and doesn't like about miuute details
Frie asked ifthe City's Tuesday meetings with the developer would conlinue. Both the
developer and City staff confirmed that they would.
Frie asked hoW the developer had decided un elements to be ineluded io each ph.,e.
Moriarty slated that the utililies guided the firsl phasing, as they were available in southeasl.
In keeping with the laod use planning, the phases were Ihan worked out based on a finaocial
revenue stream. Moriarty stated that by bringing busine"es in, they felt that the families
would tallow. Moriarty stated that Ihey have a golf course architecl on staff who is
consulting on the phasing and renovation of the course.
Frie stated Ihal he felt the upscale housing should have been in lirst phases. He inquired if it
wasn't because ofthe financing and need for high densily. Muriarty stated that it was not
necessarily so. They felt that needed Ihe business park. Moriarty stated that allhough they
view the single fam i I Y as the hread and butter of the project, they have 10 have a rn ix of un its
as laid out by market research. Frie cited that it would take 8 years to get majority of the
upscale housing in. In that ease, he felt Ihat the City needed to be prudent in fmancing the
entire development.
Frie staled that he and Hilgart are also cuncerncd about 50' single.family lots. He asked if
the developer has a rationale for those lots. Moriarty slated that Ihey have looked at nice
detached lownhomes for those small lots. Moriarty confirmed thaI they would be associalion
18
maintained. Moriarty reported that \0' lots bring in a neW market segment based on housing
stylc. Uban stated be could provide Commission witb a map of some of tboSe areas of tbc
metro, perbapS even a tour. Frie rccommended taking the tour.
planning Commission MinutcS 07/05/0'
Frie asked about f,nisbed yardagc oftbe course. Moriarty stated that it would 6800 yardS
posusta stated tbe density calculation is actually 2.8 uniLs per acre. posusta cnmmented on
land values in ",sponse to Mr. Monre's enncerns. posusta statcd tbat initially, a decrease ,n
land value may occur. However, posusta stated bis opinion tbat ifthe property owners wa,t,
their \and va\UCS wiH go up.
T odd Hoell i ng, 2183 I 16'" Street 1'1 E, addressed the Com mission, stating tbattbeir recorded
covenants will not alloW tbem to break up tbeir lots. pnsusta stated tbat the townshIP creates
tbose covenants and tbat tbey can be removed. O'Neill notcd tbat the covenants are a private
contract bctWcen property owners.
Gritlman stated tltat at tbis point, tbe City has to aSSume property owoers don't want tn split
tbe land. In that caSe, the develnper is held to the boffer yard standard. The dcveloper needs
to add landscaping and buffering in those spaces. Gritlman noted that while it is onderstnod
thnse property owne<s don't have tl,e same condition as previous, thcy are snll not hvrng next
door to an urban dcvc\oplnent.
posusta noted that at srnne point, tMSC properties would need City services. posusta stated
that it is important for people tn realizc tbat the develope<s pay for those things, not citics.
posusta rcferred to the large buffer yard and that the developer had ,ncrcased thc srZC ofthe
lot> behind the existing development to almost \/4 acre each.
posusta commcnted that he also has a problcm with 10' lots.
Fric would like the previously refcrenced tnor to be put together. hie also asked the
developc<s to look again at phasing. Moriarty stated that they would work witb staff on that
in tenns o(f,nancial viability and keeping thcir contract with landwonc<s
Hcaring no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPR(W AL OF THE
REV ISED JEHERSON PROJECT, BASED 01'1 A 1'11'1 DING THAT THE CHANGES TO
THE LAND USE PLAN ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL GOALS OF THE
cITY, AND HIAT THE PLANS FOR UNIT MIX, UNIT STYLE, ANI) PHASING ARE
MORE CLOSELY IN KEEPING WITH THE CITY'S DEVEtDPMENT OBJECrtVES
FOR THIS AREA. THIS MortON IS INTENDED TO BE LIMITED TO THE GENERAL
COMPONENTS OF THE CONCEPT PLAN, AND THAT DETAILED DESIGN ISSUFS
INCLUDING SITE PLANNING, STREET LAYOUT, ARCHITECTURE, ANI) OHlER
DFf AI LS WILL REQUI RE MORE EXrENst\iE REVIEW AT THE TIM E OF
PRELIMINARY PLAr AND DEVELOPMOrY srAGE PUD CONSIDERAf\ON. ALSO
SUBJECr TO COMM ENTS INCORPORATED AND ADDRESSED Ar THE PLANN ING
COMMISSION MEr;f\NG OF JULY 511" 2001.
MortON SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART.
MOTION CARRIED 3- I, WITH CHAIRMAN FRIE DISSENTING. rRtE ST ArED THAT
HIS DISSENT W AS BASED 01'1 THE rOLLOWING ITEMS'
19
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Minutes 07/05/05
I. T"e p<op","d t"U' would hdp to de".-mine viability of ,mall 10,"
2. Th'" might he furth" adju,tm''''" needed in pha,ing.
3. The plan ,hould ,,"eet thCOOmp,,",n'iyO plan" policy of a 3 ,ingle-family to I
townhome ratio.
G,iUman ,evicwed the ,taff ,eport, stating that ,taff was reque,ting that thc Commi55ion
consider calling fo< a hearing to eStablish amendments on ,pecific itemS which have caused
pmblem' in site design in thc past. Specifically, G,ittman citcd the intemction between
pa,king lots, which cu"ently "qui'" pUD'. Staffbe!ieves tbi' can be handled
adm i n istrative! y. Secondly, Griuman statcd that staff have d i,cussed the me,it' of changing
p"king lots to move them off of utility ea"ments.
hie stated that hc thought thnse itemS justified furth" discussion. conf"med fo< August
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER fR\E TO CALL fOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO
AMEND THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDIANCE RELATING TO JOINT ACCESS
AND JOINT DRIVES, ANUfOR PARKING LOT SETBACKS.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGARL MOTiON CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTiON BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO AUJOURN.
\ 5. Ad:lourn.
MOTiON SECONDEU BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOnoN CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
20
.
.
planning Commission Agenda - 08/02/05
5.
en and
~EFERENCEANDBACKGROUNQ
Staff met in June with the groUP of property owners in the Industrial Park to discuSS
additional changes to thc proposed Open and Outdoor Storage regulations. The
following itemS were raised for consideration in a neW draft of the amendment:
1. Dropping the requirement for 1-2 zoned properties to screcn outdoor storage
from the industrial frontage street, based on the requirement that all
storage would be in the rear area of the property.
2. Adding delinition to the "100%" screening requirement- including
consideration of gates, and other acceptah1e screening facilities (such as
landscaping) that would not technically meet the 100% analysis.
3. Adding delinition to location from which screening must occur - this includes
a di scussion of hei ght of storage. Stan wi\! devcl op language that
identifies the screening as heing at eye level as seen from the property line
of the subject property _ higher screening can be used to alloW for higher
storage.
4. Amend langoage to alloW for either landscaping "andlor" fencing as
acceptable screening, rather than requiring both, as the draft was originally
written.
At a meeting this past week, the groop discOSSed the following additional changes:
1. Add a c1ariftcation that chain link fences with slats constitute acceptah1e
"opaque" screening.
2. Clarify the setback for storage areas on side yards facing streets (corner lots).
3. Clarify the exception for 1-2 screening from public rights of way.
4. Clarify the requirement for restoration acknowledgement when outdoor
storage occupies a drainage and utility casement.
Those changes have been made in the attached draft, and it should be ready for
consideration by the Planning commission.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
~ -
Dccisio n 1: Zoning Amendment to Section 2-2, Definitions and Section 3- I 1 B
.
.
planning Commission Agenda - 08/02/05
\. Motion to recommend approval of the amendment, based on a finding that the
amendment provides for outdoor storage in industrial areas consistent witb
the City'S land use goals and objectlves.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment.
~T AFF RECOMMENnA T\O~
S taIT recommends approval of the amendment as discussed in this report.
~UPPOKnNG DA T &
A. proposed Ordinance Amendment
Section 1. Section 2-2 DefInitions 01 1itle 10 Zoning ordinance-City 01
MonticellO is \1erebY amended to include t\1e lollowing detlnition related to outdoor
storage',
outdoor storage: 1\1e keeping 01 materialS or equipment on a parcel 01 land
lor t\1e purpose 01 transporting, using or emplOying suc\1 materialS or equipment at a
luture date at anot\1er location, eit\1er on- or off-site. 1\1e keeping 01 motorized ve\1icles
t\1at are not licensed lor operation on t\1e publiC roadways, or ot\1er equipment t\1at is not
capable 01 sell_pOwered movement (suc\1 as trailers), s\1all be included in t\1is defInition.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE SEC110N 2-2 Or 11-1E ZONING
ORDINANCE RELA 1ED 10 OU1 DOOR S10RAGE WI11-11N 11-1E ci1Y Or
MONi\CEllO
11-1E CI1Y COUNCIL Or 11-1E CITY Or MON1ICELLO, MINNES01A ORDAINS
c\T'l of MON1\CELLO
WRIGI-I1 COUlolTY, MINNES01 A
ORO\NANCE NO. 2005~___
.
section 2. Section 3-11 B OU1DOOR S10RAGE, s\1all \1erebY be inserted
inlo l\1e zoning ordinance as 10110WS'.
\1'1 1\1e lollowing activities s\1all not be considered outdoor storage lor t\1e
purposes ot these regu\ations',
a. Parking 01 passenger ve\1icles and lig\1t truckS, parked in compliance
wit\1 t\1e Cil'f 01 MonticellO zoning regulations.
b. Parking 01 company ve\1icles, including trucks, vans, and ot\1er similar
ve\1icles, wit\1 t\1e exception 01 semi-truck rigs w\1ic\1 s\1all be subiect to
separate regu\ations,
c. semi-truck tractors and tractor-trailer rigs (not including detac\1ed
trailers), w\1en suc\1 tractors and tractor _trailer rigs are parked in l\1e
rear yard.
.
.
d. Semi-truck trailers located in designated loading docks, or otherwise in
the active process of loading or unloading, for a period of not more
than 72 hours.
e. Trash handling equipment, provided such equipment is located within
an enclosure in compliance with the City of Monticello zoning
regulations.
.
D\STR\CT \~1 A \-1 \-2
Processing CUP for accessory CUP for accessory Permitted as an
Requirements use use accessory use
Front Setback, and Rear line of building Building line closest Building line closest to
Side setback facing to the publiC street on the public street on front
a Street front or side or side
Internal Side property Equal to building Zero feet setback Zero feet setback
line Setback requirement permitted in rear and permitted in rear and
side yard behind side yard behind building
buildinq
Rear setback Equal to setback Zero feet setback Zero feet setback
requirement permitted in rear and permitted in rear and
side yard behind side yard behind front
front buildinq line buildinq line
Area Limitation 20% of building floor 50% of lot area, No limitation as an
area, maximum maximum accessory use
Screening from 100% screen via 100% screen via 100% screen via
Street and landscaping and {gI landscaping and{gI landscaping and{gI
Residential Uses decorative fencing decorative fencing decorative fencing
required required required trom residentiill
QIopertv. but not streeN
yyhere adioinina zoning
in Industrial.
Screening from 100% screen via No screening No screening required if
adjacent Industrial landscaping and required if abutting 1- abutting 1-1 or 1-2
Uses decorative fencing 1 or 1-2 building building
required Required if abutting 1- Required if abutting 1-1 A.
1A.
Occupation of Not permitted Permitted, with Permitted, with signed,
drainage and utility signed, recorded recorded
easements acknowledgement of acknowledgement of
owner's restoration owner's restoration
requirements requirements
[6] The following table details the processing requirements within the 1-1A, 1-
1, 1-2 District:
.
.
Section 3. Enactment. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its
passage and publication.
2005.
ADOPTED this
_ day of _
CITY OF MONTICELLO
By:_
Clint Herbst, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:_
Rick Wolfsteller, City Administrator
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 08/02/05
6. Public Hearin - Consideration of a re uest for Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development for Taco John's Restaurant. a convenience food
establishment in a 8-4 district. Applicant: .JA T Restaurants
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Staff and the applicant are asking the Commission to table this item indefinitely at
this time.
,
I
Planning Commission Agenda 08/02/05
7. Public Hearim! -- Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit
allow in 0 en and outdoor automobile sales within a B-3 Hi hwa Business
ZoniD!! District. Applicant: Gould Brothers Chevrolet/Jav Morrell (FP)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Gould Brothers Chevrolet is requesting use of portions of the property at ] 205 and
1219 South Highway 25 fllf the display and sale of used automobiles. It is proposed
that 25 of less vehicles would be displayed for sale in the parking lot at 1219 South
Highway 25. The vehicles would be primarily parked along the parking lot curb
facing Highway 25, and in marked parking on the south side of the 1219 State
Highway 25 bui lding. This sales use would be one of three uses on the property.
Gould Brothers Body Shop and a beauty salon are also conducting business at the
same location.
This use is consistent with a conditional use permit that was allowed to the Automaxx
dealership in 1999; however, the automobile display and sales use proposed by Gould
Brothers is significantly less intensive than that of the former Automaxx dealership.
Gould Brothers has been selling vehicles from this location as a non-conforming use
for more than one year based on the misunderstanding that they could continue the
vehicle display and sales use under the previous conditional use permit and as an
accessory to the auto body repair business. Unfortunately, the CUP for Automaxx
had expired.
Gould Brothers is now seeking to renew the conditional use permit for automobile
display and sales at 1219 State Highway 25 as an accessory to their auto body shop
and as an annex to the main dealership on Chelsea Road.
New and used automobile/light truck sales and display are allowed in the B-3 district
based on certain conditions. 'rhe proposed sales and display use is consistent with
prior approvals allowed for Automaxx and appears to meet all requirements of the
Zoning.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1.
Motion to:
Recommend to the City Council that the Conditional Use
Pemit for auto sales/display for Gould Brothers be approved
based on a finding that the use is appropriate for the B-3
District and the proposed site, subject to the conditions of
Exhibit "Z", attached.
,
I
Planning Commission Agenda 08/02/05
2.
Motion to:
Recommend to the City Council that the Conditional Use
Permit for auto sales/display for Gould Brothers be denied
based on findings [to be determined by the Commission.]
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staffreeommend that the City Council move Alternative Action A. above.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site Location Map
B. Site Sketch
Z. Exhibit "/" - Conditions of Approval
,
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/2/05
EXHIBIT "Z"
To Conditional Use Permit for Gould Brothers
Used Automobile Sales and Outdoor Display
1. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source shall not be visible
from the public right-of-way or from neighboring residences, and shall be in
compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [Hl, of the Zoning Code.
2. The total number of vehicles that may be displayed outdoors at this location shall not
exceed 25.
3. The outside sales and display area must not utilize parking spaces which are required
by the City Zoning Code for the other commercial uses on the property.
4. All signing shall be in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance.
,
f
'I
.. ~ .7A
OJ!
o
~ELlBERG'S MOBlLE
: PARK lEAST! . _ . . (>
HOME _... _. q
...,
: g
: ~
~
: '"
')-
'>-
.z
:8
N.r. 85th
STRrtT
\
\
\
,
\
,
\ ~
3l
I
,
. \
\
,
\
, ,
7tJ
~, .
, ... """""'"
"-... ..r4Nll ... ...
~ ----...::--- ~G' '........,.
Jf>>hA "";.. -......... of
~ "
~ ~ "
k),
l1LDtl ..$ srAKrD
\
,
\
.\
,
\
\ '4
, 0
,
\
\
,
\ ~
\~
\ \:j
,
\
\
,
\
.\
,
,
\ ~,
,
,
\
~ ~ /
.\. /
i /
~ ' /'
~ /
~ /
I
,~ I
~ ,':."
ji,j '/ ' "
~' I'
~ /:
I
~~ -.u..c, 4-
!\
t
,
/
I
-.,
,~
.
\
\
88. 36 EXHIBIT z.. i SITE PLAN
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/02/05
8. Public Headn!!: Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a
Professional Officc in a PZM Zonin!! District. Applicant: Professional Brokers
Realty. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to utilize the eXlstmg
residential property located at 505 Elm Street as a real estate office. The Professional
Brokers Realty, Inc. site will be located at the intersection of County Road 39 and
Elm Street. County 39 is considered to be a major collector and Elm Street a minor
collector.
The subject property is zoned PZM, "PZ - Mixed Use Zoning District." The purpose
of the PZM district is to provide a land use transition between high density residential
and low intensity business land uses, as well as the intermixing of each such land use.
The adjoining land to the north, south and west is also zoned PZM and to the
northeast is R-2, Single and Two Family residential.
Land Use
'The property sits at the northeast corner of Elm Street and County 39. To the east,
north, and northwest of the site, all land is occupied by single family residential.
Directly to the east, a neighborhood of attached twin homes extends to the east along
5th Street. To the south and west is the City's public works facility.
As noted above, the PZM District is inteilded to provide for a transition from higher
intensity to lower intensity uses, including a mix of business with, typically, higher
density residential uses. While a real estate office can be a relatively low intensity
business use, the area is dominated by low density residential development, and an
office use in this location would not appear to be consistent with the intent of the
district.
I
Parking
Professional Brokers Reality, Inc. has proposed a future parking expansion of two
thousand six hundred and ten (2,61 0) square foot parking lot that would replace the
existing one thousand eight hundred (1,800) square foot residential driveway. The
submitted application states that the existing residential driveway accommodates five
(5) off street parking spaces. According to Ordinance for off street parking,
professional offices require three (3) spaces plus at least one (1) space for each two
hundred (200) square feet of floor area. According to submitted materials, the
applicant has not indicated the number of proposed parking stalls. As condition of
permit approval, applicant must provide a site plan drawing drawn to scale indication
the location of off street parking and loading spaces in compliance with the
requirements in Section 3-5, 3-6.
I
Planning Commission Agenda ~ 08/02105
The following calculations demonstrate minImUm parking requirements for this
establishment:
. 1,643 square feet floor area x 10% / 200 = 7 parking spaces
+ 3 parking spaces
10 total required spaces
It would not appear that the required 10 spaces could be accommodated in the parking
area as proposed on the plan.
The existing material of the residential driveway is bituminous with no curbing.
According to ordinance, all off street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier
around the entire parking lot not closer than five (5) feet to any lot line.
The Wright County Highway Department should comment on the location of the
driveway that fronts Elm Street.
Signage
According to PZM district Ordinance, the maximum allowable square footage of sign
area per lot shall not exceed the sum of one (1) square foot per front foot of building
plus one (1) square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a bui Iding, up to
one hundred (100) square feet. Property owners may display one (I) pylon or
freestanding sign and one (1) wall sign or two (2) wall signs total.
As stated in the submitted materials, the applicants have indicated they would like to
place one (1) freestanding sign that will front Elm Street. This sign would replace the
existing house address sign that is currently in place.
Landscaping / Screening
The PlM district lists consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a real estate
office as follows:
1. When abutting R-l, R-2, R-3 or PZR district, a buffer area with
screening and landscaping in compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2
[G], shall be erected.
According to submitted application, the proposed expansion of the residential
driveway to a parking lot will require the estimated eight (8) foot vegetated hedge to
be removed. As condition of permit approval, this edge must be replanted with
similar materials to ensure proper screening is in place.
In addition, the western property line facing the proposed parking lot is currently
viewed by the adjacent property owners. Although there appears to be two (2) maple
trees and five (5) low growing junipers, there is not sufficient under story screening.
As condition of permit approval, this western edge of the proposed parking lot must
,
I
Planning Commission Agenda - OS/02/0S
be planted with under story vegetation to butter between the real estate office and the
adjacent residential home.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Oflice in a PZM Zoning
District.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, based on findings that the use
will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and meets the
intent of the PZM District. This recommendation should be conditioned
on the following items:
a. Addi tion of curb around the peri meter of the parking lot.
b. Construction of a parking lot to accommodate at least 10 parking
spaces.
c. Addition ofbufTering at the perimeter of the site to comply with the
City's bufTeryard ordinance.
d. Approval of the driveway location by Wright County.
e. Landscape screening of the parking area from surrounding residential
property and the public right of way.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on findings as attached to this
report in Exhibit Z.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Planning Staff does not recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a
commercial office in the proposed location. The introduction of a commercial office
use in this location is not consistent with the intent of the zoning district, which is to
transition between higher intensity commercial and residential uses. In this location,
the dominant land use in the neighborhood is low density residential, mostly single
family dwellings.
Moreover, it does not appear that the site can accommodate the required number of
parking spaces as required by the Zoning Ordinance, and significant landscape
buffering would be necessary to bring the site into conformance with thc buffering
requirements.
In summary, while the PZM zoning district is designed to potentially allow for a mix
of residential and commercial uses, the purpose statement in the district directs that
the surrounding neighborhood is to be of a much higher intensity of use to ensure
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/02/05
compatibility. A neighborhood of low density, single family homes docs not appear
to be proper location for a commercial office use.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site Location Map
B. Applicant Narrative
C. Site Plan
D. Site Images
E. Public Comment Letters (2)
Z. Exhibit - Findings of Fact for Denial
,
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 08102/05
Findings of Fact for Denial
Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Office in PZM District
505 Elm Street
1. The proposed use is located in a neighborhood dominated by low density, single
t~lmily residential houses.
2. The PZM District allows for business uses in areas of transition to high density
residential, or mixing of commercial and high density residential uses.
3. The uses in the surrounding neighborhood do not support the conditions necessary
for the introduction of a conunercial use as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The property, if converted to business use, would not be able to accommodate the
required parking supply as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The property requires significant buffering and landscaping to screen the use and
activity from the adjacent residential property.
~
I
"
5
~
- G 10
.15
, F 10.12
~ 6 8-E 8.10
; 0 .
14.15 H 14.15
I
lEe
I
2
12
11
o
:.,
~:';,.-"
jlH'
~-
o
1>4
MILE
PROJECT SITE
~
e~
.--~C4f~~------~_J~t-~-
-~~----------_.
{j ,
-'_._........"'-J::.::,"'-......"'IL'~.".:;:=.:..::O.::..:,~.,~_,:...:=..1.=.;....~,,,,:.m........_~~..~.""_~:~:>:.:&"'-"""~.~""~~-'-~'''''~,~=='"..:....,.".,'"'_.".~'!:.>.~"'.M'".'...~~.~-------.._.
__~~,,,,._.,,,,,..~..,~",,,,,,,___,,,.~..,,, ...' ..,___...
__Vk_.~fJJIwL;t-j;iLnJkw~~_
--..--."-~~..._-..-.-4~..~,t'i~fft-~-~~_""~.~~___._~._.._."._....._.______.._~__.._.__...__..._.~_......___......_.._.
.C,...::::-........'_'.':..:.:.::._:__._,..'I~O::~'---'-.,"~,.,,,..:"-.:.;....:....:~,,.,',..,.:"".'~~":''''''=~''''~'''''~"''''.'.:''''''''_'._.:.,."....,,,,,,.:.::::.=~.:~v"''''=''''".:''''"'''''"-
''=...c....<:.._.....,........,'"~._------......_.~~~~_~,~~~__,._,._..~~". "".,._., ....
..~._----3j,~~;[~~~~~~~:.__.:-.-
n - "-.. .~"~~.~CL_t_21.lltL_- =-f""~-~~--,-
."". '. ~..'~"~r:-::..':..,.:~"',. . '.::,=~,:.:..-:,~;',',' .".":.'~'''''".~.,::- ~,.""o:.:..::.:.J:.""-'''''-__..........,'''----...._...,..,,_ ...,. ...,"~_>=--==r-=--_,_-.-=-_-===,..........._:.:
:.~......_.........,"""."",'"'_--." ,,~__.._~. "~.~"_..n"._.~._~,
.,. _._"..'".,>"'---'-,.-.~.....:+",.,C""-="--'......."._...,,":,_::::.:.:>o......,,....,"..,,~--,..,..,......~~..:...>.=,,_.__,'Jr':,-==_~
.,..,_-..-....~..__"..~"'...M'_~',,_..'_ "."'~_~_~"',~_~~.._,'_.~,~_.,~__...._.
.-~~-~,.-"~-,,,.~. ... .... .,,-.--...~._-"""_._--_.~_""dta-ld..l:::ibJt.~L."".~ ~~__._._.,__._, . ....
'. .--_..".."~."-~--",.-..~-._.,_...~_..,-~'"...,",,J-L...1,~~~L'J4t:k........U_.._____.____,....___._._.,... .
...,..--.-....-~.~--....~..-.----.~~,...,".,,-.........'~~.".-".--..,'~"_.-,.."~.--..,,.,,~X.~r/:::;;~(1.~.:::aL_._.__....._._............._.......
..--'....",.-~~~,'."'-".'".: ,,,,,,. ...".,:....:........::..:.,"',_.~..._.:=-=:.::,-'-'-""":...,'T:l:,,,.,~............,,.,',",y,'''~,,..'-........""".'-,.,..==o:o....~~=--""'-'''"''-'~''''=-.......
...,......:,'''''.:~,_._U~,~''''''...,'"...........'''"""_,,', ,......._____~_.
......... .,",.."--,..,"-~"."--"~-.--"'~-_.-.,--",.[j~~",_..:Zic'"_~_~ L'i,~-- ~ f.~;J.=__.,""'_,......
,.-, , -, '"".',"'-'."'~,~I'._=:":...:.:::.:,.,,~.,,:.=:=.::......._,.., "-',:l.L-.':=-._._--""''''-''~~'=:.:~'''.I',",.r_'"",~",''':L,.,,''...._=='=":"::'."'~==--==~~=""'~~~'_'.'"""r._.....-.......-
._.............................~_~~_.,~.~..."...,".'="'__~_'.'r ..'._.__,..
."L~,-'-_.,_'.'.",,,,,,_,_~,,-~.... ',"'-=:..:.::...::,;,."',..'.',',.:'!':,::..............,...........""',.,,.>o_~,__~,_~.._""'"'"-."'.._'--'"><IJ'".._,m_..........."'L."".,='"""'""'>=.,"=,':"-O"",
-'"'1.;--=_~,.....",..,~~_._......~_~,,~,~_._~~~.,.",:',':....,~,_.~
~.::~, ., ~.:.,._"""."".,=_-,"'=7':.,::-_-,::,;;:'...,., ._":.,"'.:.;.I.~_."....-..=r-1=,, ,._~:.." ,',....=:C_::.:.......:.__ _'",==-..:.:.._"",..,--:-:==~,::::.,,: ,..,..C.....,..,...,.\"""'"""":.,
,_-:~''''''".:::,>_..~,.'~.:,'..'''',.,.,,''-. "._~._.~.
.. .,".',.,.......:----~~.,.~'"...:.=".--=...:,' ,......,,=':,'''..:.;-~~~.=.~.' ,~_,~........'--J,=~. 'n'._:':.-,=.,".~~~,..,==-----~,., ="'""""""'",.:........_....,':',~..t.",..l:...,"_~~"-=
':~~_.__,~"......,...',"'"~..^__, ."',."...~_~._',c.:.,'--'-,'~~"..,_-.::'..,__".
-..---."."-----...".--~"~....-"-~-,,....~-..-.,....~~~-._-,~.,..."..."--.'____m_.__m'~O"'~__~~~w."". .-_~_."..__'..".__"__...._
, '--'.',-"..,._.. .""''''-''~~'.'''''--'~-_._'~~,'.'' '.'"-,.,.,.~.....,
=..::.:.,.._"~..'_"'l.c.-:...:__",.~"'..==-'-,~~ ., .,.=-=.:=-,".":::~"..:::-;:=.:....::.-..~.",,..~=:"'==.:::;:=-:, .,'--" : ..-.. . ._~~".:-_.::"-__', "";"_.:.,.,.._~~.,~..,.::.=-:'.--'._.~_~.,',.,
,',''''',''I:'',"~_...,.,..' ~w_'..~'.,~__.~m<..: ,'" :',,"~' "~_."",~~' ____".,~n.~ .__",C_,'",.
!
I
8E
Dan Schreyer
723 W 5th Street
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: 505 Elm Street
To the planning committee,
We received your letter for consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow
operation of a real estate office located at the above address.
We want you to know how we feel about this. We moved to Monticello three years ago to get
away from the big city and live in a smaller residential setting. Already we have found this
location to be busier than we thought with all the traffic on Elm Street and County Road 39. We
have been hoping that the city would run 7th Street through to Cty Rd 39 to eliminate a lot of
traffic at this comer.
Needless to say, we would not like to see any business in our neighborhood. With all the empty
space in the business area and all the growing business west oftown we are hoping that the
planning commission does not see it necessary to have a business in every neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dan Schreyer
,
Planning Commission Agenda- 08102/05
9.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicants are seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit to facilitate the
construction of the second phase of Landmark Square. The project consists of a new
retail building of 11 ,4S3 Square Feet in noor area, and a parking lot 61 off-street
spaces and 23 on~street spaces. The off-street spaces include a reconfiguration of the
existing Landmark Square parking lot, resulting in a net gain of 40 off-street spaces,
although some of the existing Landmark Square spaces on only marginally usable.
However, the plan improves circulation by permitting traffic to flow hetween the two
phases of the parking lot, avoiding some of the more constricted areas on the block.
In addition, the drive-through exit would be flanked by a landscaped plaza area, and
with more detail, should be an attractive location.
The plan identifies the building as "New Retail". At a retail parking calculation, the
plan would require 53 new parking spaces. Applying the 60% rule, in which the City
may reduce the parking supply where the parking is opened to the general public, the
requirement would be for 32 new spaces. Por practical purposes, this would help
account for a portion of the current shortage of parking in Phase 1. However, the
dri ve-through window indicates the existence of some style of restaurant service
which would have an increased parking demand. Without additional detail, planning
staff cannot calculate the exact parking demand.
Previous concept submissions had indicated as much as half of the building devoted
to restaurant use. This would increase the estimated parking requirement to nearly
100 spaces, 60 when applying the 60% rule. At this level, the second addition about
20 spaces short of complying with the zoning regulations. While the on-street supply
helps. it was intended to help with overflow, and in any case, increases the actual
supply by about 12 spaces over the Cllrrent parallel parking supply.
In summary, parking is an issue on this site. More detailed information would be
necessary to calculate the precise deficiency. Because the property adjoins residential
neighborhoods to the west, staff would advise caution in overloading the area with
unaddressed parking demand. To the extent that the site is short of the requirement,
the City, at its discretion. may assess a per-space fee to provide for public parking in
other locations.
,
f
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/02/05
The plan submission was accompanied by building perspective sketches. An
important component of the City's consideration of whether the project should
proceed would be the architectural appearance of the building itself. In addition, any
project in the CCO requires approval of the Design Advisory Team, particularly
where the project involves a Conditional Use Permit.
A conceptual landscape plan was included with the plan set. No lighting, drainage, or
utility plans were included with this submission. In addition, signage plans have not
been included.
Each of these submissions is a common requirement of a Conditional Use Permit
request, according to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Without the detailed
plans, planning, engineering, or public works staff cannot make a Enal determination
as to the project's compliance with City ordinances.
IIowever, it can be said that in concept form at least, the project appears to be
attractive, would complement the area, and would conform to the City's downtown
revitalization plan. A conceptual approval would be appropriate at this stage, with a
final Conditional Use Permit to be considered with the submission of complete plans.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for Landmark Square Phase I I
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the
complete submittal of final plans, including drainage, utility, lighting,
landscaping, and signage plans, as well as additional information on Hoor
plans and occupancy of the building.
2. Motion to recommend denial ufthe CUP, based on concerns over traffic and
parking supply.
3. Motion to table action on the CUP, with a conceptual approval ufthe site plan,
pending submission of remaining appl ication materials as noted in this
report.
Decision 2: Variance to the Required Parking Spaces for Landmark Square n
1. Motion to approve the requested variance to the required number of parking
space for Landmark Square n. The approval is based on the following finding
of fact:
, 'The project site presents physical limitations to the applicant in
providing the required parking.
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/02/05
The approval of the Variance is conditioned on the requirement the applicant
to complete all parking (on- and off-street) as shown on the plans, and pay
into the City's parking fund for any deficiency in parking supply.
2. Motion to deny the variance, based on a finding that no physical hardship is
present to limit the ability of the appl icant to provide the required amount of
parking.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance at this time
as noted in alternatives 1 above. It should be noted that this recommendation is
conditioned on the complete {lnd detailed submission of the required site plans
referenced in the motion. These items are consistent with the requirements of the
City's zoning ordinance.
The required plans sets can be reviewed for Comment and conditions at the August
221ld Special Meeting of the Planning Commission.
SUPPORTING DATA
I. Site Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Aerial Image
,
I
9A
I
1/2
M I L_ ~H _
. . ,I. . ~. ~ _ .
::
~,
~ . - .
l
I
If
017
o
City of Big Lake
Chapter 10 Zoning
Section 1030 - Off-Street Parking & Loading
Subd. 9. Curb Cut Separation. Driveway access curb openings on a public street
except for single and two family dwellings shall not be located less than forty (40) feet from one
another.
Subd. 10. Curb Cut Proximity to Intersection. With the exception of the R-5 Zoning
District, no curb cut or other driveway access shall be located less than sixty (60) feet trom the
intersection of two (2) or more local street rights-ot:.way. In the R-5 Zoning District, no curb cut
or other driveway access shall be located less than forty (40) feet from the intersection of two (2)
or more local street rights-of...way. This distance shall be measured from the intersection of lot
lines, not curb lines. Curb cut or other driveway access locations on County, State or Federal
roads shall be as required by the applicable permitting authority.
Subd. 11. Parking Area Grades. The grade elevation of any parking area shall not
exceed five (5) percent unless approved by the City Engineer.
Subd.12. Driveway Access. Each property shall be allowed one (1) driveway
access for each one hundred twenty-five (125) feet of street frontage. Single-family uses shall be
limited to one (I) driveway access per lot.
Subd. 13. Surfacing. All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and
driveways shall be surfaced with asphalt, concrete or other hard surface materials, approved by
the City Engineer, suitable to control dust and drainage. Driveway aprons shall be constructed
and surfaced with either concrete or bituminous in compliance with adopted City construction
specifications. Except in the case of single family and two family dwellings, driveways and
stalls shall be surfaced with a six (6) inch class five base and two (2) inch bituminous topping.
Plans for surfacing and drainage of driveways and stalls fix five (5) or more vehicles shall be
submitted to the City Engineer fix his/her review and the final drainage plan shall be subject to
written approval of the Engineer.
Subd. 14. Striping. Except for single family and twinhomes, all parking stalls shall
be marked with wh ite painted lines not less than four (4) inches wide, which stripping shall be
maintained for legibility on a regular basis.
Subd.15. Curbing. All open off-street parking areas for five (5) or more vehicles,
shall have a continuous perimeter concrete curbing, unless otherwise recommended by the City
Engineer, around the entire parking lot, said curb barrier shall not be closer than ten (10) teet to
any lot linc. The City Council may waive this requirement for future expansion areas provided a
written agreement and financial security are provided by the applicant specifying the date at
which the future expansion will take place.
1030.06: MAINTENANCE: It shall be the joint and several responsibility of the owner
of the principal use to use and to maintain in a neat and adequate manner, the parking space,
access ways, striping, landscaping, and required fences.
.,
1030 - 5
I
~ ""5\,.r 1 V~ 1
(.... L- r-- j-L I V t::: f~
Sec. 30-895. Setbacks.
On-site parking and loading facilities shall not be subject to the front yard, side yard, and rear yard
regulations for the district in which parking is located, except that:
(1) In multifamily, commercial or industrial districts, no parking area, drive aisle or loading
space shall be located within ten feet of any property lines, except that zero lot line
developments may have parking that abuts the zero lot line property boundaries. Further,
nonsingle-family residential uses located in single-family residential districts shall also be
subject to these requirements.
(2) In single-family residential zoning districts no driveway or parking area shall be located
within five feet of a side or rear property line.
(3) In the BP district, minimum parking lot setbacks are as follows:
a. Front yard: 25 feet.
b. Side yard: 20 feet.
c. Rear yard: 20 feet.
All setbacks shall be determined from the planned right-of-way as designated in the city, county,
or state transportation plan, and normally defined in the subdivision regulations.
(Code 1982, SS 900.12(16),900.24(4))
,
http://library12.municodc.com/gateway .dll/mn/minnesota/2136/2175/2181 ?f=templates$fn=document-fra... 7/28/2005
I
_~__w~~_~,~ ~~. ~... .....~......... "-,JI.-............... "" _...,n...AJ.J.6 ...'-""'1\...&J.L-....t.l.l'-'1.iL0
is reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the Council.
12. Surfacing. All areas intended to be utilized for parking space and driveways
shall be surfaced with materials suitable to control dust and drainage. Except in
the case of farm dwellings and operations, and single and two family dwellings,
driveways and stalls shall be surfaced with asphalt or concrete. Plans for surfacing
and drainage of driveways and stalls f()r five or more vehicles shall be submitted
to the City Engineer for his review and the final drainage plan shall be subject to
his written approval.
13. Striping. Except for single, two family, townhouse and quadraminiums, all
parking stalls shall be marked with white or yellow painted lines not less than
four (4) inches wide.
14. Lighting. Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be
hooded and so arranged as to reflect the light away from adjoining property,
abutting residential uses and public rights-of-way and be in compliance with
Section 11.17, Subdivision 9 of this Chapter.
15. Curbing and Landscaping. Except for single, two family, townhouse and
quadraminiums, all open, off-street parking shall have a perimeter curb barrier
around the entire parking lot; said curb barrier shall not be closer than five (5) feet
to any lot line. Grass, plantings or screening shall be provided in ail areas
bordering the parking area.
16. Required Screening. All open, non-residential, off-street parking areas of
five or more spaces shall be screened and landscaped from abutting or
surrounding residential districts in compliance with Section 11.17, Subdivisions 7
and 8 of this Chapter.
17. Adequate space for snow storage shall be provided on the site so as not to
reduce the required minimum number of parking spaces.
http://www.ci.buffalo.mn.us/Admin/Citycode/III9.htm
page 1. 01 1.
,
7/28/2005
I
27
20-21-5:
OT05?!()
14. Lighting: Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be
hooded and so arranged as to reflect the light away from adjoining
property, abutting residential uses, and public rights-of-way, and shall be
in compliance with Section 20-16-10 of this Chapter.
15. Curbing and Landscaping: Except for agricultural, single family, two-
family, townhouse, quadraminiums, manor home dwellings, and essential
service uses within the INS Zoning District, all open, off-street parking
shall have a continuous concrete perimeter curb barrier around the entire
parking lot; said curb barrier shall not be closer than five (5) feet to any lot
line except as approved by the City Engineer. Grass plantings and
landscaping shall be provided in all areas bordering the parking area.
16. Required Screening: All open off-street parking areas of five (5) or more
spaces shall be screened and landscaped from abutting or surrounding
residential districts and uses, and the public right-of-way in compliance
with Section 20-16-7 of this Chapter.
17. Snow Storage: Adequate space for snow storage shall be provided on the
site so as not to reduce the required minimum number of parking spaces.
In those cases where excessive snow cannot be properly stored on site, it
shall be immediately removed from the site.
18. Driveway Turn Around: In the case of single family, two-family,
townhouse, quadraminium, and manor home dwellings, which front on
streets designated as collector, minor arterial, intermediate arterial and
principal arterial by the City's Comprehensive Plan, the installation of a
vehicle turn-around space, immediately adjacent to the access driveway is
allowed and may be required by the City Council. Said space is to be no
larger than ten (10) feet wide and ten (10) feet in length. Where possible,
said space shall be located away from the principal structure and shall be
no closer than twenty (20) feet from the street surface. Said space shall
not to be utilized for parking or storage purposes.
I.
Signs: No sign shall be so located as to restrict the sight lines and orderly
operation and traffic movement within any parking lot or driveway. All signs shall
be in conformance with Section 37 of this Chapter.
MAINTENANCE: It shall be the joint and several responsibility of the lessee and
owner of the principal use, uses or buildings to maintain in a neat and adequate
manner, the parking space, accessways, striping, landscaping and required
screening.
I
21-9
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/02/05
11. Consideration to approve a resolution findin2: that a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No.1 and the
TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-35 conform to the ~eneral plans for the development
and redevelopment ofthe city. Applicant: Master's Fifth Avenue, Inc. (O.K.)
A. Reference and back2:round:
The Planning Commission is asked to adopt the attached resolution stating it finds the
modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.
1 and proposed TIf District No. 1-35 Plan conform with the general plans for development
and redevelopment of the city as described in the comprehensive plan.
Proposed TIF District No. 1-35, a Redevelopment District, is being established to assist with
the acquisition, demolition, and/or site improvement costs associated with the redevelopment of
three single-family homes at the corner of Locust Street and Third Street West. The
redevelopment project known as Landmark Square Phase II is being developed by Barry
Fluth, Master's Fifth Avenue. An approximate 11,000 sq. ft. ofretail/off1ce center will be
constructed and includes the relocation of Landmark Square Phase I trash enclosure.
These parcels will be combined via an administrative lot combination by the City of Monticello
Building Official. In a previous Planning Commission agenda item, Master's Fifth Avenue
requested a Conditional Use Permit and a Variance.
For this agenda item, the Planning Commission is stating the TIF Plan for District No. 1-35
conforms with the Comprehensive Plan: Land use, zoning, and general development plans.
Prior to Planning Commission meeting, the Design Advisory Team will view exterior materials,
landscape plan, and signage for recommendation to thc Planning Commission, the approval and
implemcntation of these recommendations are important as public dollars are requested.
The I IRA will consider the Plan on August 16,2005, and the City Council has scheduled a
public hearing for consideration to adopt the TIF Plan for District No. 1-35 on August 22,
2005. LHB, Inc. has been hired to inspect the homes and make findings as to the coverage
and structurally substandard tests in order to qualify as a redevelopment TIF District.
B. Alternative Action:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution finding that a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for
Central Monticello Redevelopment Project NO.1 and the TIF Plan for TIF District No.
1-35 conform to the gcneral plans for the development and redevelopment of the city.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/02/05
2. A motion to deny adoption of a resolution finding ..............................................
3. A motion to table any action.
C. Recommendation:
Ifthc Planning Commission approves the CUP, grants a variance, and endorses OAT
recommendations; the City Administrator and HR..A Executive Director recommcnd Alternative
No.1. Should the inspection report not find the homes to be structurally substandard, then thc
Administrator and Executive Director will recommend to thc HRA and Council to not approve
the TIF Plan. However, the project supports the downtown and river-front revitalization plan
and completes the Landmark Square project.
D. Supportin2 Data:
Resolution for adoption, map, excerpt of the TIF Plan.
,
2
I
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 1-35 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, (the "City") has proposed to
adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. ]
(the "Redevelopment Plan Modification ") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-35 (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF
Plan are referred to collectively herein at the "Plans") and has submitted the Plans to the City Planning
Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the general
plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conform to the general
plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Dated: August 2, 2005
Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
"
,
I
a El
Ii II
lill=~!1
~:~~! g~)
~:z: E-< , -.or ~.
~ OOLl~ 6P-4~ t!
...:I )j
/' / i
-I .
/J '~~i/ I
. · ,J''/ .
"
/I~i .
8,.:,i
" ~..:/,
/.1' ~ /~"
I
11'-.."-.
.' ..,.
...jl~
/ .< (
/ ,] /
." r
.............
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B
MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-35
B-1
:":
,.
11' l'" .
". DJ" ~ ~
/ ~0
,., ,,~" ~ ~~ ,/
ji '" I': ,,~~ r/'
I'i' ~""'." R'
1/ 4! '" n ~ '" Q-'- :" ,1
I i ~1 ,,'~j~:/
"""",~ ~ ~ " ~
;~'*" illllI " ,~ ,II ~
if 'I~r' IiIJl ~'i .' Yf
// f -; ~~~' ..... '/"
// ~ 1 /,~,}~ j ~/j/ J
~ "LV" ,., ~' ' -
" ~~.~ 'A3>;; ~ ...".'\ I ~~
"'~" ' I
- I"~ : \ ~ I
~ I" ~
,,~~ "'^' [ ,E}-, =1 I
~~" ., .~ C4'.j Ill' -
~ ,,", W/ Jl::%= =-r:'. 4-, -1 \ - 1':--
~~~t;( _ 1\':'1 /,i I-' I '
Y/f,Z -;/ ~1
\
r
10
C? Ol-l 0<
,... ~ . ~ E-t
c:i ~i ~O
Z~~~oo
~~~~~
~OO~~
~~re~~
~ ~~~...
,5 ... r.1 :>< ~
LL Z~ CO
c~~UU
Q.l U 0 E-t
E ~ ==
~ ~ ~
l.J > ~
.5 ~
~ ~
~\
')!lll
III III
--I
~
)~
I
,Y&l
/,'
.,.
""'Ill
- .
h! "",
~'-_..
-J
~~
~~
~ . "-
~';f/. h,":-;
0'~ ~ ,"Q
\ ::-::- V~"'" Ie'
r'>.~."" \
'" r-,;," If, ~ 1311 ~
~' ,,~~~\j~
V'J ..... t\': ~ 'J ..rt),
~),. ""J;jl. ~
'-C.", \J '.,
/t"
t' '
If
)'
,I
If
Ii'
./
l
J:
::-;:;:
-
u
.- It)
tic?
is'""":
U-O
i=z
....
"'r~... / ./,i
/-ii
,
I
'"
-'~~
J ~
I
I
I
It)
f?....
.... .
.0
~z
...
... u
u. G.I
i'e-
.- Q. ~
Ct; 0
ClG.l III
,5 E ~ ~
g Q. ~ ,5
:g.2+:1::E
u:~g~
... .~ :E C
CG.l""'=
G.Io::co
E ,a.o
:!! .2 ._ ...
u'iioa,
c u ,-
-+:I ...
>cc :l::
ll:l 0
~:E
"CI-
G.I,g
!: C
Q.G.1
~o
Q.
~
~
............
"-
-......
...........
~............'-......
...11)
cf?
<II....
E .
<II 0
...z
~u
>< 'I::
ll:l1ii
~ .-
c
alCl
III .5
o CJ
o..c
S! III
a. .5
u..
'---......
,
-..............
~
~
~
~
~
~.
I
/'--.........-.
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN TIIE DISTRICT
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed below.
Parcel Numbers* Address Owner
155-010-036011** 212 Locust Street Barry F1uth
155-010-036010** 225 3rd Street West Barry Fluth
155-010-036030** 213 3rd Street West City of Monticello
*These parcels will be combined via an administrative lot combination by the City of Monticello.
The lot combination will be done after the public hearing, but prior to the request for certification.
**These parcels are "Knocked Down" parcels that are being removed from Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-22 to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-35.
APPENDIX
C-l
I
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICEllO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
and the
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
for the establishment of
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1..35
(a redevelopment district)
within
CENTRAL MONTICELLO RiLOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Public Hearing: August 22, 2005
Adopted:
This document is in draft form for distribution to the County and the School District. The TIF
Plan contains the estimated fiscal and economic implications of the proposed TIF District. The
City and the HRA may make minor changes to this draft document prior to the public hearing.
.
EHLERS
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive. Roseville. Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
& ASSOCIATES INC
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(for reference purposes only)
SECTION I - MODIFICA TION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1. . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-1
Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' 1-1
SECTION II - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Subsection 2-1. Foreword.............................................. 2-1
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority ....................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District ................................ 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District .................................... 2-4
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ............... 2-4
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ........................................ - . 2-6
Subsection 2-11. Business Subsidies ................................ - .. . . . 2-7
Subsection 2-12. County Road Costs ...................................... 2-8
Subsection 2-13. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
Subsection 2-14. Supporting Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
Subsection 2-15. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ........................ 2-9
Subsection 2-16. Modifications to the District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
Subsection 2-17. Administrative Expenses ................................. 2-10
Subsection 2-18. Limitation of Increment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Subsection 2-19. Use of Tax Increment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Subsection 2-20. Excess Increments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
Subsection 2-21. ReqUirements for Agreements with the Developer. . . . . . . . . . . . .' 2-12
Subsection 2-22. Assessment Agreements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Subsection 2-23. Administration of the District....... ...... ." .... ..... .. . ... 2-13
Subsection 2-24. Annual Disclosure ReqUirements .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Subsection 2-25. Reasonable Expectations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
Subsection 2-26. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ................ 2-14
Subsection 2-27. Summary ............................................. 2-14
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................... - . . . . . A-1
APPENDIX B
MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT. . .... .. . .... C-1
,
APPENDIX 0
ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0-1
I
APPENDIX E
MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM ............................... E-1
APPENDIX F
REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DiSTRiCT............ . .. ..... F-1
APPENDIX G
BUT/FOR QUALIFICATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
,
I
SECTION I - MODIFICA TION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project No.1. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set
forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1. Generally, the
substantive changes include the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-35.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project
No. 1 is recommended. It is available from the Executive Director of the HRA at the City of Monticello.
Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment
Financing Districts located within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 I-I
SECTION 11- TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-35
Subsection 2~1. Foreword
The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), the City of Monticello (the "City"),
staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-35 (the "District"), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in
Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1.
Subsection 2~2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exists areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the HRA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ("M.S. "), Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to
469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIP Act"), to assist in financing
public costs related to this project.
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIP Plan") for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1 ~35. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1.
Subsection 2~3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of three parcels ofland and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District
is being created to facilitate construction of 11 ,000 sJ. of commercial space consisting of a restaurant, office
and other uses in the City of Monticello. Please see Appendix A for further project information. Contracts
for this have not been entered into at the time of preparation of this TIP Plan, but development is likely to
occur in 2006. This TIP Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment
Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIP Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District.
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
the HRA or City and is further described in this TIP Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the HRA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The HRA or City may perform er provide for some or all necessary acqulSltlOn,
construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-35
2-1
I
District.
Subsection 2~5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed below. See the map in Appendix B for further information on the location ofthe District.
Parcel Numbers*
155-010-036011**
155-010-036010**
155-010-036030**
*These parcels will be combined via an administrative lot combination by the City of
Monticello. The lot combination will be done after the public hearing, but prior to the
request for certification.
**These parcels are "Knocked Down" parcels that are being removed from Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-22 to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-35.
The lIRA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of
way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the lIRA or City only in order to
accomplish one or more ofthe following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets,
utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to
accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The HRA or City may acquire property by gift,
dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this
TIP Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the
acquisition and related costs.
Subsection 2~6. Classification of the District
The lIRA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a
redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(J) as defmed below:
(a) "Redevelopment district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a project,
or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the
following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists:
(1) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent
of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree
requiring substantial renovation or clearance;
(2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently
used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights-of way;
,
(3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as
defined in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tankfacility:
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-35
2-2
I
(i) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons;
(ii) are located acijacent to rail facilities; or
(iii) have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently
used; or
(4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. lOb.
(b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in
structural elements or a combination of deficiencies in essential utilities and facilities, light and
ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interior partitions,
or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify
substantial renovation or clearance.
(c) A building is not structurally substandard ifit is in compliance with the building code applicable
to new buildings or could be modified to satisfY the building code at a cost of less than 15
percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the
site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard
under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size,
type, and age of the building, the average cost of plumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or
other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without
an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal
prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the
property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable
to gain access to the property after using its best efforts to obtain permission from the party that
owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion
that the building is structurally substandard.
(d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the
finding under paragraph (a) if all of the following conditions are met:
(1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building within three years of the filing of the
request for certification of the parcel as part of the district with the county auditor;
(2) the substandard building was demolished or removed by the authority or the demolition or
removal was financed by the authority or was done by a developer under a development
agreement with the authority;
(3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was
occupied by a structurally substandard building and that after demolition and clearance the
authority intended to include the parcel within a district; and
(4) uponfiling the requestfor certification of the tax capacity of the parcel as part of a district,
the authority notifies the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be
adjusted as provided by 9469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph (j).
(e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved
or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent, of the area of the parcel
contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tn Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-35
2-3
I
Subsection 2-12. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1 a, tht;: county board may require the HRA or City to pay for all or
part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment
will, in the judgement ofthe county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of
road improvements or other road costs and ifthe road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the BRA or City within forty~
five days of receipt of this TIP Plan. In the opinion of the BRA and City and consultants, the proposed
development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIP Plan
was not forwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The HRA and City are aware that the
county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
Subsection 2~13. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing j urisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIP
Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the HRA or City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows if the "but for" test was not met:
IMP ACT ON TAX BASE
Wright County
City of Monticello
Monticello LSD No. 882
2004/2005
Total Net
Tax Capacity
90,204,086
11,863,014
18,405,444
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTq
Uuon ComDletion
13,933
13,933
13,933
Percent of CTC
to Entity Total
0.0154%
0.1174%
0.0757%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Wright County
City of Monticello
Monticello ISD No. 882
Other (Hospital)
Total
2004/2005 Percent Potential
Extension Rates of Total CTe Taxes
0.344140 28.18% 13,933 4,795
0.586510 48.03% 13,933 8,172
0.263790 21.60% 13,933 3,675
0.026670 2.18% 13.933 372
1.221110 100.00% 17,014
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is thellctual2004/Pay 2005 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are
based on actual Pay 2005 figures. The District will be certified under the actual2005/Pay 2006 rates, which
were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.)5
2-8
I
Subsection 2~14. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd 1, clause 7 the TIP Plan must contain identification and description
of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175 Subd 3, clause (2)
and the findings are required in the resolution approving the TIP district. Following is a list of reports and
studies on file at the City that support the Authority's findings:
.
A list of applicable studies, if any, will be listed here prior to the public hearing.
Subsection 2-15. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under MS.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was
purchased by the Authority with tax increments;
3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax
increments;
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments;
5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for
which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and
6. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under MS., Section 273.1384.
Subsection 2-16. Modifications to the District
In accordance with MS.. Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.
1 or the District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd.
4(e);
2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIP
Plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized;
4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the HRA or City;
5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the project, including administrative expenses, that will be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the lIRA or City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIP Plan.
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(j), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall
not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the
county auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination
that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10, paragraph (a), clauses
(1) to (5), must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not ap}1'J.y if
(1) the only modification is elimination ofparcel(s) from Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax htcrement Financing District No. ]-35
2-9
I
or the District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or
exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel( s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the HRA agrees
that, notwithstanding M. S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more
than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District.
The lIRA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic
area of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 or the District. Modifications to the District in the
form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan.
Subsection 2-17. Administrative Expenses
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the
HRA or City, other than:
1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and
engineering services, directly connected with the physical development ofthe real property in the
project;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
proj ect; or
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs described in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982,
administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants,
and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax
increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up
to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIP Plan
or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District,
whichever is less.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District. The county may require payment of those
expenses by February 1Sof the year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment distributed to the lIRA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount
deducted to the State Treasurer for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor
for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and
auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the
Commissioner of Revenue.
~
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-35
2-10
I
Subsection 2~18. Limitation of Increment
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District
may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other
escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity
or redemption date.
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment
financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of
property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel
but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a
parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the
parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be
taken from that parcel and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excludedfrom the
original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the
parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation
on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance
with the tax illCrement financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the
activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the
tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision.
The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place
for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth
year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes
of this subdivision. qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of
a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing
street.
The lIRA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately August,
2009 and report such actions to the County Auditor.
Subsection 2-19. Use of Tax Increment
The lIRA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent ofthe captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in the District for the following purposes:
1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of Central Monticello Redevelopment
Project No.1 pursuant to the MS., Sections 469.001 to 469.047;
3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIP Plan;
4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
HRA or City or for the benefit of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 by a developer;
6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIP Plan or pursuant to
MS., Chapter 462G. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.~ Sections 469.178; and
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-35
2-11
I
Subsection 2-22. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the HRA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement
in recordable fonn with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market
value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement
shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements
to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are
to be constructed and, so long as the minimwn market value contained in the assessment agreement appears,
in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the
minimum market value agreement.
Subsection 2..23. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Executive Director of the HRA.
Subsection 2-24. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5, 6, and 6b the HRA or City must undertake financial reporting
for all tax increment financing districts to the Office ofthe State Auditor, County Board, County Auditor and
School Board on or before August 1 of each year. M.s., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an
annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15.
lfthe City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by MS., Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the QSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax
increment from the District.
Subsection 2-25. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the detennination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be
expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market
value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected
tax increments for the maximum duration of the District pennitted by the TIP Plan. In making said
determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects
and upon HRA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site. A comparative
analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax
increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix
D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated
subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the
use of tax increments.
,
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.35
2-13
I
Subsection 2~26. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIP
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 pursuant to the MS., Sections 469.001 to 469.047. Tax
increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the
acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and
regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit
of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues
derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure.
2. Pooling Limitations. At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside of the District.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in M.S, Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
4. Redevelopment District. At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a
redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation
of redevelopment and renewal and renovation districts under M.S, Section 469.176 Subd. 4j. These costs
include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or
improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adj acent parcels necessary
to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures,
clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of
the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated
administrative expenses ofthe HRA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action
response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs.
Subsection 2~27.
Summary
The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance
the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIP Plan
for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota
55113, telephone (651) 697-8500.
,
Monticello Housing and Redeve]opment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. ].35
2-]4
I
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TIF District No. 1-35 is a redevelopment district. The parcels are currently located in TIF 1-22 and will be
decertified. A local developer is proposing to build 11,000 s.f. of commercial space consisting of a
restaurant, office and other uses. The value of the new development is estimated to be $70 per s.f. plus land
costs of approximately $230,000 for an esimated value of$l,OOO,OOO. The building will be completed in
2006 and the assistance ofland acquisition, public improvements, site preparation, streets and sidewalks and
utility costs will be funded on a pay-as-you~go basis at a rate of 6.5%
,
APPENDIX
A-I
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/02/05
12. Consideration to apvrove a resolution findine that a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 and the
TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-36 conform to the eeneral plans for the development
and redevelopment of the city. Applicant: Rockv Mountain Group, LLC (O.K.)
A. Reference and backl!round:
The Planning Commission is asked to adopt the attached resolution stating it finds the
modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.
I and proposed TIF District No. I ~36 Plan conform with the general plans f()r development
and redevelopment of the city as described in the comprehensive plan.
Proposed TIF District No. 1-36, an Economic District, is being established to assist the HRA.
with thcir up-front land costs, assessments, trunk utility fees, and park dedication. Rocky
Mountain Group LLC, dba Dahlheimer's Distributing Company, plans to construct a 54,000
sq. ft. oilice/distribution center at the corner of Chelsea Road West and School Blvd. The
project will retain 28 full-time permanent jobs at an annual average wage-level of $20.21 per
hour wlo benefits and create an additional three full-time permanent jobs at a combined annual
average wage-level of $19.90 per hour wlo benefits.
WSB, Inc. is platting the 8.64 acre parcel in the Monticello Business Center (Otter Creek
Crossing) on behalf of the HRA for conveyance to the Rocky Mountain Group. The final plat
will go directly to the City Council for approval on August 8, 2005. The propeliy was
previously annexed and zoned Il-A. As you recall, Declaration of Protective Covenants have
been recorded against the property to ensure quality exterior building materials, irrigation, and
no out-door storage. The project is on fast-track to accommodate the interchange project and
a one-time life exchange for the Dahlheimer's.
For this agenda item, the Planning Commission is stating the TIF Plan for District No. 1-36
conforms with the Comprehensive Plan: Land use, zoning, and general development plans.
The HRA will consider the Plan on August 16,2005, and the City Council has scheduled a
public hearing for consideration to adopt the TIF Plan for District No. 1-36 on August 22,
2005.
B. Alternative Action:
I. Motion to adopt a resolution finding that a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for
Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and the TIF Plan for TIF District No.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/02/05
1-36 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city.
2. A motion to deny adoption of a resolution finding ..............................................
3. A motion to table any action.
C. Recommendation:
The City Administrator and HRA Executive Director recommend Alternative No.1. The
project fits the criteria for development in the Monticello Business Center and retains a local
business.
D. Supportinl: Data:
Resolution for adoption, map, excerpt of the TIf< Plan.
,
2
I
APPENDIX B
MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND THE DISTRICT
APPENDIX
,
B-1
I
~
C?o~o<
'f"" ~ · ....,;j ~
~ 0 ~ 0
~ z ~ tIJ
~ ~ ~i
~ g: ~~W>
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~
l:~~~8
Q) ~ 0 u ~
E U....,;j ==
~ 5 ~
a ~ ~
Cl::
o
z
-
to)
'C
-
II)
C
01
c:
'y
c:
~
.:
LL.
iit II
I I
~I
~
-)
. .
.,' '. :
,,)
'L
~<C~
~<?
.- ....
_ c .
o .
u.z
1=.__.--
.. !\li ~~r'~
-=tL~
\
\
\
.'"
R(""
\ii'j,(
....... ,...".n! \
I
t
I
I
I
I
Ul \
c?"'" \
~ ci , \
oz
z..
1J g
.- '0'
~.r ~
0.. III
l;I)COIV
CIV_C
.- E Gi C
u Co u ._
cO;:llE
l'll - C _
.5 !;! 0 Z.
u.. IV :lE c
~"'il'OS
IVa:~O
~ .E :eo ~
-";jOCl
U U 'r:::
.5:;:; 3:
>< C
III 0
I-:i
"'CJ-
asi
Co IV
00
n.
I
/
/
\,
i ""
f ",/
i,/'
,,-'(
k,
~~ \\
'\, ~
'~ ',.
\~ \.:.>
\ '\ \
\ \, ..,
\
"
\
\
\. ,
\ ", "
\.... .'
, ,
1,\
....../ / \.
.,),-
"
\
, --- '\, \,' " ':'
,\ ,.', \." \ '
.\ \ '\ " " \.
. :,'~,.>< ",' ...:,~~" ,<\,~),.
...'" '." ,,'\ \ ", y
\ ~ ,'\ \ \ )-",
: '"..,. .. :-- ' ,
',,'\ \, \"
, "
,
\
\
\,
\.
\
'--
\
\,
..
, ,
. -:.. w'...:.
..
'\
\
\ ,
\ ,
\
\:
\
\
\
\
,
\,
,
,
\\
\
\',
\'
\.
."........."'.
\\, /'
\/
, '
I
/
I
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
./'
\ /'
'\, ,/
i
I
i
I
i
f
l
"
/j"
//
.'
."
,
"
/'/
..,'
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights~of~way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed below.
Parcel Numbers Owner
155-171~OO2010 City of Monticello
213~141~OO201O* City of Monticello
*This parcel has been annexed into the City limits. The parcel is being
replatted and a new parcel number will be assigned by Wright County.
tIi
APPENDIX
C-l
I
o
QJ
::r
-
::r
CD
_.
s3
o CD
:J ..,
~c
(!) _.
-VI
-,..
.!' ~
-.
SO'"
2t:
,..
-.
"
g" I}
I.' . ~
. m
~
. ::J
@
::I
l.O
::I
n
~z ~ gf!ii
iIi .....:::l.
. ~ ~i__">1
8~ I ~ f!
6!ij ..~ 0-
~
-------0
,
:t>-
In i
?: 0
n ~..
..... b
6
V1 ;p
I
~
~~ ~~i
~ ~~ q.
ii i
~ ~ : ....-
I .
I
I
\
~ur~
~~~~
.. ~~~~
~~~l
~ ~"
~ ~
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
and the
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
for the establishment of
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1..36
(an economic development district)
within
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
.
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Public Hearing: August 22, 2005
Adopted:
. This document is in draft form for distribution to the County and the School District. The TIF
Plan contains the estimated fiscal and economic implications of the proposed TIF District. The
City and the HRA may make minor changes to this draft document prior to the public hearing.
,
& ASSOCIATES INC
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Ros8ville, Minnesota 55113.1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
.
EHLERS
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(for reference purposes only)
SECTION I w MODIFICA T/ON TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONT/CELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1. . . . . . . . . . .. 1-1
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-1
SECTION 11- TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO.. 1-36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
Subsection 2-1. Foreword.............................................. 2-1
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 2-1
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District ................................ 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District .................................... 2-3
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ............... 2-3
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness '" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-4
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds .......................................... 2-5
Subsection 2-11. Business Subsidies ...................................... 2-6
Subsection 2-12. County Road Costs ...................................... 2-7
Subsection 2-13. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 2-7
Subsection 2-14. Supporting Documentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 2-8
Subsection 2-15. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ........................ 2-8
Subsection 2-16. Modifications to the District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-8
Subsection 2-17. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-9
Subsection 2-18. Limitation of Increment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
Subsection 2-19. Use of Tax Increment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
Subsection 2-20. Excess Increments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Subsection 2-21. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Subsection 2-22. Assessment Agreements ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Subsection 2-23. Administration of the District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
Subsection 2-24. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................ . . . 2-12
Subsection 2-25. Reasonable Expectations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
Subsection 2-26. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ................ 2-12
Subsection 2-27. Summary ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................... A-1
APPENDIX B
MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE
DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT. . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
.,
APPENDIX 0
ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0-1
I
APPENDIX E
MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM.......... ............. ." ..... E-1
APPENDIX F
BUT/FOR QUALIFICATIONS ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
SECTION 1- MODIFICA TION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project No.1. This modification represents a continuation ofthe goals and objectives set
forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1. Generally, the
substantive changes include the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-36.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project
No. 1 is recommended. It is available from the Executive Director of the HRA at the City of Monticello.
Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment
Financing Districts located within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1.
.,.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 I-I
I
SECTION /I - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-36
Subsection 2-1. Foreword
The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "BRA"), the City of Monticello (the "City"),
staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establislunent of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-36 (the "District"), an economic development tax increment financing district,
located in Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exists areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the HRA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ("M.S ''), Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S, Sections 469.174 to
469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), to assist in financing
public costs related to this project.
This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIP Plan") for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-36. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1.
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of two parcels ofland and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District
is being created to facilitate construction of a 54,000 s.f. office/warehouse facility in the City of Monticello.
Please see Appendix A for further proj ect information. Contracts for this have not been entered into at the
time of preparation of this TIP Plan, but development is likely to occur in late 2005. This TIP Plan is
expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project No. 1.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TlF Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the District.
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
the HRA or City and is further described in this TIP Plan.
2. Relocation _ Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
M.S, Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the HRA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
4. The HRA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition,
construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the
District.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-36
2-1
I
5. The City proposes infrastructure facilities within the District, no additional open space
within the District, no environmental controls specific to the District, proposed reuse of
private property as an office/warehouse facility, and continued operation of Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 after the capital improvements within Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 have been completed.
Subsection 2-5.
Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights~of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed below. See the map in Appendix B for further information on the location ofthe District.
Parcel Numbers
155-171-002010
213-141-002010*
*This parcel has been annexed into the City limits. The parcel is being
replatted and a new parcel number will be assigned by Wright County.
The HRA or City currently owns the property to be included in the District.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District
The HRA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is an
economic development district pursuant to MS., Section 469.174, Subd. 12 as defined below:
"Economic development district" means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of any
project, or portions of a project, which the authority finds to be in the public interest because:
(1) it will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturingfrom moving their operations
to another state or municipality; or
(2) it will result in increased employment in the state; or
(3) it will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the state.
The District is in the public interest because it will meet the statutory requirement from clause 1.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4c, revenue derived from tax increment from an economic
development district may not be used to provide improvements, loans, subsidies, grants, interest rate
subsidies, or assistance in any form to developments consisting ofhuildings and ancillary facilities, if more
than 15 percent of the buildings and facilities (determined on the basis of square footage) are used for a
purpose other than:
(1) The manufacturing or production of tangible personal property, including processing resulting
in the change in condition of the property;
(2) Warehousing, storage, and distribution of tangible personal property, excluding retail sales;
(3) Research and development related to the activities listed in items (1) or (2);
(4) Telemarketing if that activity is the exclusive use of the property;
(5) Tourism facilities; or
(6) Qualified border retail facilities;
(7) Space necessary for and related to the activities listed in items (1) to (6)
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
TiU Increment Financing Plan for TiU Increment Financing District No. 1-36
2-2
I
In meeting the statutory criteria the HRA and City rely on the following facts and findings:
The facilities in the District meet the conditions of Purposes 2 and 7.
The District is being created to assist in the construction of a warehousing and distribution facility for
Dahlheimer Distributing. The proposed facility will be used for storing and distributing beverages and
related activities.
Pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.176 Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that
qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111 or 273.112 or Chapter 473Hfor taxes payable in
any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District
Pursuantto M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District
must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b, the duration of the
District will be 8 years after receipt of the first increment by the HRA or City. The date of receipt by the
City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2007. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any
modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2015, or when
the TIF Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2008, the term of the District will be 2016. The HRA
or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date.
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuantto M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity
(ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2005 for taxes payable 2006.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2008) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC,
no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the HRA or City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2006, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2006. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table on the following page.
,
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1,
upon completion of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table on
the following page. The HRA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-36
2-3
I
repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2007. The Project
Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed.
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (pTC)
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)
Original Local Tax Rate
Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate)
Percent Retained by the HRA
$65,650
$3,587
$62,063
1.22111
$75,786
Pay 2005
100%
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Suhd. 4, the HRA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to MS.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the
TIP Plan by the municipality pursuant to MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase
the original net tax. capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building
permit was issued.
The City of Monticello is reviewing the area to be included in the District to determine if any building
permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by
the City.
Subsection 2~9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness
Public improvement costs, utilities, streets and sidewalks, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined
in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The lIRA
or City reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the HRA or City and the TIP
Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance
and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and investment
income, to pay for the estimated public costs.
The lIRA or City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the TIP
Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by a G.O. bond issue and interfund loan/transfer.
Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount
of bonded indebtedness, including a general obligation (GO) TIP bond, or other indebtedness related to the
use of tax increment financing will not exceed $600,000 without a modification to the TIP Plan pursuant to
applicable statutory requirements. It is estimated that $100,000 in interfund loans will be financed with tax
increment revenues. It is estimated that a maximum of $500,000 in bonded indebtedness will be financed
with tax increment revenues.
This provision does not obligate the HRA or City to incur debt. The HRA or City will issue bonds or incur
other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The BRA or City
may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the TlF Plan through loans from funds of the
HRA or City or to reimburse the developer on a "pay~as.you.go" basis for eligible costs paid for by a
developer.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tu Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-36
2-4
I
The estimated sources of funds for the District are contained in the table below.
Interfund Loans
Bond Proceeds
TOTAL
$680,000
$20,000
$700,000
$100,000
$500,000
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Tax Increment
Interest
PROJECT REVENUES
Subsection 2~1 O. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate construction of a 54,000 s.f.
office/warehouse facility. The HRA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance
to the project for certain costs. The BRA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment
of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment
of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain
eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in
the following table.
Interfund Loans
Bond Principal
TOTAL
$50,000
$50,000
$200,000
$200,000
$132,000
$68,000
$700,000
$100,000
$500,000
USES OF FUNDS
LandlBuilding Acquisition
Site hnprovementslPreparation
Public Utilities
Streets and Sidewalks
Interest
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL
The above budget is organized according to the Office of State Auditor (OSA) reporting forms.
It is estimated that the cost of improvements, including administrative expenses which will be paid or
financed with tax increments, will equal $700,000 as is presented in the budget above.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification
to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed,
without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. pursuant
to M.S., Section 4 ~9.17 63, Subd. 2, no more than 20 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the
District will be spent on activities related to development or redevelopment outside of the District but within
the boundaries of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1, (including administrative costs, which
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-36
2-5
I
are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this TIF Plan.
Subsection 2~11.
Business Subsidies
Pursuant to MS. Sections 116J.993. Subd. 3, the following foOlls of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1) A business subsidy ofless than $25,000;
(2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses,
such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
(3) Public improvements to bUildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a
public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at
the time the improvements are made;
(4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552. Subd. 3;
(5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing
it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that
the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
(6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is
to provide those services;
(7) Assistance for housing;
(8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under MS, Section 469.174, Subd. 23;
(9) Assistance for energy conservation;
(10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
(11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
(12) Benefits derived from regulation;
(13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
(14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and
bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
(15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;
(16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under MS, Section
469.174, Subd. 19;
(17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase ofthe site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
(18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
technical nature.
(19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
(20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
(21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $75,000 or less; and
(22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration.
The BRA will comply with MS., Section 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TIP Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions.
,
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-36
2.6
I
Subsection 2-12. County Road Costs
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1 a, the county board may require the HRA or City to pay for all or
part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment
will, in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of
road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the BRA or City within forty-
five days of receipt of this TIF Plan. In the opinion of the HRA and City and consultants, the proposed
development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads, therefore the TIF Plan
was not fotwarded to the county 45 days prior to the public hearing. The HRA and City are aware that the
county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
Subsection 2-13. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF
Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the BRA or City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows if the "but for" test was not met:
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
Wright County
City of Monticello
Monticello ISD No. 882
2004/2005
Total Net
Tax CaDacity
90,204,086
11,863,014
18,405,444
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
UDon ComDletion
62,063
62,063
62,063
Percent of CTC
to Entity Total
0.0688%
0.5232%
0.3372%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
2004/2005 Percent Potential
Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes
0.344140 28.18% 62,063 21,358
0.586510 48.03% 62,063 36,401
0.263790 21.60% 62,063 16,372
0.026670 2.18% 62,063 1.655
1.221110 100.00% 75,786
Wright County
City of Monticello
Monticello ISD No. 882
Other (Hospital)
Total
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the actua12004/Pay 20()!5 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are
based on actual Pay 2005 figures. The District will be certified under the actua12005IPay 2006 rates, which
were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax. Increment Financing District No. 1-36
2-7
I
Subsection 2-14. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to MS. Section 469.175 Subd 1, clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description
of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in MS. Section 469.175 Subd 3, clause (2)
and the findings are required in the resolution approving the TIP district. Following is a list of reports and
studies on file at the City that support the Authority's findings:
· A list of applicable studies, if any, will be listed here prior to the public hearing.
Subsection 2-15. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing
district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under MS.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was
purchased by the Authority with tax increments;
3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax
increments;
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments;
2. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for
which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and
3. The market value homestead credit paid to the Authority under MS., Section 273.1384.
Subsection 2-16. Modifications to the District
In accordance with MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.
I or the District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of MS., Section 469.175, Subd.
4(e);
2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIP
Plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized;
4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the HRA or City;
5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the project, including administrative expenses, that will be paid
or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA or City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIP Plan. .
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.175 Subd. 4(j), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall
not be enlarged after five years fOllowing the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the
county auditor. If an economic development district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the
determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of MS., Section 469.174, Subd. 12 must be
,
documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only
modification is elimination of parcel( s) from Central Monticello Redevelopment Proj ect No. I or the District
and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-36
2.8
I
net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the HRA agrees that,
notwithstandingM.S., Section 469.177, Subd.l, the original nettax capacity will be reduced by no more than
the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District.
The lIRA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic
area of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 or the District. Modifications to the District in the
form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIP Plan.
Subsection 2-17. Administrative Expenses
In accordance withM.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the
HRA or City, other than:
1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and
engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the
project;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
proj ect; or
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs described in clauses (l) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30,1982,
administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants,
and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax
increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up
to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIP Plan
or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District,
whichever is less.
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District. The county may require payment of those
expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment distributed to the HRA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount
deducted to the State Treasurer for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor
for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and
auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the
Commissioner of Revenue.
,
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-36
2-9
I
Subsection 2-18. Limitation of Increment
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District
may be terminated if sufficient fimds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other
escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity
or redemption date.
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment
financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of
property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel
but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a
parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the
parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be
taken from that parcel and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the
original net tax capacity of the tax incrementfinancing district. If the authority or the owner of the
parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation
on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance
with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the
activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most
recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the
tax incrementfinancing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision.
The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place
for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth
year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes
of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of
a new street, (2) re/ocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing
street.
The HRA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately August,
2009 and report such actions to the County Auditor.
Subsection 2-19. Use of Tax Increment
The HRA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in the District for the following purposes:
1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. to finance, or otheIWise pay public redevelopment costs ofthe Central Monticello Redevelopment
Project No.1 pursuant to the MS., Sections 469.001 to 469.047;
3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan;
4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
HRA or City or for the benefit of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 by a developer;
6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to
MS., Chapter 462G. M.S, Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or MS, Sections 469.178; a'hd
7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on
the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to MS, Chapter 462C, MS., Sections 469.152
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-36
2-10
I
through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4.
Subsection 2-20.
Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more ofthe
following:
1. Prepay any outstanding bonds;
2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds;
3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or
4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
The HRA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after
the end of the year. In addition, the HRA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to
modify the TIP Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Central Monticello Redevelopment Project
No. 1 or the District.
Subsection 2-21.
Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
The HRA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the HRA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with City plans and ordinances. The HRAor City may also use the Agreements to address
other issues related to the development.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in the District as set forth in the TIP Plan shall at any time be owned by the HRA or City as a result
of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments
from proper1y acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 1 0 percent of the acreage, the HRA
or City concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and which provides recourse
for the HRA or City should the development not be completed.
Subsection 2-22. Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the HRA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement
in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market
value ofthe land and completed improvements for the duration ofthe District. The assessment agreement
shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements
to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are
to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears,
in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable e~mate, the County Assessor shall also certify the
minimum market value agreement.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-36
2.J1
I
Subsection 2-23. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Executive Director of the HRA.
Subsection 2-24. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175. Subd. 5, 6, and 6b the HRA or City must undertake financial reporting
for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board, County Auditor and
School Board on or before August 1 of each year. MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an
annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15.
If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by Us., Section
469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax
increment from the District.
Subsection 2-25. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be
expected to occur without the use oftax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market
value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value ofthe projected
tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said
determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects
and upon HRA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site. A comparative
analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax
increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix
D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated
subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the
use oftax increments.
Subsection 2-26. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIP
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 pursuant to the MS., Sections 469.001 to 469.047. Tax
increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the
acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and
regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit
of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues
derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure.
2. Pooling Limitations. At least 80 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 20 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside of the District.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax mcrement Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.36
2~12
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 80 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule
set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 80 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
permitted 1.Ulder said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit
enhanced bonds as more fully set forth inM.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
Subsection 2-27.
Summary
The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority is establishing the District to preserve and enhance
the tax base, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared
by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105, telephone (651)
697.8500.
,
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-36
2-13
I
I
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The HRA will be selling 8.6 acres ofland to a local company, Dahlheimer Distributing, relocated as a part
of the new freeway interchange project in the HRA's Otter Creek business park. The 54,000 s.f.
office/warehouse facility will be built by the end of 2005. The assistance is in the form of up-front
writedown of assessments, trunk utility fees, and park dedication. The City will use TIP to repay itself for
a 429 G.O. Improvement bond and inter-fund loans for grading, streets, utilities and park dedication. The
value ofthe building and land is estimated at $3,320,000. Interest costs are estimated at 5%.
The business will pay $.95 per s.f. ofland for the first five acres and $2.15 for the remaining 3.6 acres in cash
at closing.
,
, APPENDIX
A-I
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION ~ SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, AUGUST 22nd, 2005
6:00 P.M
Commissioners:
Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and
Sandy Suchy
Council Liaison:
Glen Posusta
Staff:
leffO'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and
Angela Schumann
1. Call to order.
2. Consideration to approve the minutes ofthc regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday,
August 2nd, 2005.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizen eommcnts.
5. Consideration ofa request for Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stage Planned Unit
Development, and Preliminary Plat for Highland Villas (formerly known as Monte Club Villas), a
14:18 acre residential development.
Applicant: L & G, LLC
6. Consideration of a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning from A-O to R-l
for Highland Villas (formerly known as Monte Club Villas), a 14.18 acre residential development.
Applicant: L & G, LLC
7. Adjourn.
,
I
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, AUGUST 2nd, 2005
6:00 P.M
Commissioners Present:
Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, William Spartz, and Sandy Suchy
Commissioners Absent:
Lloyd Hilgart
Council Liaison:
Glen Posusta
Staff:
Ollie Koropchak, Fred Patch, Angela Schumann, John Simola, and
Steve Grittman - NAC
1. Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM, noting the absence of Commissioner
Hilgart and Deputy Administrator O'Neill.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, July 5th,
2005.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TUESDA Y,
JULY 5th, 2005.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Dragsten inquired about the timeframe for consideration of Taco John's conditional use permit, in
relationship to the 60-day rule. Grittman answered that staff had been informed by the applicant
that the project was on hold at th is time and that they had requested the item to be tabled
indefinitely. At the time the applicant is ready to proceed, the City may require a new application.
4. Citizen comments.
Sonya Kleinbeck, 710 West 5\h Street, addressed the Commission regarding her concern about
Professional Broker's Realty's request for CUP. Chairman Frie noted that Kleinbeck would be
able to comment on the matter during the public hearing for that item.
5. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance
relating to Open and Outdoor Storage.Applicant: City of Monticello
Grittman reported that the IDC Committee had met earlier that day and had recommended
tabling of this item as they believe it needs further research.
Frie asked who had called for or attended the mc meeting. Grittman reported that Ollie
Koropchak typically attends that meeting representing the City.
Chainnan Frie opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05
Bill Tapper, owner of Generaux Wood Products and the former H Window building,
indicated to the Commission that the IDC felt the proposed ordinance was too subjective.
The IDC had recommended tabling to request further clarifications.
Tapper stated that his major personal concern with the proposed amendment item is screening
that it should be more tightly specified. He stated that he doesn't object to the fundamental
principles of the ordinance, but it needs to be tested against current situations to determine if
it is practical. Ifnot, it could create potential problems, especially related to differing zoning
districts. Additionally, Tapper stated that he would like to see the ordinance include the issue
of dumpster screening.
Frie asked if members of the IDC had been involved in the ad hoc committee that discussed
the proposed amendment
Jay Morrell, 1401 Fallon Avenue, stated that there had been two meetings held since the
Commission's last discussion on this topic. Morrell felt there was not adequate
representation at the second meeting. Morrell also expressed concern regarding who was
invited to the meetings. Morrell stated that in particular, he has an issue regarding the [-2
district. Morrell stated that currently, the existing 1-2 areas are the only areas zoned 1-2 in the
City. As such, the screening requirements listed in the proposed code refer only to those
existing 1-2 areas, which are in the old industrial park. Morrell's stated that the industrial
park was there first. I-Ie indicated that he can't believe that the south was ever planned for
residential until after the 1-2 was established. If an 1-2 business were to do something
different, then the screening requirements would take effect. Frie asked if Morrell was aware
that the meeting that he missed would be the one where the proposed ordinance discussion
was to come to a conclusion. Morrell stated that he was unable to attend. However, in
reviewing the ordinance, he felt that some of what was diseLlssed at the previous meeting was
put in place, and some of it was Illodified.
I'-rie asked if Tapper was in attendance at both meetings referred to. Tapper stated that he
was, however he stated that he wouldn't be addressing the Commission if he felt the
amendment was complete or that industrial owners were fairly represented.
Ray Schmidt, manager of Tire Service Equipment, addressed the Commission. Schmidt
stated that he didn't know there were meetings on this topic. He commented that perhaps this
ordinance is regulating things that aren't necessary. He stated that he felt common sense
should rule in this area.
Frie clarified that that there were three meetings held regarding this proposed ordinance
amendment. Frie requested definite notification to all industrial property owners.
Suchy asked Tapper, Morrell, and Schmidt to comment on how the amendment would affect
their businesses individually. Tapper stated he didn't know at this time, which is part ofthe
problem. He noted that he has two different properties which could be affected differently.
Morrell indicated that he has a property that abuts Klein Farms. While the current site and
use is grandfathered in as they exist today, any proposed changes would be subject to
screening that he doesn't feel isjustitied. Tapper also noted his comment on the dumpsters
and roll-off containers, as he is wondering how to screen a roll-off dumpster.
Frie commented that if the Commission establishes an ordinance, it may be th<1't it would
work for some and not others.
2
I
I
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02105
Posusta asked Morrell about the container dumpsters, inquiring whether this is something that
other cities require. Morrell stated that he has not been affected in any other community in
this regard.
Spartz asked what type of change in Morrell's business would require the screening. Patch
stated that the current uses exist by CUP, and that an intensification of use or change in use
would trigger the buffering as proposed. Spartz asked if the intensification would be an
arbitrary determination. Patch responded that the determination can be considered arbitrary.
Spartz asked if as the business grows, this trigger would apply. Grittman stated the need to
comply with the proposed ordinance would apply in the case of sOlnething that materially
affects the site. Grittman noted that this is not always a bright line definition.
Patch referred to Morrell's situation, where there was an exchange of properties, and some
came into continuous use. With the change in use, the City negotiated with Morrell to apply
for a CUP to deal with some ofthe issues and uses. Patch stated that this qualifies as an
intensification of usc, as the original lot did not have any use. Patch stated that growth of
uses in a gradual way may also trigger the alnendment to CUP, which would then also trigger
the compliance with the code as amended.
Posusta exampled Tapper's H Window Building, stating that when Tapper added on to the
building, staff required a berm on multiple sides and tree plantings. Posusta stated that this
affected Tapper's use of his property as he can't use his property to the full extent due to
berms. Posusta stated that he personally doesn't agree with that.
Grittmannoted that the benning and landscaping required for Tapper's expansion were not
arbitrary staff decisions. Staff was enforcing what was in the existing ordinance for those
requirements. As a CUP was required for loading docks fronting the public street, both the
Commission and Council were able to consider the benning and landscaping items through
due process. Staff didn't require them without merit.
Frie statcd that in his estimation, the packet that COlnmission received includes fl)ur items for
consideration and inquired whether they had met the common sense test that had bcen
mentioned, as they seemed to be relatively straightforward amendments. Tapper stated
perhaps the proposed amendments are too easy. For example, Tapper noted that screening is
required at eye level. So, the assumption is that the screening should be such that one can't
see anything behind screen. Viewing storage at eye creates problems for the owner who has a
site lower than others. Tapper notcd again that he would like to see the ordinance include
dumpsters. Tapper stated that there is also still a problenl with what happens between uses,
including comlllercial areas.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Schumann outlined the original public hearing process and noted that the same invite list had
been used for each of the subsequent meetings regarding the amendment. She noted that
based on Frie's earlier statement, she could include all propeliy owners in all industrial
districts. Schumann commented that when considering this, it might also be important to
have representatives from neighboring uses in attendance at the next meeting. Schumann
stated that as the ordinance also affects other segments of the community outside of the
industrial areas, it is important to have that representation, as well.
,
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE TO TABLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT REGULATING OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE TO ALLOW FOR
FURTHER STUDY.
'"'
.J
Planning Commission Minutes -. 08/02/05
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN, WHO AMENDED THE
MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT nIE NEXT MEETING REGARDING TI-IE
AMENDMENT' [NCLUDE REPRESENTAT[ON FROM RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMER[CAL PROPERTIES.
Posusta commented on the large trees on the I-I Window property, noting that powerline
companies do not want trees near their lines.
Frie asked who moderates the ad hoc meetings. Grittman responded that it has typically been
staff who leads, although it is an open forum. hie asked if a resolution can be accomplished
by the September meeting.
Morrell stated that at the first meeting, everyone signed in and recommended that al of those
persons be on the notification list. He also stated that it helps if there is more of an advance
notice. Frie asked Morrell if it seemed as though the first meeting included a good cross-
section of industrial properties. Morrell stated that he felt it was.
Patch suggested that in gathering the residential contingent it might be worthwhile to inform
town home associations.
Grittman recommended tabling to the October meeting. This would allow staff to meet with
group, develop additional language. Then, a subsequent meeting can be held with the group,
at which the suggested changes and complete proposed ordinance are reviewed. [n this way,
Cirittman stated that the group could reach a consensus before coming back to Commission.
CHAIRMAN FR[E AMENDED H[S MOTION TO INCLUDE TABLING THE [TEM TO
THE OCTOBER. MEET[NG OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
COMM[SSIONER DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOT[ON AS AMENDED. MOT[ON
CARRIED.
Frie asked that the IDC to be made aware of the Commission's decision and the upcoming
meetings, as well.
6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development for Taco John's Restaurant. a convenience food establishment in
a BA district. Applicant: JAT Restaurants
Grittman stated that the applicants are requesting tabling of this item. Frie stated that it is his
understanding that the applicants realize that it may be too late in the season for construction
this year. Grittman stated that it might at some point be worthwhile to withdraw their
app I ication.
Dragsten clarified that the requirements of the 60-day rule had been adhered to. Girttman
confirmed the request to table was the applicant's.
MOT[ON BY COMM[SSIONER DRAGSTEN TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR
COND[TIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TACO JOHN'S [NDEFINITELY AT THE REQUEST
OF THE APPLICANT.
MOT[ON SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
4
I
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05
7. Public (-{earting - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing open and
outdoor automobile sales within a B-3 (Highway Business) Zoning District.
Applicant: Gould Bros.
Patch provided the staff report, stating that the request for conditional use permit was to allow
the outdoor sales and display of the vehicles parked along the lot, facing Highway 25. Patch
indicated that the sales would be one of three current uses on the property. Thos uses would
now include the used car sales by Gould Bros, an auto body shop, and beauty salon. Patch
stated that the proposed use is consistent with the CUP previously granted to Automaxx at
this location. Patch noted that the use proposed by Gould is less intense than what was
allowed for Automaxx. Under this request, staff would recommend that Gould display no
more than 50 vehicles.
Patch stated that questions may arise in that Gould has been selling vehicles here for some
time. Patch indicated that they did so as a non-conforming use, although the applicant
thought they were proceeding under the previous CUP. Patch cxplained that the previous
CUP expired with new ownership. The B-3 district allows new and used automobile and
light truck sales through CUP based on the terms allowed by ordinance. Patch stated that
Gould Bros. would appear to meet the requirements of the code. Staff is recolllmending
approval sul~ject to conditions in Exhibit Z.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
.lay Morrell, property owner, stated that he is confused regarding this CUP, as he thought the
area was included in a PUD. lie indicated that the Gould Bros. use was grandl~lthered in
under the PUD. He stated that he believed there was a change in the ordinance which put a
sunset on CUPs. Morrell commented that he would like clarification on whether a new
permit was really needed and why the PUD approved for Automaxx couldn't continue for
Gould Bros..
Grittman responded that in terms of the ordinance, it states that any CUP that ceases to be
uti I ized for more than 6 months is no longer val id, effective due to non-use. That particular
section of the ordinance for CUPs has been in place since the adoption of the ordinance.
Morrell stated that the previous CU P didn't lapse for six months. He wi II check his records.
Patch stated that Morrell raised an interesting point in that this use was allowed originally
under the terms of a PUD. The PUD allowed multiple uses, including the salon and Glass
Ihlt. In the interim, the auto body shop developed. A CUP was allowed for the auto body
shop. Patch noted that this does involve the question about ehange of use within a CUP or
PUD. For example, if there are multiple uses, at what point is a new CUP be required. Patch
stated that a CUP would need to be amended whenever there is a non-original use proposed
for a site. Grittman said that it his understanding that an auto dealership which operates on
the same property under same terms can continue indefinitely.
Frie stated that assuming that the lapse wasn't six months, Commission had conditioned the
approval based on a eertain number of cars on site. In that case, the CUP may still need an
adjustment. Morrell stated that the Automaxx permit allowed up to 99 cars.
Frie stated that there are two issues to be addressed. (fthe Automaxx CUP is still in effect,
the Commission is wasting time on this issue. Frie asked how quickly this item can be
resolved. John Michaelis, Gould representative, confirmed that they have been there for a
full year. Frie asked if they were operating under the assumption the previous CUP was still
valid. Michaelis statedthat was accurate. Patch noted that any time there were a substantive
5
I
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/0S
change, however it would need to come back. In this case, the use is changing. In example,
Patch noted that the Automaxx didn't have a body shop. What staff is suggesting is that this
use is consistent use for the area and that the use is less intensive. Patch commented that it
might be appropriate to reduce the number of cars allowed due to the auto body use, which
wasn't there during the Automaxx period.
Frie stated that assuming this CUP would be approved, it would allow the use, whether the
CUP could be continued or not. Frie indicated that there should be a maximum number of
cars allowed, in any case. Frie asked Morrell and Michaelis if they were familiar with the
conditions listed under exhibit Z. Michaelis stated that he did have an issue with only 25 cars
allowed on site. Frie noted that statf had made a correction to allow 50. Frie asked if
Michaelis was comfortable at 50. Michaelis agreed. Patch commented that it may also be
important to the Commission to consider where the vehicles for sale are located on the
property, or they may want to leave it up to the tenant and property owner.
Frie asked Morrell if at the Automaxx public hearing, the overlapping business places and
uses had been addressed. Morrell stated that they had not. Morrell commented that he
doesn't feel it's a City issue, as that problem has been resolved with signage and tenant
cooperation. Morrell said that it was with the tenant after Automaxx that problems occurred.
Michaelis indicated that he hada letter from the owner of Professional Approach, the beauty
salon on site, stating that in the three years they have been on site with Gould Bros., they
have never had a problem.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the publ ic hearing.
Dragsten noted to Morrell that the loning code outlines specific requirements for parking and
referred to condition 3 requiring that the applicant comply.
Suchy asked whether in complying with condition number 4 for signage, they Commission
can ask the applicant to dress up the area on Highway 25. Morrell stated that City has
burdened Michaelis already. Morrell stated that it is a business area and if you want to sell a
car, you need to be able to display it. Morrell stated that the site complies with the original
recommendations of the PU D; anyth ing more would be ludicrous. Frie clari tied that Suchy
was in fact stating that the applicant be allowed more signage with appropriate landscaping.
Suchy confirmed, stating that the signage should be something more decorative, citing that
that area of Highway 25 is a nice business area and that she would like to see it enhanced.
Michaelis stated that he did not want to paint himself into a corner. He indicated that he
would look into that before committing. Posusta stated that he does not believe Michaelis
will turn this into an area to sell junk cars.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND TO TI-IE CITY COUNCIL
THAT TilE CONDITIONAL USE PEMIT FOR AUTO SALES/DISPLAY FOR GOULD
BROTHERS BE APPROVED BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE USE IS
APPROPRIATE FOR TilE B-3 DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED SITE, SUBJECT TO
THE CONDITIONS OF EXHIBIT ''7'', NOTING THAT CONDITION 2 SHOULD READ
"50 VEHICLES" AND TO REMOVE CONDITION 3.
,
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. DRAGSTEN AMENDED
THE MOTION TO INCLUDE CONDITION 3, EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICANT MAY
INTEND TO MEET THE CONDITION. MOTION CARRIED AS ORIGINAL.
MOTION CARRIED AS AMENDED.
6
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05
Frie asked Morrell to follow-up on whether the CUP was still valid as it related to continued
use.
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit to allow a real estate
agency in a PZM (Performance Zone-Mixed) District. Applicant: Professional Brokers
Realty
Grittman reviewed the staff report, stating that the PZM district allows single and two-family
Llses, as well as certain business uses as allowed by conditional use permit. The applicants
are seeking a CUP to operate a real estate office in an existing residential structure.
Grittman explained that the PZM district is intended to provide a transition area between high
density residential and low density commercial. Grittman explained that the existing house
faces Elm Street. In that area, the uses are predominately single family, although he noted the
Public Works facility nearby. Grittrnan stated that staff's concern is that this area doesn't
represent a true transition zone as outlined in the ordinance. The other concern is the parking
requirements for commercial uses. In this case, 10 spaces are required. The applicants have
indicated that they do not believe they will need 10 spaces. Grittman commented that
although this may currently be accurate, the issue becomes that as businesses grow they may
need those spaces as business intensifies. Grittlnan noted that if the applicant docs provide
the parking, it may also come into conflict with the existing residential uses.
Grittman stated that for those reasons, staff is recommending denial of the CUP, believing
that the best use of this property is low density residential. If the Planning Commission
believes that the proposed use is permissible, Grittman suggested making some
recommendations to mitigate thc commercial intluence, such as buffering, landscape
screening of parking area, etc.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Leticia DeChene Fulda and Lisa Martin, representing Professional Brokers Realty, spoke the
Commission. Martin indicated that they own Professional Brokers Realty and are the only
employees of that company. Martin reported that they currently operate their facility as a
home occupation. Martin explained that it had been their intent not to look like every other
agency, but rather to keep the ambience of the office being in a home.
Martin referred to staff's concern on traffic and parking. Martin stated that there will not be
any other employees other than herself and DeChene Fulda. Maliin indicated that if the
Commission wants them to take the lawn and make it a parking lot, they will do so. Martin
comrnented that as traffic increases along County 39, the property will become less attractive
for single family uses. Martin stated that she believes the highest and best use will be low-
intensity business. If the agency hires more agents, they would not office on this site. Martin
noted how they would direct visitors to the site in order to alleviate neighbor's concerns about
traffic.
Martin also addressed the five findings of denial. Martin refuted staWs belief that the area is
dominated by single-family homes, citing the twinhomes, American Legion and Public Work
facility, all in immediate proximity to the site. Additionally, Martin stated that there would
never be a time when the would be more than 3-4 cars in the driveway.
,
DeChene Fulda addressed the Commission as co-applicant and owner of 505 Elm Street.
DeChene Fulda repolied that she had obtained a bid to extend the parking area, should it be
required. Those plans show that there are 11 spaces possible. DeChene Fulda stated that
7
I
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05
some of her concerns mirror Martin's in that they arc seeking to maintain a low profile,
professional business. As far as butlering or landscaping, DeChene Fulda stated that they arc
invested in the property, but do not want to invest another $20,000 unnecessarily into parking
lot and landscaping. DeChene Fulda stated that in terms of future employees, they may hire
one officc administrator. DeChene Fulda stated that the alternative to the CUP is to pursue
this as a home occupation or rental situation. DeChene Fulda stated that they are willing to
work with the Commission to adhere to any requirements required to pursue this item.
Ed Lane, 804 Golf Course Road, addressed the Commission. Lane explained that his land
abuts the subject property. Lane stated that he doesn't want to see a parking lot happen on
the property. Lane noted that there is already a problem with parking, stating that when the
City redid Elm Street, parking was only allowed on one side. Although Lane recognized that
there wuld perhaps by more businesses in the area in the future, he personally docs not want
to see business in a single-family area.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Dragsten asked staff if this is a conditional use permit for a business versus a home
occupation, as a home occupation would be under different regulations. Grittman confirmed
that this request is for a CUP and that home occupations are allowed only as an incidental use
to primary residential use.
Posusta asked DeChene Fulda and Martin if they would be living in the property. Martin
answered that they would not be living in the home. Martin also noted that the property is
already sign ificantly buffered by I i lacs and large line of evergreens.
Frie commented that he had noticed an Edina Realty sign was up on the property and that it
was listed on the market. Martin indicated that it was closed on today.
Patch noted that the applicants had requested him to meet them at the property. In doing so,
he had noted that it is an easy change to make the site handicap accessible. At that time, he
also inl'tmned them of both home occupation and CUP requirements.
Frie commented that while a real estate office may be low intensity use, it still needs to
comply with the ordinance as provided. Frie stated that he does not believe the proposed se
to be consistent with the ordinance. Frie stated that the five conditions outlined wouldn't
allow for a low intensity use. Frie also made noted of his concerns regarding traffic at the
corner of Elm Street and County 39. Frie stated that if there is ever a time that the City needs
to do something about controlling an intersection, this is it. Frie indicated that with Heritage
Development's plans, and the construction of Chelsea Road, this area will not get better, nor
would another business help the traffic situation.
Posusta agreed, stating that he disagreed with the CUP requested by Public Works on the
same grounds when they wanted to build the storage structure in a residential neighborhood.
Frie asked if traffic in this location is a County issue. Grittman confirmed. Grittman
indicated that he will carry Frie's concern on tramc forward.
Patch explained that Council would like fh Street to run through from County Road 39
t\'frough to the Ilighway 25 and 1-94 intersection. This corridor should be taken into
consideration regarding traffic concerns and growth in the area. Dragsten stated that with
Chelsea going through in the future, the proposed alignment referred to by Patch would
alleviate a lot of traffic. Posusta agreed, stating that a study should be done on this item,
8
I
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05
although construction may be premature at this juncture.
Dragsten stated that he is questioning whether an approval would actually hurt the property.
He commented that a family of four at this location would probably generate more traffic
than this proposed use. Dragsten inquired whether there is something that can be done in
between to achieve the applicant's and the Commissions goals, such as assigning business
hours. Frie noted that while that may be possible, the fact is that the plan for the use doesn't
appear to meet code requirements.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRIE RECOMMEND DENIAL OF Tl.IE CONDITIONAL
USE PERMI'T' TO ALLOW A REAL ESTATE AGENCY IN A PZM DISTRICT' BASED
ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS FOLLOWS:
I. The proposed use is located in a neighborhood dominated by low density, single family
residential houses.
2. The P2M District allows for business lIses in areas oftransition to high density residential, or
mixing of commercial and high density residential uses.
3. The uses in thc surrounding neighborhood do not support the conditions necessary for the
introduction of a commercial use as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The property, if converted to business use, would not be able to accommodate the required
parking supply as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The propeliy requires significant buffering and landscaping to screen the use and activity
from the adjacent residential property.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARfZ, WITH COMMISSIONER
DRAGSTEN IN DISSENT.
Dragsten stated that his dissent is due to the tact that he believes there is another approach
possible and encouraged the applicant to talk with staff about other alternatives.
MOTION CARRIED.
9. Public Hearing... Consideration ofa re(IUest for Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-
through facilitv in the Central Community District and to allow joint parking and drives, and
consideration of a request for Variance froll] parking lot standards as recluired bv the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Applicant: Masters 5th Avenue
Grittman reviewed the staff report on the request, explaining that the proposed second phase
of Landmark Square would consist of an approximately 11,500 foot comrnercial bui Iding at
the corner of Locust and 3'''. The first phase of the project exists at the corner of Broadway
and Locust. .
Cirittman indicated that the applicants have submitted conceptual building elevations, which
show a drive through exiting out onto Locust Street. The business uses are proposed as
restaurant and retail. Grittman stated that the second phase continues the parking expansion.
The additional parking required by the second phase is estimated to be about 100 additional
parking spaces to meet code. Grittman stated that thc CCD regulations allow reduction of the
required spaces by a measure""of40%. In that case, the applicants would need to provide 60%
of the required parking and leave it open to public uses. This also allows overflow parking
on the street, as it is assumed to be temporary parking. Grittman reported that this type of
parking ordinance has functioned well in Monticello and in other communities. Grittman
9
I
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05
reported that the issue with this proposal is that the parking proposed blls short of the 60%
parking requirement. It is possible that the surrounding space can accommodate the parking
and it is also possible that the ultimate use mix may not require that number of spaces,
However, Grittman explained that the problem is that the City would be making those
assumptions based on conceptual plans. If the applicant had provided all of the normal
documentation required, staff would be able to supply more realistic parking calculations.
Grittman stated that on a conceptual level, staff believes this to be a nice project, but that staff
would also note that the ordinance requires submission of more detailed plans. As a result,
Grittman indicated that staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit, and
possibly a variance based on final parking supply, subject to final plan and site plan
submission. Those documents would need to be provided at the Planning Commission's
special meeting on the 22'1(1 of August. That recommendation would give staff a chance to
run final calculations for parking and make final site plan comments.
Frie asked if the Planning Commission is being premature in taking action on this item at this
time, in light of a proposed special meeting, Grittman stated that the intention ofthe motion
is to grant conceptual approval, with the intent to verify details. It gives the applicant a
chance to comply with the terms and conditions of any recommendation and the ordinance.
Frie noted that the ordinance does not really provide for a conceptual approval with just a
Conditional Use Permit. Frie asked if they would be able to act on the conditional use permit
and variance at the special meeting, noting all of the missing plans.
Dragsten remarked that at this time, the City cannot even be sure what the uses are. Grittman
stated that was correct, it is only known that it will be commercial. Frie noted that staff had
cOllllllellLed dial whhuUl fllIdn:1 d\';ldil~ L1n;y ~([II~llll(lk.1".. ll...... 1I,-,,-,\.k.,~J p{ukillb Gc....k,Ulll.ti'-_JIIJ.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Brad Johnson spoke to the Comlnission, representing Masters 5'h A venue. Johnson agreed
with Grittman' s presentation in terms of process. He stated that had they not gone with a
drive-though, the proposal wouldn't have required a Planning Commission review. Johnson
reported that a local company was taking the 2700 square foot restaurant and drive-through
space. Johnson stated that he understands that they are short of certain documents. He noted
that they had met with DATjust prior to the Commission meeting and that DAT liked the
project. DA T also sought to see all required details prior to their recommendation.
Johnson stated that they arc dramatically changing the parking in a positive way and
obtaining cross-easements to make the parking system work. He indicated that they would
like to proceed as if the Planning Commission is okay with the project, if we can meet the
requirements. He stated that he doesn't th ink they wi II need 100 parking spots. Johnson
stated that in many cases, they don't know who tenants will be. Johnson commented that he
thinks that they have added 63 spots for a net gain of 52 spots, noting that normally retail
would require 53 spots. They believe that they arc close on parking. He would ask that the
Commission leave it to staff to figure out how to proceed. 'T'hey will move ahead with
architectural plans with the Commission's approval.
,
Frie asked if the restaurant space will be fast food. Johnson stated that it would not; it will be
a local restaurant with entertainment. Johnson commented that they think they can get under
construction on Sept. 15'h with Commission's recommendation of approval.
Barry Fluth, pariner in Masters 51h Avenue and property owner, made himself available for
questions.
10
I
Planning Commission Minutes -. 08/02/05
Koropchak noted for the record that OAT had approved the concept presented to them, with
the condition that the developer come back with plans for lighting, signage and materials.
The developer could bring the plans back to OAT on August 16'11, with their recommendation
going to the Planning Commission on August 22'1(1.
Dragsten stated that his concern is that although the project looks nice, an approval is based
on ~I~e amount of info availa?le. .Drag~te.n s~ated t1:at lII~til he s~es ever~thing r~,~uired and
statt has had a chance to revIew It, he IS 111 favor ot tabltng the Item until the 22 .
Johnson noted that the Plann ing Commission has total control over whether they ultimately
get the permit. Dragsten stated that the Commission cannot grant a conditional use permit
with only conceptual information. Johnson asked what the Commission needed specifically
Dragsten stated that conditional use permits typically require more information on uses,
lighting, signage, etc. Johnson stated that at this point, they don't know what those uses
would be, and that would be common in this kind of development.
Patch stated that with regard to the timeline of getting the project in the ground, this factor
compelled staff to say this project should move forward, even knowing that complete plans
wouldn't be available. It is understood that all submittals will be required. He stated that
staff didn't want to seem unsupportive of business growth in the area. Patch also noted that
without the drive-through, it would have gone straight to building permit. Dragsten asked
why the request couldn't have waited to the special meeting.
Grittrnan stated that at the time this hearing was scheduled, a special meeting wasn't
anticipated.
Frie asked if the Commission approved a conditional use permit, would it go to Council
minus all the answers Commission had noted. Grittman stated it wouldn't go to Council until
the nnc!. Frie commented that in that case, the item could go to the special meeting of the
22"'1, and that may help solve procedural problcms. Frie asked if it was acceptable to the
applicants to continue the item to August 22nc! meeting. Johnson deferred to staff. Grittman
stated it would be fine.
Frie noted that at a concept level, he is supportive, and it seems that Dragsten is, as well. His
concern is that the request is without plans as noted.
Spartz agreed.
Suchy notcd that it is important that drive-throughs in downtown are discouraged, noting that
this drive-through actually opens to Locust, rather than central downtown. Shc stated that
project will be a nice addition to the cOlllmunity.
Posusta stated that he would be receptive to the project if they had all of their documents in
place. Posusta asked Koropchak if this is TIF project. Koropchak conformed it will be, as a
redevelopment district. Posusta asked if the area qualifies as blighted. Koropchak explained
that an inspection of the three homes would be completed and a report on that inspection
would be provided to Council and the HRA in order to approve the TIF plan.
Posusta asked how the matter of parking shortage can be resolved. Posusta stated that maybe
the requirement should be that the developer supply it at ,rd Street. Frie noted the developer
can also pay a fee which goes into a fund for downtown parking. Johnson stated that would
apply based on a detailed plan for parking calculations. Posusta noted the parking problems
11
I
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05
at Crostini's and that stated he wants to make sure the City is not making it worse. Johnson
stated that the presented parking plan addresses that issue in both flow and usage. Johnson
stated that they arc also moving a trash container, which takes 3 spaces, to the corner.
Grittman agreed the layout and circulation shown on the plan is good. He added that the plan
states that there will be no work in existing areas, shown in gray. Grittman stated that there
are conditions of the first phase approval that have not yet been met, which will need to be
remedied with this project.
Frie inquired about how Commission's decision would affect agenda item number 11
regarding the TIF district. Koropchak stated that it is her recommendation to table that item,
as well. Koropchak stated that while the plan may be consistent in terms of the comp plan
and zoning, a final approval on the conditional use permit should be a part ofthat approval.
Koropchak stated that she would give her presentation, and then ask for Commission to table
it. Then it can be acted on for the August 22'''' meeting.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN '1'0 TABLE ACTION ON ^
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LANDMARK SQUARE /I TO THE AUGUST 22''''
SPECIAL MEETING OF TI-IE PLANNING COMMISSION, PENDING SUBMISSION OF
MATERIALS AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARrZ.
MOTION CARRIED WITH COMMISSIONER SUCHY IN DISSENT.
Suchy stated that her dissent was based on the tact that she believes the plan is sufficient to
move the project forward and authorize the conditional use permit at this time.
10. Pub I ic Hearing ..~ Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating
to ioint access and ioint drives and parking lot setbacks. Applicant: Citv of Monticello
Grittman reviewed the staff report for the item, stating that the proposed ordinance relatcd to
parking lot design issues the City has been dealing with in plan reviews. The tirst issue
isrelated to the setback for parking area curb lines. The code's current requirement is set at a
five foot setback. However, the City also requires six and twelve foot drainage and utility
casements for lot and plat lines, respectively. What staff have found is that ifparking areas
are built to the 5 foot setback line, the parking lot is actually built right over the top of some
utility installations. Clrittnlan noted that this problem has been increasing each year due to
the amount and type of utility installations. Grittman eXplained that when a parking lot is
built, there are occasions in which utilities need to go in, and the parking lot has to be torn
out, interfering with business operations. There arc also restoration issues between the
developer, the utility cOlnpanies and the City in terms of who pays for the restoration in those
situations. Grittman stated that restoration is the propeliy owner's responsibility. Grittl11an
indicted that the proposed ordinance provides a resolution in that it moves the curb line
setback to a location equal to the util ity easement, keeping uti I ities out of parking lots.
Grittman noted that it has a periphery benefit of adding additional green space as an aesthetic
advantage. Grittman also noted that many businesses are already complying with this in there
site plann1'ng.
Grittman stated that the second issue addressed by the proposed amendment relates to joint
parking. TIW current code requires a planned unit development for all joint access or parking
12
I
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05
situation, which can be a cumbersome process for what is most often a simple site plan issue.
Girttman explained that a PUD designation rcquires that the City make tindings that there is
an extraordinary design advantage to justify the PUD. Grittman reported that staff is
suggesting that if the access and parking is truly joint, irrespective of lot I ines, the request
would need a CU P, rather than a PUD. In this way, applicants would also need to comply
with typical ordinance requirements. A CUP also does not accommodate the flexing ofthose
standards as with a PUD.
Grittman commented that staff bel ieves that the proposed changes enhance the uti I ity of
parking areas, ease circulation, and reduce the reconstruction of parking lots. Staff
recommend approval of the amendments.
Frie asked if a single motion would resolve both joint parking, drive and setbacks. Grittman
confirmed that it would.
Dragsten i nq u ired if the ord i nance setback was adj usted to meet the drainage and uti I ity
easement, where the cLlrb line would actually be. Grittman explained that in the case of
interior lot lines, where the drainage and utility easements are set at six feet, the setback is not
altered much as the back of curb would be at tive and a half feet. It would be in the case of
the exterior lot lines that the greatest shift would occur. Dragsten asked what the process
would be for two adjoining parking lots. Grittman stated that the expectation would be that
the proposal would require the CUP process as noted.
Chairman Frie opened thc public hearing.
Simola stated that the proposed amendment would need a small amount of rewording to
indicate that no parking may be located on drainage and utility casements adjoining a public
street. Frie asked where that information would be applied specific to the proposed ordinance
that the Commission had in their packets. Simola stated that he change would be to the
second page, second line. Simola stated that it should read "public drainage and utility
easements adjoining a public street". Grittman noted the change and indicated that it would
be restructured before moving forward to Counci I.
Hearing no tlmher eOl11ment, Chairman Frie closed the public hearing.
Dragsten inquired how this amendment could impact the CCD with its zero lot lines.
Grittman stated that the CCD has its own section requ irements for parking appl ications.
LJragsten continned it would not override those requirements. Grittman stated that the six
foot setback would apply to the CCD as proposed, but joint parking was already allowed.
Posusta asked Simola how wide average City streets are. Simola stated that they are between
32' and 36'. Posusta stated that the reason he asked is that when he sold his propeliy, the
City bought an 80' easement. Posusta noted that if the street is 32' from curb to curb, that
would leave 24' on each side of the road for easement purposes, and now the City is asking
for marc than that. Posusta stated that he is wondering how much property developers have
to give up to accommodate easements. Simola responded that when talking about
commercial propeliies such as those along School Boulevard, there is a 40' street within a 60'
easement. In that case, by the time the City adds street lights, the easement area is down to a
5' space between the street lights and parking areas for utilities.
Frie noted that the staff report had indicated that there may be property owners who abject, of
wh ich Posusta is an example.
Simola stated that utility placement has changed. Injoint trench situations, small utilitie,s go
13
I
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05
in all at once. I Iowever, there are many cases where the utilities may not go in all together.
Simola noted that utility companies, including Xcel, have asked to be in easement areas and
be more protected. Simola noted that the 10' easement requirement is fairly common.
However, it does make sense to line up the setback with the drainage and utility easement for
consistency.
Frie asked if the amendment is approved, is there a possibility of dealing with the exceptions.
Simola answered that the City could in some cases issue a license to occupy utility easement
areas. Grittman noted that the City might need to consider a variance for zoning issues in
some cases.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE
AMENDMENT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR
BETTER PARKING LOT DESIGN AND PURLlC UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
11. Consideration to adopt resolution findinb': that a lllodification to the redevelopment plan for
Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No.1 and TIF Plan for "('IF District No. 1-35
conform to the \!eneral plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. Appl icant:
Master's Fifth Avenue, Inc.
Koropchak provided the staff rep0l1, indicating that the Commission could take action this
evening, if they chose. She stated that what the Commission is asked to do is to find the
project consistent with the general development plans for the City. Koropchak stated that the
I-IRA has started the process for the TIF district, which will be a redevelopment district. The
Commission is asked to indicate support for the plan presented in terms of zoning,
comprehensive plan and redevelopment goals. Koropchak referred to the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Plan Map, showing TIF district areas where the HRA can create new
districts.. Koropchak referred again to the need for the inspector to make sure the three
properties meet the qualifications of the substandard and coverage tests requ ired by TI F.
Koropehak stated that the three parcels are currently located in TIF 1-22. Internally, this will
require the County to remove them from District 1-22 and establish a new district.
Koropchak reported that the TIF District would run for 25 years. The HRA is working with
the developer to determine the tinal amount of assistance.
Koropchak reiterated that it is important when using public dollars that the Planning
Commission looks at the finished product in terms of use to ensure the overall concept fits
downtown revitalization plans. Koropchak suggested tabling the item to the August 22nd.
Posusta inquired what would happen if the inspector finds the buildings are not substandard.
Koropchak stated that in that case, the staff recommendation to the HRA would be to not
establ ish a redevelopment district, perhaps instead a renovation district.
MOTION RY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO TABLE ACTION ON THE
RESOLUTION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMEN"r PROJECT NO.1 AND TIF
PLAN FOR
,
TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-35 CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR nlE
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY TO THE AUGUST 22'1<1
MEETING.
14
I
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/02/05
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED.
12. Consideration to adopt resolution finding that a modification to the redevelopment plan for
Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No.1 and TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-36
conform to the general plan for the development and redevelopment of the city. Applicant:
Rockv Mountain Group, L-LC
Koropchak noted that the Planning Commission would need to make the same findings for
consistency as noted in the previous item. Koropchak explained the project location at
School Boulevard and Chelsea Road near Otter Creek. Koropchak stated that Dahlheimer's
is the first proposed project for this district The City will enlarge the boundaries of the
redevelopment area in order to create districts within this area. Koropchak reported that the
infrastructure improvements by the City are on schedule, and should be done by the end of
October.
Frie asked how close 1-94 is to this area. Koropchak stated that the area zoned 8-4 and
retained by Chadwick lies between the City's park and the interstate. Koropchak stated that
the City business park is proposed to be an econolnic district, and does not need an
inspection. It does need to create jobs. Koropchak stated that the HRA has established
criteria forjob creation and wages. Koropchak stated that Dahlheimer's will retain 29 current
full-time with average $20.21 without benefits. The criteria within the business center to
receive the reduced land rate is to average at least $16.00 per hour without benefits.
Koropchak noted that the Planning Commission had received the exterior elevations for the
Dahlheimer building. It does meet zoning requirements and the owner is aware of the
restrictive covenants in place in the park.
Posusta commented that the Council is happy that Dahlheimer's is staying in the community
and commended Koropchak on her efforts in the process.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT
A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN POR CENTRAL,
MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND TIF PLAN FOR TIP
DISTRICT NO. 1-36 CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
MOTION SECONDED 8Y COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN. MOTION CARRIED.
13. Consideration of schedul in!!: UPCOln ing Plann ing: Commission Workshops
Schumann reported that O'Neill would have more for the Commissioner on this item at the
next meeting, explaining that the need for general and overall City planning efforts may lead
staff to ask for a second Commission meeting each month.
14. Adiourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO ADJOURN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED.
Secretary
15
I
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION - SPECIAL MEETING
MONDAY, AUGUST 22nd, 2005
6:00 P.M
Commissioners:
Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and
Sandy Suchy
Council Liaison:
Glen Posusta
Staff:
Jeff ()'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and
Angela Schumann
I. Call to order.
2. Consideration to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday,
August 2nd, 2005.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizen comments.
5. Consideration ofa request for Conditional Use Permit for a Development Stage Planned Unit
Development, and Preliminary Plat for Highland Villas (formerly known as Monte Club Villas), a
14.18 acre residential development.
6. Consideration of a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning from A-O to R-I
for Highland Villas (formerly known as Monte Club Villas), a 14.18 acre residential development.
7. Adjourn.
,
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/22/05
4. Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Development
Staee Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary Plat for Hie:hland Villas
(formerly known as Monte Club Villas. Applicant: L&G, LLC. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicants have proposed a 26 unit detached townhouse project that would
replace the Monte Club restaurant and develop the north side of the Monte Club hill.
The City Council approved the concept plan for this site with the condition that the
applicants adhere to the City's standard cash park contribution.
The proposed plan shows 19 units accessing a new private street from the upper area,
and 7 additional units accessing a separate private street down the hill to the north.
The applicants have provided a standard building plan that will be used for each of
the 26 units in the project. The details of the Development Stage plan reflect the
previous Concept Stage approval with regard to layout and dimensions. The
buildings would be setback just 20 feet from the curb in the narrowest dimension, but
rely on side-loaded garages and shared driveways to avoid direct driveway access and
garage door exposure.
Tn the upper section, the plan includes 25 visitor parking spaces to handle guests who
cannot park in the driveways when visiting residents of the project. The lower
section docs not include visitor parking. Staff would recommend that the private road
be constructed at least 28 feet in width to accommodate one-side on-street parking for
guests and visitors.
Although the buildings will not be built with garage doors facing the street, the plans
show that the garage wall will include windows, stone, and shake siding. These
materials are an important component of the PUD submission. The plans show
buildings with shallow-sloped roof" in the "Prairie" style, broad overhangs, tapered
columns typical of "craftsman" style housing, and horizontal lapped siding on the
lower levels. 'The plans dated 7/26/05 should be incorporated into any approval.
The grading plan indicates extensive retaining wall construction to support the design
of the project. Each of the two tiers will require twin sets of retaining walls that are
approximately 8 feet in height for each wall, sixteen feet in height for each of the two
tiers. The grading of the site will eliminate all of the existing tree cover on this
portion of the hillside. No information has been submitted with these plans as to the
design of the wall. The applicants have indicated that they are working with a
concrete block manufacturer on the design and color of the wall units. This material
would commonly be submitted as a part of a development stage PUD application.
The wall material should be consistent with the house siding stone.
,
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/22/05
It has been a goal of the City to develop a trail corridor through the site connecting
the Fenning Avenue trail with the Watertower Park. The grading plan remains a
work in progress which limits staff ability to provide Planning Commission and City
Council with assurance that the design of the PUD will compliment trail and park
requirements. Approval of this pun should therefore be conditioned on development
of a grading plan that supports achievement of pathway and park development goals
for the area.
The applicants have submitted a landscaping plan that shows overstory plantings on
the site, as well as shrub plantings along the wall sections. There arc no individual
unit landscaping plans included with the package. Moreover, the plans do not include
sizing of material. The planting along the wall sections is sparse front an overstory
tree standpoint, with ornamental crabapplcs spaced nearly 60 feet apart, and no tree
plantings below the lower wall. In addition, the only overstory tree specified is Sugar
Maple - this in an area where dozens of mature native oaks arc being removed.
Planning staffbelieves that in addition to being significantly underplanted given the
extensive grading and wall building, the plant selection should be given much more
thought. A project of this profile and value, as represented by the applicants,
deserves a much more extensive landscaping treatment that has been provided for.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat
for Monte Club Villas
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Development Stage PUD and
Preliminary Plat for 26 units as proposed by the developer, subject to
normal park dedication requirements, with conditions that the applicant
provide more detailed information relating to landscaping, wall
construction, and other specifics, and that the street width is increased to
accommodate on-street parking in the northern section.
2. Motion to deny the Development Stage pun and Preliminary Plat, based on a
finding that the existing land use designations of Commercial and Medium
Density Residential should be retained.
3. Motion to table action on the Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat,
based on lack of information to justify approval of a PUD.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The plans as submitted arc engineered, but the design development required of
Planned Unit Development at the Develo~ment Stage of approvals is not met. -rhe
Development Stage PUD constitutes the approved Conditional Use Permit- the
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/22/05
applicant and the City need to understand all of the conditions that will apply to the
project so the City can justify the tlexibility ofTered by PUD, and the applicant can
factor in all of the City's requirements into their final plans. That level of detail is not
present with these plans. As such, planning staff recommends tabling action on the
project. Also, due to recent revisions to site plans, staff have not been allowed time
to complete a thorough review of engineering documents for the preliminary plat.
It has been in pushing PUD projects through prior to a complete and detail submittal
package that the City has ended up with projects that do not meet its standards.
While this project promises to be of higher quality than many others, the detail in the
plans has not been provided at this point. Moreover, due to the extreme impact on the
landscape resulting from this project, the City should understand the grading, wall
construction, and landscaping prior to any binding approval.
f f the City plans to approve the project at this time, conditions should be added
relative to submission of more detailed landscaping plans, information on the wall
construction, and the ability to complete a thorough engineering review of grading,
drainage and utilities.
The Planning Commission and City Council may also want to make a
recommendation directing staff and/or the developer to outline community awareness
measures regarding this project. Staff believes that the initial visual impact on one of
the community's landmarks may generate significant comment trom the public. "fhe
ahility to convey the ultimate product on the hill may be an essential step in
mitigating negative feedhack.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Existing Conditions
B. Preliminary Plat
C. Preliminary Grading Plan
D. Preliminary Utilities Plan
E. Preliminary Lighting Plan
F. Plat Grid
G. Unit Floor Plan
H. Building Elevations/Materials
I. Landscape Plan
J. Engineer's Comments
"ON '6.~ :OIl0u
h"l:i'"-~g~-Cll, lfYJ llQ'Q'-~IH::-rgl :ll~
~i~TQ-1l0\b!i: Nl'l' 1;i~Hi '!JJ~u~ i'SUIJ VlOrt
DN'ddVn
!JNfI.fHtll:>I''13 "'11fI11:
ONIJ,.:-liI1Ul$ ON"n
':)ll '0 JS' l
NV'l 'OIl<l:JnUOV'l JO Al':) j€
Oll]:)11NOV'l .:10 S\;tll;^ ~
,,,
::!lVQ
,_ OO'j,lOO=W:'ON ]llj
a-i~5138d-~Jllj ~MG
J]"-'- ''\9 U'l"JJHJ
,- ~:)'Nr'8(- :),8 NMV~U
~ :),,8 NDlS3a
~~~ W67iJ---31VU
'ONI 'S31,V100S8V 'B
NOSU3Cl3d '.1UWOOO
SUO!l!PUOJ 5UnS!X]
-'"-"~""--:pliu6!S
'"
'"
~ ~
" 0- ~
" w
Z >< 8 0 '" ~
w "- z ~ '" " "- :; ~
'" 0 .. ':J 0 0 '" w d '" '"
'" u ~ is z =>
0- "- 0- ~ ~ u ! => 0
~ '" z > :; :; ~ ~ g 0:
'!! ~ ~ 0- U <0'
W '" ~ g ~ -' 0 "-
15 a a I 0- >- if 8 z
~ is a: <> j => ~ ~ 8
'-' => => <> 0
~ <> <> " z " " " <> " " " '" " <, " " <> "
z " Z :J 0 0 z z z " Z Z Z " Z z z ~
1= i= ~ w 5 Q; fi i= fi ~ fi i= ~ fi i= fi ~ ~
'" '" ~ '" '" '"
\i B B I~ Ii' '" I~ B l~ 8 l~ B 8 B B ~ ~ B
'" t r [
- - - .""----L- _ _ _ _ J__ . 0 <> ~ X <;>- 1 '" EI @6fl [J]~HI
.
- - - - - -
\ / / / / "
/, / / I
/\/ / / /" /
'",I \/ / / /
1'1"/ / !
l' ~J---J -- "" , ' / 1/"1// ' ",-- - ", -- ", " III I
""" ",.,." \ \ '- . / /\ I -",_ \
"" ' ./ I I \ \ 1
~]MOl " ",. \ \\ \ \; - "' _ ", ..." -,' /' 1 / ", ". \ \ I I
~ ~~,..../ ....\, \, <.;' .-- ....~ I' lO~~O ' ~ ".... I
\.. \J ,,-' '__" \ \ \ -', ( .. , - - '" - ". . ,,'. I
':J \ -' ' -'" "-, \ \ \ \ I - - - . - --" '-', '. J I
<\ }'/. ....., \ \ \ '~-' -- _J_ ~ _ ~~~'" , -.'........................... '..... '\ "....... I
a'" \ --,"' j"'" \ \ \ \ fr- - .---" __, '--,,_ -"," " ,'\ -'"
~--- .- L ,""- ,- '\ \ \ \ \ \ \ / ,-. -^' ..-'-- .' t9'~(" - >::::'\, '\ '. '''-,,- I
~- -, -- __t:=.....=s.~ H ) I ' \ \ \ -," J - ,,-- . (I'n" ...CO"'. --..-, - '\1\;'11.", I I
- - "-!J - - - - - ,.c;-.~~X --. \ I \ -- - <- --- - - --; , . - - --- :3 ..,. ~ln;as'~' ,_~".l!,~ 'l_~. n :aIN \ ", I
- .' ,'------ ~'% ' \ ,",- --,/ $~ll:- -- __..",. _, , "_:",',, ,,...'It I
- - - ,,-' / ,/ ~ ......./ I I \ \ I -. -\;-, --) 1" '." ~ :::-.3.Ili,.,.-&Zf4 - -=-9Z'69- -, !\.. - ,\ '-" -- "J\. ,,":';''., ~i: O( oils 11
,,/ \/ ......./........ / 1 \ I .;;,,,,,,.,. "'I~;~",<'I .:.... J(1~";i(...eN,,..,~( ",. I \::_'/~h,.,,"r:::0 ',' --'-" i '"
" ,"""" ~ ~ / I · '~-;:. " / I \...... ___ __" \ I " \~ 'Y'''J'. ~"" ~ .", . \' I
\ / ;<.~ I :;; I m..", - . /l.9..jI".99N. :::'::--...': _ _ (---- . _ ., ,'" "l. ..asl'l - c,,,,,
\ / / .~} '";0.,.;;;- r \ ( , ~, , rr
I / /' -------"'.LI ",t,.." i" (// ", \ ~\~:":'-".,,_'<>,,'
... I' -- ---." 'j,,,' . I" \ I - II I
I~ ,I / // ;: ;..1, --/ / "I <'11" / I \ \ I -C-1.--LI~\ t j
/ \ .,./" . /., --... "" ",", )'1'" r \ I ", '" -, \ ". \ \---- J' 1\
,,/~,{,,<- "",./ 11/; '---t I.) ! )'-" '\\\:~ ~~' \ ,. 1 I
'lr:f~--- /0/~' ~ .... ; J 1 . 7tJ '-...., \...... .... -.:) I
\" ,I ~ . " ,~'OO,"" '<'<' ..' / Ii '- I I < ~. <111> ,'. , , \ \
// ,:~/),:>// /"?"?>;~~'~~:/)il('--"'--------- I ". '''Iii "!r"~'~~~I~\I'~\il II I
/"' , ;" ri //' ! / //j;l"! ;r / ~,1 / --... --- I \'\:, 1'11/11 1
..' I,' / \ I ( 'b~r I /f Of, -, -- ~ ----2: ~ ' \ r I 1111 I
/ / / I :' \ - ", I I tQ~f' ( / / /). I ~t ,. vi ::--."'n....- ," " " III1 (1/11,) ~ II
/ / " /:' --\'-, ) II f/ I / I fl!l (9 j ,,'- //,e".I, - --- ". ilIIUI/III!~\ I
/ / /1 \ 111 I I I (I;-!/.;; GHGr, r' .'__ I:~\, --- ) /111111118
" / I I " "^' '\! \ I I \ ld~) i ;j "'/. /" " (!~ // ' m "K[>, '. "\ --- --- J 1\\\ 1,II'i II I ~ I
/ / .: I" 1 \1 I I I ))'(/ I / /.J ,/ J '......., '\ ! ,,' ", "'jf '. ;":,; L\. '" ,,1\\ \1\m\\I\I\~ --- ~111111 \ I I
i / / I I / J r: II ~ I I I 'f " Frl \ \\ \ \ I(t'{;i,. lJ \~" , ) 11\11 ~.. ./ l,/l\\\I/!!1I1 L \ 1
L.I--I;~'\-'t~\ \ \ \1 \ [I I///!'" , .. <'\ \ \ I \\1 e ~J --.\ " , .' )\1\ III'II~- I I
- - - ~- !! I \\ \ \ \ '. \,.\,,\,,>,~/ /A~. \:\"~\ \ {\\~ll' I I,,;t \ ~ .1/),111,:/1
/ itl I \ \ \........ "\ \,\ ,\, I~ ~ ~ _ ....... '\ I j \ - II I} ()NI\11I,j(l '/~IIIII I
\ ;-r/ 1\\\ \<",\\~<":"/ /""",\\~I, \ f,~1<.J"iI<!\1 \'iJ><Q, t;1, \ ]'1 "NII"'^,\~\.\\-'_ ';1/1//111/1\
\,' i / \\\ ,."."",,,:-'::;, /'1:' -.".\'\\~" JJ,)'&i!"'\/' ,y.... ".. \/. \ IV"-""-' III~(II i I
)\\\( / /\\ \ \,,-,',,''':'?,.,',>::>:~~, ----"J~ \) ~ \\ \ \c\~ \<~~~ I (fJ)}f(~ \ \IU~\ ,,,,- -,,' "" /j) 1/11.1/\ Ii I
) 11\\ / \ \. '. '_- ,--" _-^~'. ;' ,\ I \ 'A \ \ \ \ '<:\. \ \' \ ',,' ~I - 'r'~} (.k~~>/-.:: '" '. ," ~(I(/iI'I,'. I
. //\11 \',,,--. ---,,:,,-~\",,/\/I\\.\\..l\.\'!fIil,\\ f,1 1/!jIJ// ~IM'II,IIIIJ\'lrR
.. I \ - '~~ ........, J ) ( l \ ~ \ La f1JW \ ~~ --" '\// / II- J 'Wj I <: I
- - - -, - - - - --,-" il-Irf- --:. :....~.-?-.---:'_.-iT\\\ \\----'<;- r-(\-\-l~r.;-\"\' J -:,; -'~M,----r"'--/'I-.-7'a/ III :$ -"~-,,,,:,,;;:;;:,~,- II "(/iJI \ I ~
)), ; I /~~ ~ - --_ '-" \ \ \ '\ \\ \ \) l 0&\ ~'~,\V) (&l~i!\~)~ ""'~ ("X" I / 11 (iJ), il~~~~I~ii:'~ /llt l' ,-..,
'orT" ~ -~v -r" -" ..:0-,.- ~ ro i.."" '~'" 0... \-\A~' -'\Ii,., ~'")- "-""7-"~ 1'- -l" - ,"- r ".r '" ,,- - ^' 't J . ''''L-'I'
--- 1:..///// ":::"", _'''~",\\~,~~,><\\.\\\_'/;;/;'I'.- ,..<\-)i --~-/:!.C"::?:1?y;;,,~':=-~- 1,/,1 __
- - -- - - - --- ,-, --t ~c -,',. --r-- - - ~_ ---r~4) 't."r\, d~<\ \ ' \\ H /; t ~/ \~ " / r 7 <j "I'~ " I / ~I I I { I
I - - III II (c, / .I', "', "'" \ \'<,,,^-\\l.l~"~"]\];"'\'l'~d~-'I-'\ \ (fj~~~\:7\") / J / I (( .,,; ',~:~,;1 ////'///II~),.
I' ,'I 1"'" I '" ", ~ i'/1),\I\I\\ \ \ ' 1;..~), I I; -'/11' I'
~i$ "- Q',ltli I I II 1 1 (~1 I /', '''', ',. :;,., ~ ')) /(/ Iii I i \ \ I ~ \ \ \ \ "-:<~ ,:=--k//~ / /1 ) ) -, ,-,-~,: ' '//~:f'~/I ""~" ~ I
I. ,"~ _ _ _ " )J+++ I 1- ~ - - '\"1__ - -' --+- I -I- - fiT+! \ -\ ,~---"~,, , . ,-/ Tr r 7 --1-'--- /:: r",,>, ,- rlh 'f I
,-r, .."'''/')11 I~:,J/' 'T ".""\ );' j:il(/~l\,'\,,,\'<<'''~'~' __'-.,,-"":-/,1/11 -"/// / 1////1/\'1
I /' '\~D .' '::.'../ . ~~I J [! 'q;r /." ~Z. ~r'x. I / / /I/i//~> ')' ~;::.:.>> _ -: ---:. ~~. :,.~~;:.:_~.."<..~~I /~,/ //lll/\ ;<: I
I / ~~:;' \-/ (/(.tl I, '. \~ 1 I{ 1(11/ //" z,__",~, :':":".--"'.. - -_:-". / //)If/I "11[11
I !, '. \ \'"'" I I / " \, \ 1 II /" / ", - - -- - -,,- ,,' ,,' - "' I J' \ I I
I / \\ \" \ \ \\11 (' \. \\ III IIII,---~ '-.--'_.,>-----.-" _:---:' "::-:'"'-,,,, ,-/. " '//!/ \-
1/ \ \ \ '. \ \\\\1./, \\\,1,,11111\'..,,, _ ___ .::"--' ",_ If)""O'f:' ::'_. - )// " \
I ;' \,. \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ ( m '(';" i~ \ \ '. \!,j \. ,\ \ \" .' d - - ':' / -, - - -- ~,:,! /" ---- " ' . / / / / II j . I . I I
I \ \ '; i\ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1;1) ,.~, \\ \\ \\ ,\\.\\\~ '\,\+"1;) :, >::.- / 0]000.. - j / I -- 1(1//1 \ I
\ I \ 'I' \ \ I " \ ""\ \\ \ '0- ,\ \ '. <-. "" .. " ".- -" ! I 1 J
1/ \ \ \ \ \ }'011\\'\1 ~~i(\ \,\.\~<,\\\\\\".,./,/../ ://111 \ "
1/ \ \ '\ i / I {I\\\ /. "',,\'\o~i\'\\\>:\~;i'<':.. "."'.,' /)/.'/1 - 11-
~ \ I, I J I \ ~ ....... '"..... '0 '. \. ,..~\ ~ /" "" I , !, .-,,-.
a
""
ffi
a
2'
i':
a
'"
--.
",
"-
'-.
/
\1
, I
II
f'"". )
/
"
"
......,
.~~....
NOlldlClJS30
y
~
"
o
!
] 1:
" "
r~:
]~~
" 0
~8ti
E ~o':
Ulna.
l'~~
g~]
~~'i
i~ ~
~~5
:: ~R
~ 01~
.....~ In Iii
13"0"""'''
~ tl.g-[
~.~~~
] ~B c
111 0 ''= S
:~2 ~ (J>
. . <
I~t~;~,
..
..
I
'5
.
~
o
"
o
~
~
I
"
.
o
'0
"'i-
""'0
",,,
"
.;
,
a
u
.1'-'
_ 0
"
E .
~"
Oi~
-l'i' u
~ ::'
~'O
~ ~.
Ot]
.g~
:;:<:
B .~
a. 0
u~
.0
~ f;
:i 0
~~
",' 0
E~
.~~ IJ
iH
f~'~
~jt~
~ ,u ~
: ~:~o
f~~;~
='= <) ~) ;z:
~ g g ~l
~.~ ~-g
.....!: I;)
~ . a
~'o ij
~ ti .. ~~
IlJ IJ u III
~~ ~'~
H,H~
~tE~~
"--; L") l 111 IlJ
~l .- g ~
IH~j
~~~~iil
..c: ~ \/I U VI
iHH
c
'~
]
Ul ~
Q g
o "
H
N I'i
"'
'"
<0 ~ Ii
'"
'" "
d => ~ ~ '0
Z l:J ,,' ~
0 '" ~ 0
~ "- 5 '" g "- " ! g: g z ~ 0
"' ~ ~ 0 w ~ '" w ~ 4~
'0 " is v, " u
0 >- Z 0 Z "
,- "- "- ~ ;; u 0 ~ i3 ~ w
~ .~ ~ " :; 0 0
~ "' ~ .l' " ~ ... ~ ~ ~ '"
" w ~ ~ " ~ '.li ,. '"
=>"- r 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -' ~ ~
it' IlJ ~ ii. " ,. ~ v; j
" ::; :J '" I " 8
j1 '" Z :> Z '" '" j1 " '" g " '" '" " '" 0 ~ ~ 0 0 ~
Z :JCI~ Z Z z Z Z \1 '" ~ w w g
fi " " Z z i" '" '"
fi w Z - fi fi fi fi " fi fi fi fi fi ti " C> 0 it' C> g
We~ B '" ~ ~ & g; ~
~ B " B B B B 8 ~ B 8 l~ B ~ ~
'" ,., rr if ~
" ~
A p ! . 0 <> ~ 1( -<;>- 1 w' B <i;J9@ [~ ~)ilt I . . , g ~
~ 3
"
It il iD
I . \:! ~ ~
i . ~ ~
$ h ~ ~
~ I!:'
~ ~ g ~
~ > f
g . . . 3
~-~ ~~ ~
~ ~ .~T ~
u
~ III
'" ------"
y "1.~ ~~ ~
~ B ~o !
~~ ~~
r>i'! fi" am
::i ,5
'QN 'Ou~
:UVG
'ON
^J"
OO'''lOO-'SO :'ON :::IlU
a'?'!Jlr13~d-t:31t.:J tlMG
~ 'A8 q'"JJHJ
O:)'N("si'- :)...8 NMv~a
Nr - ;Al:I N:JIS]G
<;o~.- '3"0
"'~"-:P<ilub!S
:ii1ltJ(]
ll::~~f~~'~~l"~~~iji ,~~~~f9l''.:-;.:(gl'J!i
''';i>-NI'S3ividgl~~~;~;A
NOSU30id '.LUVOOB.
UOld 5u!poJO AJOU!W!laJd~
.Jll '0 Jll l
NV'I 'olla:J!luoV'l JO Al!J )!
Oll3JI1NOV'l JO SVlll^ R
.
c
I
(l'o...
L:
c ~
H
~~
Q .
Go
-"
~ '
~F
~~
ii
;g -g
~ Q
Q .
~j
:~~
:H
Qu
~ .;-..;
3~o
c"
~~f
"
.
~ "
r~~ ..
..,"2~
~:9o ~
~ E? .~
~~~ *
o
,n
~
~ ~
il .
~ il
~ ~
" .
~ a
~ J
~ ~ -, !II
'n~
~ .... H
ti ~ Z. ~ r
d .,; <c i
~ < >
!' ~ !'
" ~ ~. :
~;:J.d:Elt
- .:-~j ~ {
1::'
u
IllL
:C
u
!
~
'"
!5
f2
~
,-
"
o
~,
~~
;':
~
g~3; g
> I'J~O I..r.w~
~3~i ~
z ~~:.:
Wlfl~,. ~
':i:::lo!S 0..
/}, ::::lVlI>. W
~ UllL..u)tll ~
~ 5 ~~t15~
::;,,~." lr rObZ~ ~
(:) z :iitWW
Q (:tLLlI..LI'~L.""I
..... t-: ~C'ln II II
9 C;l ~A u 00
~ S...J((J~~
f cnVlII.lnl..L
I
I <::t'-~
~ ! ; ~
~
;;.
~ I
'"
I
~.
~ \1
E':
" ~
I
~
\
Z
o
"
~
$
~~~
c t g .~
H~ ~
~ ~ ~ .~
c ..
g'3~
.~ 0 3
"" '"
~ ~.: ~
~]~ if
~.f ~,
~ ~ ~
~i:~
"U~;,::
c ".
""
t~~
~2.g
:( ~;!
~
w
gi g
;l if
~ ~
S ~
~ ~
~
)
~ .
,,11
b
llt
.e <
, 0
~~
"'..
,.
~
*
;
~i~
g@ 0"
"~ @<
J6 S~
f~R' ,0
:~1:
.,;
d
~:i
Z
~~
<t~
t:!I'J
<,
z>-
~d
o=>
"'"
Zu
~~
~~
o
w
'"
it'
o
if
"
c
"
B
.~
I,j
rZ
"'>-0
~:i~lJ..i
I, U
::g~~
tjgl3W
~g;-~
I:i~l~~
1-0Dw
OWl......!
ZultllO
",N
j:)-
,-
E
'c
E
tl~.!,.
:2t5
,~! t,
l:t:j--
i"z
~~
~~
o
2'"
~i
e
" 0
VjQ n
o
c
"
I
"
.0
H
~~ ~
~u
e ~
,~ 0
~E
!.
o
0"
'>:Cl
".
" ~
"
~~
.- .
~'o
\E]
~';:
~ ~
\'\ "
N
~~.
~f
" '0
.~ ,~
c .
~5
. r
"-
"1J 'j
o E
~.E
.~ fi
~.~
"0
o ~
~ :~
Q "
;.8
~~
~'~
"' "
>= ,-
~]
4' ~
'E~
~.~
'w
g
'"
"
~
..
.,;
ui
'i'
o
~,m ........v
~~g~8~2s~~
oz~'g ~zt:.~ ',_
'" C; / ./ 1"1 r
"'S8[iRjif /' /~':';:'J( /
", l;~,~~ (SE/~ 2;"~/ {v \;;i.( I /
\ //~~~'1'~8z}='8 "-'-.,.....1,./
" / / /"~~;S:;"~~~~~:J'il - ~,.
.,,) \ /././ ~~..... I..... /" CLl.aJ;:;....J ""
'0. i.- / / / /,.d />,~ _'u
6!;'lIl.; /3/.lt.60,llll<$.' /, <:"
(t<' -,'4.~;~*1-r
\~r"
'{J)"Oto;,
k.(;i
"
-':-:~:i" ", ".~'"r~~\\i/.'
----'f; ", :!~ . \(_/(10),
--.J;}<l" "~] ,~.,,'~' ~', / ~-'--
"', "'.'.. :} ~,' / ..j 'al.,____
"')?~ "I,,' '';k, "
-1tY I " ' "...<~
\\
\\
\
-. __.n.
-.. 'oN 'O,,~ .-. :.,quU ..-.
-.. ..-..... - -~ OO"WQ~W"ON ~t'ii-l'll~"nlt ;II:V,1 ~~ij.-I::'it:~IiW~ .111 lDld AJDU!W!I<lJd
311, -.. . n_ :p.u6!s Ul't..lloClitW NI1 '~]).jjlQ 'Ull.lHii .H:~..:I i1lOCI
--'".',- -- 1---", !\fl<l l]~id-~']llj OMG '"""'0
.." ..- ~NI~rnNI:>N3 "Ml;) , ..
".'._n ~ '^8 03~"lHJ ~NU..:~MmS <lNV"l '~
----.- f-- ..m;oNI's3ivi5ossv. ... ... .. ')11 J!i' 1
.-..., -." .-. 5:YNrW- :)..ij NMVClU
-.,-" -- Nr-l 'OIl<l:JilUOr-l All)
Hr--- :A8 NOl530 NOSl::liOEld '.1I::1VOOO )0
NO'J"'~JS}O 31'9'0 'ON wm--'3JVa Oll])IINOr-l
.- A]" 30 SVlll^
---
Ik
IlIr-~
It: .:. 1"1
I .' Ii.
I'U'N-~ ~
I I I .. ~ ~
-~-~ -~"__l~-;t~ i ~
j ..' I .:. I ~ li
i'" i --':',._ i
,
,
l____..~_L______j_
:G
.
'"
o
'"
;;;
J
J
~
~
'0
o
o
(J
~
]
'0
~
(J
.
.
o
u]
l'
.J!
.,
'"
,
.
"
lo,~ ~o:.- 5; ~
~
t g ~
~:!i ~
Q:: ~ ~
Q..E-.... iT.
~
j,
"
~
"
~ ;
-< Ii:
on
oj-
" k
.,-
ha
~o
~~
,~"
I
I
I
:;1 8 ~,
~~~ ~l:i ~._m- ~\
i~~ ~ ~'~''''~''
~ .:;:~~~ I,
",''''_-.j~I~,~::''"'"l
, .... ~'~ :;, ,
~0~ :(I>I~(\J! J ;I~/
:~:: II . I I]
".-d 1~. JI \M ~
. H L .\ ,,;;\.
.~~::~; ~~~;
"
Ji
'"
"
;i;
~
~
..
"
z
<
0"
i~ E:[
c-~ 41
0..... ~..o
:.::; ('I :1:.....
~.....:5 0
~'g~~
~~.s :.
'-III ..
uoQ-
'.-
0.1:1)2
~!~;
~.g]~
2'.....I'I~
.o~
;~.:~
!!~~~
~~~:
~.E~~
:!~L~
~ ~..~ g
Lt:j~
'b~ \!'';;
~g~~
..... I) 0 lJ
S:;~~
!.li~
o u Z 0
;=5~
:].B&
;~1l1J
:i...........1U
o Ii)..c
Ult:l~t
0_0
~1..J"'" Z
.E v ~'" III
U 0,1:
~iit>~
,,~
.-.... c ~
.~ttf~~
o 0
o.~oJ
~.~li
"ij .,0
C tL III /
r~14>
~ c _ c
~J~~
>;~
~ 5 0
'6 g~ ~~~~~~,~
~gE~~~o;:g:
.9 ki~5 ~.~ ~~~
~~,2;~~EE~~
Ed: 8 o~.....,tr
::i!IiIQf~i!~~~
~] j -l~ ~~ ~ ~
1-...... ILl 1l",:J't1
iifHHH
uNW a V ...,..... 41
~~~~'~~~M;
~~~:~~{l~~
8!~~~ ~~:"~
tia:ll~I"1<t~oN
u.....::;-inlf')a~u1
~f-~~~~~~~
H~iHH!'
:J~\.:~ tJ1!~~
~lI) 'II ~"'I 1) ~
~~~~i1 ~i 8~
~o~8~r::o:~
~ f .[~ ~ t~ ~ g ~ ~
~ ~~"~~~;il.~~
~ ~ggZ~~u Q.~
o ~: ~!j~i,~lii!
~ ~ ~~U;d~~~~~.8.
.,"\ . ."It\.j~,f.:( -"',
~~:r" V -..,
.~-{!) ""<")1...'
."-..
~ i ,__
ij J.
n
-"
6 ~
!iil ~u~ '/&1 d/rjJ. }c .:J~S JIJ
1-/1 .15 81./1 jO 1-/1 38 a/I} j/J
'~iJj ~'fjl- "SiilM Bin jO BU!} }s/J3 -~"....;":';:;~-::'"
.....,.._L.
I
I
')
~ i 'I '
III I
~; ~ ~i:~ ,',~ J:i.l :n :i: J f; ',:
,,. ....
~..
:<
~
..~
3
>-
t!!
o
o
"
o
'"
"'
M
~
-q"'
" ~ ~
~ ~ 11 u
~~:~~,~ " ~
~o.~ci~9 "
. ~
. ~ J "'" \1 '" . ~ ~
'opH~ ~ "
~ ~ ~ e
~ ~..., ~ ~ Ir} S " ~ b
V}~~&~ ~ E 2 E.~ ,,~
1.0..1 '?i ,).., ~ H; t"t)
'~iII1f~~~ '0 .J
.~ ~ b 0; g ~ ~
i.~H~ E _ < ~ ~ ~S
~ ai E ~ ~ 1jp)~ 1;~~
in'ahi!: <3,i '" 0 ;; :ilR:~ h;.,
~
~ n 8 '" ~ ~
~ ~ I ~ is
~ ~ ! ~ g!
~ '" ~
B i
il'
c.
:s I
~~',:
'u .
<
,
1
N1
_C.I
1
~ :
:---;~=~
1
I
----I
"I
I
,
~.] :
~.~.s ~
~ ti g 10 IJ
oJ:~"'~
.~ Q ~ ~ ~
-- ~u
:;s.!! .5'~ ~
i'il:i'3E~
~~8::::a
~~~i!~~
".'< l;.'~ f,
~~~~i; I
~~~~1l~
; ~~ t!O:;
~Qo~~i~
0;( _.....IIl
~ ~~i5o-2~
~df.r~ ~
o..ti c: Qjl....< ~
\I 3 ir;.u U), .
Ss~tJi~
~~~~~~
5
" c "
U o ,
~ g ~:
,s )I
:i. B 00
'" '" 6-&
g u] w w "]
~ ~ '" W % ",-
>< Z '" g '"
~ "- z i '" g >- :0- ,. '" $ "
~ 0 0 w ,. '"
'" 1.' ~ >- ~ :.;0: '" 0., => a 0 :0-
!5 B :? u ..,
z ~ 0 z (J ~ '"
~ ~ ~ < < ~ u ;f is ~ z '"
~ ll' ~ '" ~1 ffi j ~ Z
I 0 >- ~ ~ z 8 ~
8 a 1[' ii: .., "- >- a 'g 8 B
0 :-, ::i " I
" " \1 " " z \1 \1 " \1 " " " " " " " " '" vl '"
~ z " :J " ~ z ~ z z z " z z " ~ >-
~ ~ ~ ~ G G G Ii; G G G ~ G ~ ~ '" 0
W ~ I~ Z
t B 8 f.i ~ I~ B B B 8 B j B B B '"
" 0
l e I . 0 <> .. x 9- 1. '" [] @Jill [E (EHI: ':1 @ ~
~
.
~
.
_ ;:;,~l
'"
{::'
"ii.
1(1';;
');'..r.'~
"Ao
/".
g
.---- .--...
u__.._. '_.._'m__. 'oN '6~~ -..,. -"-:a10Q UD!Sao ^l!l!ln AJOU!
to"~Il:l-l~i:-['gl ~I("'.:i llZ"il~l!iZ~,"lIl n:u.
.,..-.- ......,. .-- OO'HOO'-<;O :'ON 311> llCI:i~(j{)C<';~;: H" 'l:j:tll:)'38 'i]]~15 lSUIJ 1l1.0fl
---,_.,. -"',. ,.---~ :pauc!s
-" ((I
-.,., "",""",^'"'. ,.,,--- lljh-nlJ;nmIJ ~Ma 9NI~.rBNlaN.~ 'HAl::! .
.-.",- _.._,~-,- :i:j,,--- -.-- ;),,8 t1NLL. :.IMlflS ONV.l 'Jll
..------- .._-', .-..- - 01>1:)]HJ ;5Ni"'S3!vi50SSV'B '" '" "
, --_.,~....,.- ~8'Nr'8r 'AS NMVCjCl 'OllaO!l uoV'l
._'~... ,,_-~,_'.",_..._. '-.'-'- -,,~-, NOSl:I303d 'UIVOOB NV'l
.-.-- ,-- Nr =.A.B N~t5~(]
NOljollIJS1O 31_0 'ON ,0/6/9 .., ',(_0 Oll3JIINOV'l JO
-- K~~
w!laJ,
'~ Jjj'
JO A1!:
S'v'lll,
'" z
~ ~ w 0
!E >=
<0 .... .., "l i ~
::J '" w '" "' 2
" ~ ~ "' g ~ ~
" z g Q z .... w " ~ w
'" .... '" "- w ~ ~ ,. ~ ~ ~
w ~ ~ '2 ~ ~ '" 0 l>I " >- 1<
w 0 " ~ ~ ::J '" " ~
"- I.. "- ...." ~ ~ .... u U OJ 0 ~ >
ffi i5 ~ > ~ f<. ~ f '" f;! ~ ~ ii! ;" ;" ~ ~
ffi '" ~ u " ~ ~ J J ~ w
~ ~ & ~ ~ ~ j ;:> ~ ~ ....
.. j >- ~ " 8 ~
if' "- >- ::J if 0 v, u '" I <>
" u :J :J I <> " u
'2 wO " ~ ~ ~ ~ D " ~ ~
" " z :t z " " " " " " " u " <> " ~ w w w
~ z z ::lOa? z z z z Z Z Z Z Z Z ;, '" U> U>
~~ >= Iii ~5~ >= Iii Iii Iii Iii >= >= >= Iii Iii ~ 5' "- if' if' 5' j <l.
z B 8 ~ E 8 '" 0 ,0 :f :f :f 0 0
.5 ",OW L~ I~ " 1":1 .5 .5 .5 if it' if if :f
.... "- '" .., Q "- "- Q,
" l ~ ! . Q <> ~ x -?- L '"' 8 €/lfll [IJ ~ I . . I . I . ..- :r
'"
J " -
u I I I
0 U>
~
N "'", '"
'" 5l,..,
--'
--' u'" u
u >"
0. o.Vl 0,
u
B u '"
w> W
'" W 0. Ol
W Ol. E'
""
Ol ~~
2 '"
",,, ~
'" W
:!Coo
:;;' WNN '"
r Vl ^ V ~
>- '"
........ ",,,,Vl "
.. <(II ....
Z ~ ............ '"
>- --' ~fu~ --'
~oo --'
.... --' ..
:::; <( . (5 15
F ..;
N......
f~
"J
':I
"-
OG'ZI.
l
<b
'to
.,-
<toy
%<>
'<>
l~
')
I
II
'.
l
~
;-:111
;:: ,- ~
'-'.., ....,
~
.
o
~
"
g
~ ~ ~I
!!:, ~ ~ ...
'd
6G'Stt
'0'] .tt.60.00 5
I
NOI1JIlIJ51a
I
I
I
,m I ':I
"
L !!I....
~1\
: L \
'ON 'Oai:j
UDld 86DU6!S/6U!l46!1 AJDU!W!18Jd
:~lD()
HilH i:91. rill ,)[Wj i:Z99~l:9l: nil. ,'O.l.
n~6-00t"~1,: Nn 'ij])lJ::l!i 'In1l15 15UU il(.I:H'l
DNlcldVn
~NI~fnNION3 11M)
~)NU. iYtlUIS UN',n
m;ONi'S3.L"iOOSSY"
NOSHil03d '.1HVOOO
':)11 '8 ~ 1
o
N~ '01l8:)!l UO~ JO A l!:) ~
0113:)11NO~ ..:10 S'V111^ ~
OO'HOO"'!;O "ON :rll,j
lH~H1-1~tld-~ :']11.:1 ~Ma
TIJ'<"'' 'AS 03>J]HJ
OJ'Nr'8r ;A8 NM.~O
-- - r:ii""~--:m N0I5]Q
ma ~1~ s5?678-']!..a
:pillUf)~S
"'
0> --'
0
'" "
>-
"' ~ PJ "'
d ,,' "' -,
z 8 '" '" ~ ~
x "- Z '"
~ "- z ~ 5 g <: ~ .g
;'j ~ 0 ." ~ ~ 0
"' ~ ~
'" >-'- ::: .~ () 0 () 0 0
z '"
;;: '" & ~ "' " ~ if () <: t;' ')i
~ ~ ::E II) I ~ '" ,. ~ ~ F (l, ~ ~ "
" a. '" I;: ~ 1l u, ~ [f 8
ilia: ::; ::; '" llJ ()
\1 \1 ~ ::E ~ '" \1 '" \1 \1 " " " '" \1 \1 " "'
; :l 0 '" " " " z " " " '"
ei ei ::JF ~ ~ '" ei Iii '" E'i t;; F ~ Iii f;; "
8 8 VI ~
13 " I~ " " B ~ 13 l~ 13 13 13
w ~ l~. bl ,., w
I ~ ~ ! . 0 <> '" X -<;>- 1 '" B @'lfl mID.
-
~ ~
\
;!
~
S
~I
..I), _
~
~
<tv
.t}o.
"0-
))~
~
n -, ,
I
~
,
._.-.,'_._-_.--,.,.-"-"_.,-,-,_.,.,--"_.-"-'~_._.~-,._,,~-"-'--'---~'
"(IN '6.~ ~;;'loa
nill,l-n~~ttL :'JlV~ l:~ilill.'t:V~-r9l nJJ
~l~lI-"fjOcc.. NWi .l:l~)I;n\l '1~):H1V. ~Sl'll..:l ~llKl
ONlddVW
~~~l~~~r~~J (1:f~~~
^OIJ8^O P!JD ,c;z:
1M lOld ^JOU!Wl!8Jd
'J11 ':1 ~ 1
NV'I 'oIl80!luOV'l JO ^llJ
Ol13JI1NOV'l JO SVlll^
--"-....-..-..-".--..
NOI1dl~3SJG
OO'vlOO--SO'- :'ON :nu
(I1~~ '.r3~d9' ;:.:I1IJ ::lM()
... TI~' 'AB G3"JJHJ
. 5YNr'8i'-'- :,g NMV~O
Nr-'- :,8 N~ISJG
~~ ~m---:31-0
_~_'__."-'-:p.\JO!S
-,.---,-.-....-------....--
..--.------.--.-...-
'ONI 'S3.L VIOOSSV "
NOStl:aa:ad 'UIVOOB
..",--,--'--'--
_.,-",.,_.~,--'-
_.-._.,,-~,.----
-_..--~_.,..__.,,,.-
31_0
~---
.1-1--1---'--
I ",:. I I I
, . ""~.'.'.' .'. <~::",p."': --)- I \q
.J ... ."::<.. "1.----1 Ii,
.I~~ ",. I"~ ~ 1- ~
I v,'.". I '~.~:., ~ ~
_~"- ---i--1 --t-t ~
. I .:. I nj,.
I --~:. I;
'"
m
o
'E
<>
z
~ ~ ~wg~
-J~ ~~:r~~
~~<=>,;~ :lW~ ~
(J ~ l,J ~ ~ g ~ l~
~~~2~~~~
~ ~.w ~ ~ ~ V1 t;
~ 5.W ~ ~ 5 8 8
~
>- u
Z Z
~ ~
~ >-
x B
-'
,'"
'"
x ~
o
~ ~
~ ~
,-
=>
~ !
~ ~
~ ~ ~
o C) 0 {:J (j
zzzzZ
~~~~~
t5858
w
~ ~
~ B
o ~
~ ~
" "
z Z
" F
\l '"
III 8
; ':1
F
~
'"
o (:J
z z
j:; i=
'" '"
~ 5
I ';';,' I
, -,
..L_____...~_____.__J
.Ii
~ e(oo <> to X-<'>-1'" El€l'El!Em'.
\
, ,'.. ,/\/ ;;')/ //// /./ / ;' ", ..\\
m_ _.. _..... ...... ___' _ _', ...."'--: . .. . \~../ ",/" // // // .m.. 1/ , 1'\
m.n.__"~:'" =:___.~ =m ___m _>-m _=-~..: ~~;;~._m--__~~~Z ~/ i, / J~ I~L_" -,L~::_-:-:~:::::,.... :~~ \:_.. -_~--~ ..~,.._.__..I.m l"lm"l.m
..... ,"-' ,'\, ...... ..... ",
~ ''''" // "", 1'\ .--./! "-- - '''' ,\ "
" ,/ ,- <; _ .'" / '-- _ _ ."- ",--\ _ -----"..- -\"--,-
~ ~~l '" / /" \ \ \ -." "_ ...' (("~. --' -'" "" ',-.'" I
\ - I _.. .-' -, " '
\.,) __ _:.',L-----;:-,~.,----'I- \ "', __I--. -1.-..:;;;:-_ .-'_~~c~, ..,'-- -...-----1-
\ { / /.... '" ' \ \' \ .__ ..j - - .. - - '". __ -' :-:''' .. -.., . ,," - -" " " -- I 1
--r -c>'....-......-::o..,"\ 1--\,-,- \__m_ ---.. --J- -...~.-.."~'~"" '-=" ~",--'.--'---.."" -..~-- .,-- - --I
. .',,, I ' ' -.-'" ,\"....,-
, ,\.. ._ ," .. __ ./ ..."' \ \ I I / _ / .... ..' - ." -" '.9'.' - -. "','" , " ' "".. I
_6-. G-===+:-:::;/_~- -- _---..~ \--r~ \\--\. -_ ---=- -:::""'='I :~"''':::-,.....~..:..;~f~t:~~3.0;9llt\f::;-..,:,'.!l~Jj~ --'-.-..---- --1'-
_ ~ _ --,,-4---c........::: X _, I \ \ \ . '>. <t lit" ," -=-_:::.U...:~: :"- .;l!li. l.C"> __ '," - 3~. ~~. ,~, ".lj" (, r
"/ \ (/A0 ,,_' -+ 1_ \ \ :--I,,-'--~J-ir"*--:~~"""';;S'tl ,-. tl!::--_':::': z:ii' -,,;,,,,,t ..; ---' -~-..' ,;0\ ,~' ",,_Ht.~ .08s ': --II
'V. t~ I I' I ."".'. "~~.J -,- , 01~, ..t. ~N .,,' .. I \ j ~\\ 'j' tS :--:, t6Pl! "0- k&( -[
,/ \ _ __ /,L.", t:i:--1Z -I- - -I f- -- - ".< ,; 9 -m ii'N '-:7: p ~",,- ,- ~^' lit ~ \ I L' , o!...."i';:;..iDl;'n~\II -. , ." ,:
/ / /I"),,\...... Y '''.''IT<' ;:1--< ,,'-'-0-;:- __' 1 _....,,--'; - ~_1-=TI", ""~g,, ,;;; l~
/ _ -"- f f ~ ~f. + _7' . / ~'I --~~ 7 .'- \- I -- -I k:-'--Sg'IT t \- ~ """'\"CJ 311. - -- II
/ >( .. I / ,f"" ...."):' !:::-- ....../ '/;.;; I'--."!I-- " _ - --I ~ _#!'~ I I, '""f=-~ '",. / ~ \ --\: ---!?;;:? -9'-'- -1"-1".
<:> . _ .:/_ i- ,T" ;:- .-?-~;;C;~ " - $7 ,O"---! [;<..,. ",." -I -~-H ,j..~t//~"- .L"" :'"'-\--. - 1\ \\
/ 4: ,>.. /<_::: '.--.. I :')0 i~i:z.. !1~ I I '((,l , :: }~~ -:~,$~~: I'} .
\ "',.,1"" / /V:,.~, ':-.: ./-=-'''00. /10..6 ,); ~~.....I ,p ,- -~r _ --~--;,-;1117 1~7'-,lI>..'m;~',~'C'I\1 \ ;-1
///7' ') /~>~' 7'7j ~r/: ~?:- ( : 7!i If ~ ---R:-- -c= - I -J~~ 7ft,' ;L ",,9 --=----.,~:n ' II) ~ -II
,/ ( J :/;->1<:'--'- /--'-T!~"'Ii52 ,f;~'L'Vl "'" ~ i'I--l- - \ - -~ /JJII-- -- -- -l~-J ~ Iltl- ~
" / I, /;', /,' /1/~'l / I'I'"X'''?/ ::;S::" .{ ILj-=-- ~ - I" ~ .-" -~.". 1I1II 1
/ 11/ ' I I}"/:/ A y~l ~ ...f I=E .'i:~ )'11115; ,-",., fjl)llll~ \
" "I "II J"'/ : I () 1 "rJ, . >-I~ ~:qJ I~- (~ 1" Iltl' 11'0'
, I 1-+ T "\, -\-/-1 H/-I fj"1!l"~,,-"'--<R:l!~-- (fJ--.7 -;-.~ .:::" - "<; tr -,- --- ---I tt ~IIII -.,-
.. / 0... I I (' J .' I i/". ~j ~Q:Q~/ 1', _ ,,,"'7, - _J II] II 8
)ITi / I -:-\p -\ \ J.i< r~-- ~ /1'7~;; ~,~~: ~\~;/. <,,' '"BI- r ~k ; "C:tI~~I~~1111 ~I \
1" -r --l- ,-~ H- "FI I-I ---y,"1i : r -"l.J::"- ~\ ~((' /,"""--;H \ " '\'\\ :::;1;:;7 11 ~I, 111I f\ -'
! 1 ! / I I \J nit,: I I 1/ ,,; I ",_......, \ )~ ,,'i~' 1>;J '. \\ nJ 1, 1"111 Iltll b . -
-, __ __.__ _ _ - ~,/t;'~\~\\:~)~~};(::J. . ,~, '''.~'' -I... 'Ii" tJ 'io' ~all ~~ CI' "~: ;)~)\ I~,I \
1 " I \' \ \ " '''\'.1''' <? /'.,.,1_ \ '",~; 0 ,. "- 31' --:: ,n \I", 'iI!f II 'I \
(, "\ '\........, '-, ..,-J /' ,,', : L "';'''\ ' r vi.. [l~ .:;f"~j -----'I I ~J\\\ ~_..- .' - } r
\ " I ""'. ~.,,<'.- ',..>:.,\), - ''''{'\ R~' "', !tJ' ~ "'.11' ~ it i >m . ..tt 'I '
,\\1 I / \ \ \...""'_ <~ "-~ -> } c_~ " 1<~. I I' d,r, "L >\~, '" /~,I Ir
II \\'1 / 1\ \ "'--, '"".., ~. ,>-,,:" "'"f,c~ (' ~ r+ or", ;=rj Ii ' I, _ [<] ti t ~r~~ r-; ,..~-. ," / l~l, I I" I'
) \ \ " '-.. ... . I li-: TT \ 0' ,<1' \ .' ' ,t / L I i\
, j \ I 1\ " :'>'" '''_ -', ': - ,,,',;' I b."r ::li ,~ ~ I'" 'mm I"""' I II " I I,
/! I \'\ I \ .":_.:........-~::: --,..i::=;:.... \ ~It~ \ '. \ \~\J ' & - J _~\'" ~ / -' I" I' II'
./ 1 \ ^<_ """'_::" _== ' " j?! n . IV".I "'11', 1"1"'1111
_ ,__ _ _ ____ _ _ ~ _ _ _e-'- /-1 iT=- ". I' \ \ Vl',. ,,' I - \I /' """..,,,,, //1 1
1 ;ml - -..' \ \,"& .' it'''''' l..J.J .. ,).,'m I
~_"' _ /) ! /....,--'!(,~.. _.,..... -=--..~, -:c_, '.. _ )..;,: <- : \ :',. .~-:\.~ .~.:;, \\ > "/\:;;; '. ' .i"'rl'ii "; -"'.A ";~ hX/~ -, 0 ~. -:J~""~ '-':;'.J. . :.: / r:e .'1/
....' I .Iij,,;.CmIlI.J11(}....... '.. \"...1...' '~:\ ,/~..../~"./ ,t1 1. ~/,l A o.J~~~ ~
) ~m"'YI. ,",}!",",,,,'.'" ~ 'j .',.1 ',:';Sl' J, Q' I- . ,,-:;,,,,,,,,,,,, " , ::;<<'-.' A,' ~~".".., 916.'.' I.,q: O.!
______,',~Ci-i--_7 7----- ,-I t....,';i"J, ",-'~ \'. ,\~~I(T11~ "f:~':~W~'1;"llmj!r('?"'V'" "'I ;;;'jll ~
______- ...\____.. .' ,,(.. I' . ,~.. ,>,--".,,'/}J/ .~. I' \ I." ....+,-: . " .. ....., I'" / ...
" .." ! I I I I "J ' ii' " 'YU'. I " " " " )'..\ \ ,.')\ \.. .... j '!'l" I.., - I... r--.. --- ;'/.. / )' I
I ~ <. -(iW, I I I" {~V J' i4: I' ,"' "0" ,'::- -", .... JI I r" \ 0 1 'o.t' I" '9" /1 r - 9..' "tB.. '\I, " J" "
1 '1W -'\S' \' . ;1,,3 / .r.., "',. m,.' , .. Ii' ~ I, \\"\1\ ~::,/ .- r..r,~ {.~- L kF:...~:~.~I="i
J _ _ _ -- - -: --T-::~7~~)j!~~jQc;C:;'~~7'1j 'r~~ r~'f:: 'S ~.'l~~ ..~~_. '~;. ./ ";;' ft';=:; L n /'
.... I ',~!:l. /' if ;,1 I j I (!~' ~~,i. ~ I.;,; 1/ / f'-7 :::: ' /1sri't .~. ,.' ..L:;; J / Z c:.:. .11 J. I "'il\
_ : < ~~~:. / '~~\r+ f.~;: ~r1\ \\H~ ~~t .:~~li\' ~~ '~60II"~J.. l~~\\;JI ,;.; I; ;>
.J I / \ ", \,m (Y\I\ ,(~& ':;, (~\\\\\,.\ ~\+\l;~;,,~l'ii .. "':;'~..;~:j:,i\ ,~~~;~\t;" 60B' 'r'" 7~ '~~:Ir~~: i9~~~',I'" '..,7 I~:;'t;, J/ "'\1
: ' \ \ \._\ ;'~I\~ \'('- ~\': ;;: ~;2 ~ ~.;,~. ~ ~;l cr,,,,,,ILl,i' ~'AS ~ "...,,";;t/{ -::
I/' \ \lm)'t'\y\ \\\ vr~~ ':Z; ~~ .f..' ~f;'< ~ ~,,_..J'~ mm ~ "-.., ,_~~/1/;, '~
" ,..,l'h Yh~,c'" "'''m.'''".- ~~iil:<fr~~;::"~/, >..t~~~~<..<T:..
----,._~-~-
0
on
'"
w
"-
~ ~
"
0
'"
N
_ _ _.:::-_- 5sr:- -,
::...-= ~~~~ - ~_I
"-
'-..
'"
,,~
-'-
.....",.
~ p~~ u..0 Z
~.- O....J
z !~H ::s
<:> U)....J
i1i U~[g <!UJ n.
, ....J~
~ .li ,jjd ....Jl- l-
~~ -z z
~ >0 ::l
::2 ~
..
..
j
g ~1
:!l '"
!
"
.
L
-.~'.~I-.'--
__".~,~-_.'-'_."--_."------:i~t"-'-'-
.'",'i(
___ ir-'!... .. ..~~-~~-l ~.,
. mmm" . +.:::;:;-.-- ~.- '~j
----:-IlI~
-- .. -," --- ..IE----'<>-c-
h
h
~~
~~
~~
____.,__L
!~l
!~l
~
-1=.
~--:-:
;l~
Lon
5
~"
>'. ~
~?ll
_. .1....._-.---- .-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
1.1_ _ _ _.'_ ---.
I III [ n
I >t~ _ ___ ____ .~~ c=~=c=~oo= ~=-__ [11 .~-
~k -~--~"'[J"-I-I - ~lL."""""'__ -~'="'1 ,_n__
II II II I
~ :: r~"" :::: ~/
~ i II I \ II II f"T
~ :"=J t::":"=::-::'f f,n Fr-~:
\ 1111 I "-j" i"
'.... 1111 ,/ 1",.=;:'11 8
lI<1~f ~g~_'~L< ~'d! ~h ~ ' .
I ~~~\J.~ \ 'JC',' 'ill"!
_ _____ _ " ~ ~i ITU"' -'5\j[ ~f) 11-
· :~,.".,---l: ii' JL ~
~~. .... !~!T~ 1 '. . [~--~'l '~~JI .~.~~-
--:i':.- --..-----.,..-;0-- _ _ __~~ ~ ,,--- --- ' '" --;Rn,------=J ,. .. -1- -----,-.----- - ~ - ".,
f~]:
Iltt I ~
L;ol:....l (
~. - ~
nL~~=~~~l'
1
~.
- ~~
--,-"------,.._~---
....,(W
"--'---:o'Jr-'''-'' ---.--.----~---'-.-.-.-.--- ..-.- -'-'--'-,;::;;--"-'----'-' -."-
____ "i~r:" I T Sf' ~~" l ~:.~' ~.-..- .. H .~.~ .
.' iTrVtJ'11; lff1fff~~~._
II!~ ,I, ! I :\, 11 U 1~' ~-H IIII I (.~~~~~~
/
HH
l~H
~zn
~~,.l'~
~JI
-,l;
u..o
0.-1
(f).-1
~~
.-1f-
-z
>0
:2
rr.U)U)
ozz
-00
rr.--
w~f-
\;(>fcl
WWU)
.-10
Wz
<(
~
"
.
~ij ,1
~ ;/11
w
.-1
W
rr.
o
0:::,
w~
~}I
wI!:!
z
o
~
.-1
W
rr.
o
Q?
w~
~J1
w;g
" ~
;/
b
'" ~
~~ ~
~w ~
H <J
,.
~ ~j-- r
( 0
" . ;.
i el~1 In~ ~ iilM
~ ~ ii ~~
II~, ~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ffi n ~~ (
~ 5 L
m~i!~~~> ~ . ,I ~~~.~!~ @"
~ ~i i ai~~ ~~ ~~ !! i
~~~J".~,J ~ ~ d,,, a "
"
,
..
ti'-
~"nl
._~...._'
"'~
z~
O.
b
i=':'
<(
>
w
.-1
w
rr.
o
0;:.
w~
f- ;,
~~
c=...-_
~---:-.'-
c-:-:...-::_
;/
z
o
~
W
.-1
W
rr.
o
0;:,
w~
~}I
w;g
.,~
, "---1
~ II
~ [
'lm
~ .ml
~ . 111-
" 1m"'lli
\. [jjglrn~lu-w Lu
Imillmillmillmillfijill
. 'fj[!jwllim!jjmW,m~
l;;;:!- ---l " co
or:{ ~ en .. a..
~ -- UJ ... N f--
~~U ---l 0 = III ..... 0
() .C ~ . &Jsr= I,()
ltfl f= I I at en ":: 'i ~ <;>
:l: C) "IS .,.. u t:: - ~ ~
"~ on;l 0
~~ Z or:{ = g: ; "; ~ ,., ~ '<t
I '""
0 ---l i .. .. .~ '<t
---l ~ f()U ~
~ > .. ~ w
r-. ~o 51
~ ~1.i5-:::
~ ]
r,;:::'(..J"'"
~~H 0 0 CI)
l'i~:;:~ ---l Z W
~
: .._ _-~-~ .._ J1
fJ
f1
11-
<t\
:\
al
It)
o
~
j:::
-'"
)
.\
ClJ
N
Vi
OJ OJ OJ U) OJ
C C :>: .1:; c
+' +' t-' I' I'
'" If1 If1 If1 If1
d X X
x x
a.. \.d lei W W
E
Q) :;
d \..
+' '--
> -;
'-- Q
.s2 () >
.s2
(j , +' t)
'- <[ u 0
( ) d U
OJ ClJ Q ~
Tj .s2 E (;
"---- E
~ d - U c:l C
C r
Z U LJ U
W , 0 -
c ClJ >..., c
0 c:; C t5 ,
~ E C ., ClJ C
E :5 l) '- (
0 L ClJ (,
c
( ) f- f- <[ l.
+> If1
ClJ
ClJ
C , If1
I .s2 In
'.) .s2
cj '- .5
U -'- ( (
+' Vi C (
_.,f '" i/J v
ClJ ClJ
0_ E OJ ClJ
0 Tj OJ
C ClJ Cl
'- I ClJ
0 --r:
OJ ,
Q If1 ClJ If1 ,
>. ::; ClJ .5
1- a 0
'-
::; OJ .5
4 ' -g c:;
c <-
d U 0) U
0) > ClJ
a.. >=-1 L.I.J Q r
A
.1'
+'
,
U
:; r---- (U cO
n '<j- "" CD
oe.el
.5.2
r:
A
i/J
AUG. 19.2005 8:36AM
A
WSB
7632877180
NO.2182 P.2
41'
. & A.!iliorJiares. Inc.
Infrastructure I Engineering . Planning I Construction
701 Xenia Avenue South
Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Tel: 763-541-4600
Fax: 763.541-1700
August 19, 2005
:Mr. Jon Bogart
Bogart, Pederson & Associates, Inc.
13076 First Street
Becker, M:N 55308
Re: Ptelirninary Plat Document Review
Villas of Monticello (Monte Club Site)
WSB Project No. 1627-41
Dear Mr. Bogart:
We have completed an initial review of the preliminary plat documents dated August 9 and received
August 11, 2005, and offer the following comments:
.
1. We will need to verify the proposed profile for Penning Avenue prior to any grading plan
being approved. Also, cutting the hiU20 feet is a significant change to the site and is a
concern that will be reviewed by the City if acceptable.
2. Provide a title sheet.
3. Are the removals being done as a separate contract than this project?
4. Drainage and utility easements should be provided over the sanitary sewer and water main.
5. The curb along Stoneledge Court should end at the proposed Fenning Avenue right-of-way
6. Label the top and bottom elevations of the retaining wa.lls on the grading plan.
7, Provide a separate line type for retaining walls, so it is clearly visible on the plans.
8. Specify the fence or railing type to be placed along the wall.
9. Swales are required behind all retaining walls.
10. Show the top of casting and invert elevations on all storm sewer.
11. Label the high and low points of the street grades on the grading plan.
.
Minneapolis I St Cloud
~qual Opportunity Employer
K: \0 llf27-41 \AJ,,,iIIlDDuILTJl.fb,,ga""'OIJ 1 60S.do..
AUG. 19. 2005 8: 36AM
7632877180
NO.2182 P,3
.
Mr. Jon Bogan
August 19,2005
Paze 2
12. Where will the power poles be moved?
13. Driveway slopes should not exceed 10%.
14. Provide more detail on the retaining wall type.
15. Confirm the street names with Fred Patch.
16. Provide earthwork calculations for the site.
17, Show a cross section of the building type, and also label the house pad style and low floor
elevations for each lot on the plans.
18. We will need a grading phasing plan, as well as a detailed erosion control. Blankets shall be
applied to slopes greater than 4: 1.
19. Have the grading limit!! outside of the plat been approved by adjacent property owners?
20. Show the radius coming into Penning Avenue from 'ferrace Parkway.
. 21. Add storm sewer along Stoneleclge Court from the west to the system on the east, so that it
will be treated in the Spirit Hills Pond. Do not outlet it into the ditch along Fenning Avenue.
22. An 8..foot wide bituminous trail should be graded with Class 5 along Fenning Avenue. The
proposed bituminous path along the north side should be 8 feet wide.
23. Label the top of casting and invert elevations for the sanitary sewer on the utility plan. It is
not clear what the elevatioI15 arc: refening to.
24. Sanitary sewer should be kept along centerline on Stoneledge Court. Add additional
manholes to accomplish this.
25, The water main should be offset 10 feet and not be within the curb.
26. Label the sanitary sewer and water main pipe sizes on the plans.
27, Use 450 bends for the water main bends.
28. Keep the water main at a consistent offset from centerline along Terrace Parkway.
29, Add gate valves at two- and tbree~legged intersections.
. 30. Keep the hydrant along Stoneledge Court at the property line between Lots 2 and 3,
K!\OJ 611-.41 1Nlm./lllDoaILTIl-jhDI!lU'J.O/f /60I.diJt;
AUG. 19.2005 8:37AM
7632877180
NO,2182 P. 4
Mr. Jon Bogart
August 19, 2005
Page 3
.
31. Can the sanitary sewer along the east side ofFenning Avenue be accessed with the retaining
wall adjacent to it?
32. The vertical curve along Terrace Parkway at approximate Station 6+00 should be longer
than 100 feet.
33. It is unclear from the grading plan provided as to how the four blocks of homes will drain.
The proposed storm seWer only services the roads. Please show directional arrows of flow
routes as well as the point of entry for back and side yard drait1age.
34. Preliminary calculations show that 80 percent of the site is impervious surface. What will
the peak discharge rate of storm s\::wer into the existing system? While ponding is not
desirable on top of a hill such,as this site, the City will ask the owner to look at alternative
designs such as infiltration to slow discharge rates.
35. Please include hydrology calculations including before and after discharge rates for the 10~
year and 1 OO~year event as well as stann sewer calculatIons.
.
36. The majority of the side yard slopes between units are 3:1 and some are close to 2:1. These
are too steep for pedestrian traffic or landscaping. Use a minimum slope of 4; 1 in these
areas.
37. Show the difference in elevation between the trail on the north end and the retaining wall
along the north side of Block 4. Also, show the drainage pattern from the walls and trail on
the grading plalt
38. Show elevation and grades of trail as it relates to the existing slope and retaining wall on
Spirit Hills. A fence may be required on the north side of the proposed trail for safety
reasons.
39. Include details on the stonn sewer connection to the existing catch basin/manhole, lfthe
proposed development is directing overland runoff way from this grate, a solid cover should
replace the cmrent cover. Include elevation of the proposed pipe connect to the manhole.
.
JCI 10/6274/ IAdmIlt lDaalLTR.jb(lIl,",-08/ 60s. doe
.
.
.
AUG. 19.2005 8:37AM
7632877180
NO.2182 P. 5
Mr. Jon Bogart
August 19, 2005
Page 4
40. The grading plan is difficult to read because of the short contour lines in and around the
proposed villas. Please include contour labels every 4 feet and add directional arrows to
indicate slope and flow routes.
Sincerely,
/Jijc,m~
Phillip A Elkin, P .E,
Project Engineer
1h
cc:
Jeff Q'Neill- City of Monticello
John Simola - City of Monticello
Bret Weiss - WSB & Associates, Inc.
Shibani Bisson - WSB & Associates, Inc.
K:IO 1617.J I 1A.dmUr.\Doc.!\LTII..j1,ogrul-fJ8160J.dac
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/22/05
5.
Consideration of a reQuest for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoninl!
from A-O to R-l. Sinl!le Family Residential for Hil!hland Villas (formerly known
as Monte Club Villas). Applicant: L&G. LLC. (NAC)
RF:FERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicants for Monte Club Villas are seeking, in conjunction with their
application for Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat, a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment and rezoning to accommodate the proposed uses. The current
Comprehensive Plan designation for the property is commercial on the south (upper)
portion, and medium density residential on the north (lower) portion. The proposed
land use is for low-density residential. The project is approximately 2 units per acres,
under the City's 3 unit per acre threshold definition for low density.
The proposed lower density is consistent with surrounding land uses, including
medium density to the north, park and open space to the east, low density to the
south, and future low density to the west. The revised land use should result in a
lower demand on public services, such as sewer and water, as compared to the current
land use designation.
The zoning to R-I is supported by both the density and the development plan for the
site. Although the units will be a part of an association, the lots sizes average rnore
than 11,300 square feet per unit, and the overall density, exclusive or roadways, is
approximately 12,XOO square feet per unit, more than the City's R-I zoning standard
of 12,000. The PUD is utilized in this scenario to grant flexibility from the strict R-l
zoning standards, and provide for the typical lot widths of 60 feet.
ALTKRNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning to Low Density
Residential and R-I Single Family Residential.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
Low Density Residential and the rezoning to R-I, Single family
Residential, based on a finding that the proposed land use and zoning
designation are consistent with the surrounding land uses, and will reduce
the demand for services from the existing land use plan.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Low
Density Residential and rezoning to R-I, based on a finding that the plan
is inconsistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the area,
including the impact on the Monte Club Hill.
Planning Commission Agenda -- 08/22/05
.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative I, suhject to the City's finding that the
proposed Development Stage pun and preliminary plat meets the expectations of
City officials.
SUPPORTING DATA
1 . Long Range Land Use Plan
.
.
, !
6-1
MONTICELLO
LONG RANGE LAND USE
N
W+B
s
I
.:t;. .......
f' .L'\T...-..
> f.L.-
l............J....+-t' .m.~....l....
~...........1. r .. ....t-:*l.r:r.....
'1 '1 . I i F
.'-r "l'A,"~" ':~.I"-r ,~. T-.t-r'. L ..l.
f'Ld-it": Li I .
.i.,
. NJ~'
~..-"'" ~
'4 !
,I " ,., ...,
,.1.' I '
iLl':'.."'
)
f I \.-.' ( ..
\ 1IIt
'-~J ~~tr.i.",-.
, '~; 1 L._..j
1 0.-0, \ I
. . ..L....... __H,lS\T.L. .L'HJ.....
~
III
Low o.".1ty Residential
EllpaMion Nell
Low o.".1ty Residentitll (R-1)
Future Land Us. Objectives:
Low Dentllty Re8idenllal (R-1A)
.. Medium Dentllty (attached hllQ.)
Ufb8n Mixed-Use
.. Allow for a mlx 01 ,.nd ua.
.. P,..erw and protect 1JIItu1'81 tweoun:ea
.. Provide rofId q8CWrJ to .."ott gtoWIh
.. ReIlIln rul'8l character and. ."." fown feel
.. UN exlatIntI .",.,.,.. (I... vIewa. III,.., hM}
to entrance dfweIopmeIft
.. P"""" fIP,.wI by encOUlWfllnfl compect
dfweIopmeIft pIItI>>m
.
.. Commercial
.. lnd....tn.'
.. Open Space
Mobile Home Park