Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 03-25-1985AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Monday, March 25, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. Mayor: Arvo A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen I. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held March 11, 1985. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Requests, and Complaints. Public Hearings G. Public Hearing - Consideration of Tax Increment Finance Plan for Construction 5, Inc. Old Businoso 5. Consideration of Adoption of a Tax Increment Finance Plan. 6. Consideration of Vacating Portions of Sixth Street, Seventh , Street, Hennepin Street, Washington Street, and Fallon Avonue, Also Known as the Old Copeland Road, All Lying Within the Proposed Construction 5 Addition. 7. Consideration of Granting Final Approval to the Final Plot for Conotructlon 5 Addition. 8. Consideration of Granting Approval for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Multiple Dwelling in Excess of 12 Units - Applicant, Construction 5. 9. Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction and Operation of a BMX Track in a B-3 (Highway-Buoino so) Zona - Applicant, Chuck Toslow. 10. Consideration of Authorizing Plano and Specifications to be Prepared for the Reroofing of Monticello City Hall. 11. Consideration of Approval of Plano and Specifications for a Portion of the Interceptor Sower. Nov Buoinoss 12. Consideration of Granting a Ono Day License for the On -Salo of 3.2 Boor — Applicant, Lions. 13. Consideration of Granting a Ono Day License for the On -Salo of 3.2 Door &nd to Sall Sot-upo - Applicant, Ducks Unlimited. Agenda for the Meeting of the City Council Monday, March 25, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. Page 2 14. Information on Starting a Municipal Compost Pile for Leaves and Grass Clippings. 15. Consideration of Authorizing the City Attorney to Perform a Title Search and Pending Clear Title Opinion, Authorizing an Offer for the Acquisition of the Northerly Half of Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 50, Original Plat, City of Monticello. 16. Consideration of Bills for the Month of March. 17. Adjourn. MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - 14ONTICELL40 CITY COUNCIL March 11, 1985 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Mayor Arve Or_imsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair. Jack Maxwell. Dan Blonigen. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting hold February 25, 1985. 4. Consideration of Amending Ordinance No. 10. Chapter 18, Section 5, (Flood Plain Management). According to the existing provisions of our ordinance, a residential basement may be constructed below Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation as a conditional use if and only if such basements are flood proofed in accordance with the State Building Coda regulations. The City was recently 'Informed by the Dapartment of Natural Resources that the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued now rules this post fall instructing that flood proofed basements aro no longer allowed at all within a flood fringe area. It was recommended by the DNR that the City amend its ordinance deleting the conditional use provisions allowing flood proofed basements below Regulatory Flood Protection Elevations. If the ordinance was not deleted, the City could be hold liable for any flood damage to the individual's home if It allowed a basement to be built., and also the City could be cut off from all disaster relief funds from the federal government. As a result, motion was made by Bill Fair..secondad by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to adopt an ordinance amendment deleting Subdivision 2 from Title 10, Chapter 18, Section 5, of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Sae Ordinance Amendment No. 144. 5. Consideration of an Amendment to the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance. At the last regular meeting of the SWC4. Rite Cable Company submitted a request to increase the a Is carte rate of the remote control device. .In the fees established under the original franchlas agreement, Rite Cable listed the charge for a remote control device to be $2.50 per month. When they put together cable packages featuring various levels of services, they would like to use the free remote control as an incentive; and to -1- Council Minutes - 3/11/85 make the package more marketable, they requested that the $2.50 1 monthly fee be increased to $5.95. This, from a marketing standpoint, tends to tell the subscriber that he is getting a larger free service when he.enrolls in a package. Recent federal legislation has deregulated local control of cattle fees on ancillary equipment; and as a result, the local communities or Cable Commisaion cannot prohibit Rite Cable from increasing their rates on such items as the remote control device. The Cable Commission's attorney recommended that each city do an ordinance amendment for house cleaning purposes. If all ton communities in the Cable Commission do not agree to amend their ordinance, the rate increase requested by Rite Cable cannot be implemented, but Rite Cable can force the issue under the Federal Deregulation Legislation. Councilman Blonigen felt the rate increase was inappropriate at this time since their initial franchise agreement did indicate no increases would be allowed for the first 18 months. After further discussion, a motion van made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, to adopt an ordinance amendment allowing Rite Cable to increase the remote control monthly foo from 52.50 to $5.95. Voting in favor was Grimamo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Maxwell. Voting in the opposition: Blonigon. See Ordinance Amendment No. 145. 6. Consideration of Conatructing a Portion of the Sanitary Interceptor Sever from Highway 25 to Cedar Street. City Engineer, John Badalich, reviewed with the City Council the proposed intercoptor never alignment that would connect the existing interceptor never at Washington Street with the City's sower system at Elm Street. The proposal presented a couple of alternative routes that could be used want of Highway 25 to Elm Street, but the alignment from Highway 25 easterly to Washington Street would have to primarily follow the railroad tracks. The Interceptor eowor proposal was presented primarily at this time to consider authorizing the City Engineer to prepare plane and specifications for construction of a portion of the Interceptor sower near Highway 25 prior to the planned 1986 Highway 25 upgrading. The first phone recommended by the Engineer would be the construction of the eowor underneath Highway 25 easterly one block to Cedar Street. The estimated coot wan $100,000.00, and the City could save approximately $14,000.00 in jacking coot by open cutting Highway 25 now prior to the highway dapartmant'o improvements in 1986. -2- Council Minutes - 3/11/85 Discussion by the Council centered on whether the City should just install the sewer underneath Highway 25 now and wait until later to install the sewer underneath Cedar Street and the railroad tracks. It appeared that additional savings would probably not be realized by installing the sewer under the railroad tracks at the present time, and it would be just as cost effective to include the Cedar Street crossing when the rest of the project is completed in future years. As a result of the discussions, motion was made by Blonigon, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to authorize the City Engineer to prepare final plans and specifications for the construction of the interceptor sewer under Highway 25 only at this time. The Engineer noted that plans and specifications should be available for the next Council meatinrt for approval and bids are estimated to be received an Wednesday. April 17, at 2:00 P.M., with the Council awarding the contract on April 22, 1985. Since It vas determined that the routing of the interceptor sower hotwoon Washington Struet and Highway 25 has boon established, a motion was made by Fran Falr, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to authorize the staff to negotiate easements from property owners for the interceptor sewer line from approximately Cedar Street to Washington Street adjacent to the railroad tracks. 7. Consideration of Adoption of Two Resolutions Establishino Deferred Compensation Plans for Monticello Emplovees. At the previous Council meeting, a general consensus of the Council was given to the establishment of two deferred compensation plans that would be made available to all City employees to provide for additional retirement benefits. The deferred compensation plans would be funded solely from each individual amployse's contributions with no municipal contribution required. Upon review of: the resolutions needed to establish deferred compensation plans. motion was made by Bill Pair, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimoualy carried to adopt two resolutions establishing deferred compensation plans through the ICMA Retirement Trust and Smfmco Lite Insurance Company. Seo Resolutions 1905 03 and 1905 14. U. Acknowlcdr;ssont of Receipt of the Reimbursement Check from the aherbm nu wriq ht Countleu cable Communications commission. At the time the Sharburnw Wright Counties Cable Communications Commission was formally established, every city in the Commission contributed a proportional share of manias to the Commission -3- C�� Council Minutes - 3/11/85 in order to conduct the franchising process. At the time the Commission was initiated, each city was guaranteed that they would receive a reimbursement covering the investment they made to the Commission and also any City staff time allocated to the Commission operations. The City of Monticello initially contributed $2,000.00 to establish the Cable Commission and Cable Commission Chairman, Tom Eldem, presented to the Council a reimbursement check from Rite Cable Company, the successful franchise operator, a check. for $4,061.39 representing all of the City's initial investment plus reimbursement for City staff time. 9. Consideration of Setting a Date for the 1985 Board of Review. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to set Thursday, May 23, 1985, at 7:00 P.M., as the data for the Monticello City Board of Review. 10. Consideration of Setting a Public Hearing for Establishing Tax Increment Finance District. Construction 5, Inc., is currently in the process of replatting and developing their property at the east end of Lauring Lane and Washington Street. The property in question will require substantial improvements in order to construct a street with curb and gutter along with City sewer and water services because of the topographic conditions of the property. The City Engineer ban estimated improvements to coat approximately $390,000.00, which would result in excessively high assoosmento and make the project unfeasible. The LIRA has been reviewing this subdivision and recommended that this area be included in a Tax increment Financing District to enable the City to help defray a portion of the improvements to all affected property owners concerned. The establishment of a Tax increment District could reduce the coat of improvements to the property owners to a more reasonable level, thus allowing the development to occur. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to sot March 25, 1985, as the data for a public hearing to consider the Tax Increment Financing Plan for this area. 11. Miscellaneous. City Administrator, Tom Eidom, informed the Council that Mr. Jack Rooves has resigned from the (lousing and Redevelopment Authority. It wan noted that the Council will have to officially appoint a replacement In the near future. -4- Council Minutes - 3/11/85 The City Council vas iniormed that a Fire Department Committee has been searching for a used equipment van. The Fire Department indicated that they have found a used Chevrolet Van from the North Branch, Minnesota Fire Department for $6,000.00 that they feel would be very acceptable for their needs. As part of the bond issue for the new Fire stall, approximately $15,000.00 was included in the bond sale for the purchase of an equipment van and related equipment. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fran Fair, authorizing the Fire Department to purchase the used Chevrolet Van from the North Branch Fire Department contingent upon the vehicle being thoroughly inspected by a local mechanic prior to purchase. Voting in favor was Grimcmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell. Voting in the opposition: 4ilonigen. Rick Woi£stotter A,sictant Administrator Council Agenda - 3/25/85 5. Consideration of Adoption of a Tax Increment Finance Plan. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: To date, the City has only used tax increment financing to convey land from a seller to a developer at a reduced rate. In essence, the HRA has purchased land from the seller at his going price, and resold the land to the developer at a substantially lower price. The difference in coat is then recovered through the tax increment collected over the life of the District. What we are proposing in this Tax Increment District is not a land exchange, but rather a subsidy of the cost of public improvements. As you recall, this entire matter (including the subdivision questions which are to follow) began with a petition to vacate Sixth Street near the Doran property. Because the Lauring Lane extension is laid out to bisect the Construction 5 property, we initiated a subdivision proposal. At approximately the same time, Mr. Doran was concerned about the exorbitant cost of public improvements to his 3 acres. In an effort to provide construction funds for a portion of the Lauring Lana extension, as wall as the improvement of Fallon Drive (the old Copeland Road), we began investigating tax increment financing. Due to the unusual topographic conditions in this area, the cost of making ordinary public improvements such as atreota, curb and gutter, sewer and water, and storm newer would be extremely high. It is allowable under Minnesota Statute to utilize tax increment financing where conditions of the land aro so extreme as to make normal construction abnormal in cost. Based on a preliminary estimate by OSM, were we to do the public improvements without tax increment financing and to season that amount at the 100% Laval, each property owner would pay approximately $200.00 per linear foot. This we consider to be an extremely abnormal assessment. Similarly, we investigated the notion of ancesaing only 20% of the project an required by Statute. In a proposal ouch an thin, the City would and up paying approximately $312,000.00 for the benefit of vary few proportion. That alternative did not seem realistic. Hance, because Construction 5 has specific construction projects planned, we decided to investigate tax increment financing as a method of bringing the assessments down to a normal range. Of the proposed $390,000.00 project coat, the Tax Increment Finance Plan proposes to collect all but approximately $150,000.00 in tax increment. Those figures aro based on an annual tax increment of $25,000.00, which will be generated by an 18 -unit multiple dwelling and a 25,000 eq. ft. offico/warahouso complex. I have already boon contacted by Mr. Doran, who objects very strongly to having to pay the assessment as projected. Mr. Doran has a vary high street improvement assessment based on the fact that he owns 418 foot of frontage. I wish to clarify -1- Council Agenda - 3/25/85 that the adoption of a Tax Increment Finance Plan and the certification of a District is not the same as authorizing the making of public improvements. Creating the District only means that we wish to collect increment in order to do public improvements. Once the District is certified with the County Auditor and established, then we as the City must investigate the making of public improvements under Minnesota Chapter 429. Such an improvement will be handled like any other City improvement. There will be more public hearings and opportunities for affected property owners to comment. What needs to be done at this time, if we see any merit in utilizing tax increment to assist in assessment write down but without putting any additional burden on other residents of the City, is to adopt the Tax Increment Finance Plan and request certification by the County Auditor at the conclusion of the 30 -day waiting period. The HRA adopted this plan and sent it to the Council with a request for public hearing. If for some reason the development does not occur as we anticipate, the Tax Increment District simply dissolves after three years. Utilizing this procedure at this time is more of a fail-safe mechanism to guarantee that we derive maximum increment from all construction that occurs in the subdivision rather than postponing action, thereby losing increment that could be useful in future years. I have also worked with the consultants from Springsted and Holmes and Graven with respect to the assessment formula. Even with the Increment, the assessment will still be high simply because there are not a lot of property owners over which we can spread the cost. Our tentative proposal is to establish an equal annual payment assessment roll (differing from past practice of equal annual principal); and as construction occurs and increment increases, the assessments could be abated one by one. To the property owners this, of course, is a risk. If no construction occurs beyond the two that are originally planned, there will be no future reduction in outstanding balance of assessments. The risk in their favor is that if substantial construction occurs beyond the two initial buildings, Chu assessments could conceivably be reduced to zero. It in not impossible in a situation as this that increment goneratod by construction In the area could pay off the entire amount of the bonds that we would have to issue to do the improvement. Because this is a now device for Monticello and a now method of using tax Increment financing, I encourage each of you to atop In anytime Monday to discuss this and ask questions that you may have. We can undoubtedly go into greater detail If we discuss this face to face. -2- Council Agenda - 3/25/85 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution approving the District and requesting certification with the County Auditor - this, of course, gives municipal approval to the creation of the District. It does not mean that public improvements will occur, nor that there will be assessment rolls. At this date we have not even generated a development agreement with Construction 5 as to minimum values. We are only attempting to gat the District put in place and certify the original base value. Do not adopt the resolution - this means that we will not generate any increment income for the purpose of retiring public improvement debt. By not having a method to assist in debt retirement, I suspect we will be faced with substantial opposition from the property owners as to the public improvements. With respect to the public improvements and how to pay for them, there are myriad options that could be considered. We could, for example, wait until Maurice Hoglund desires to plat his property, we could wait until the entire collector road is done from the Country Club to Dahlhsimers, and so on. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution and request certification of the District. Such an action puts us in the proper position to take full advantage of now construction in tho area. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution required for adoption; Copy of the area in question; Copy of the Tax Increment Finance Plan (you received said Plan at the last regular Council meeting). -3- A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO CERTIFY THE ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE OF THE REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE MONTICELLO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (CONSTRUCTION FIVE). WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello has determined that it is necessary and desirable and in the public interest to designate, establish, develop, and administer a tax increment financing redevelopment district pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, hIINNESOTA that the Wright County Auditor is hereby requested to certify the assessed value of all real property within the boundaries of the tax increment redevelopment district as described in the attached tax increment financing plan as of the date of the last equalized assessment, and each year hereafter to certify the amount by which the assessed value has increased or decreased from the original assessed value and also to certify the proportion which any increase or decrease bears to the total assessed value for the real property in said tax increment financing district for that year, and also to remit to the City of Monticello each year hereafter, that proportion of aU taxes paid that year on real property in the district which the captured assessed value bears to the total current assessed value, all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.76, Subdivision I and 2. Adopted this _ day of March, 1985. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor 0 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 273.71 to 273.78 INCLUSIVE, AND ADOPTING A FINANCE PLAN FOR SAID TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota has determined that it is necessary to create a tax increment financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive, The Tax Increment Financing Act, within the redevelopment project created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.411 et. seq., inclusive; The Minnesota Housing and e evelopmen�thority Act, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of MonticeUo has determined, pursuant to Section 27 3.73, Subd. 10(a)(3), that less than 70 percent of the parcels in the proposed tax increment financing district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities or other improvements, but due to unusual soil deficiencies requiring substantial filling, grading and other physical preparation for use at least 80 percent of the total acreage of the land in the redevelopment district hes a fair market value which when added to the estimated cost of preparing that lend for development, exceeds its anticipated fair market value after completion of said preparation; provided that no parcel shall be included within a redevelopment district pursuant to this paragraph unless a development agreement has been concluded for the development of at least 50 percent of the acreage having the unusual soil or terrain deficiencies providing recourse for the authority should the development not be completed; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has received a copy of the proposed tax increment financing plan and has been given the opportunity to review and comment upon said tax increment financing plan and the tax increment financing district; and WHEREAS, Tho City of Monticello has informed the members of the Local School Board of the Independent School District 0882 and the Board of Commissioners of Wright County of the fiscal and economic Implications of the proposed tax Increment financing district and invited said School Board members and County Commissioners to the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO that the City Council of the City of Monticello. Minnesota does hereby approve the tax increment financing plan and the creation of o tax Increment financing district as described in said tax increment financing plan and finds as per Section 'L of the tax Increment plant Tho proposed development or redevelopment, In the opinion of the city, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary since Construction Five could not economically construct the present 0 facility without the provision of the necessary public improvements to the site and without the use of tax increments to assist with the financing of these public improvements, the developer would not have constructed the apartment building and manufacturing facility in the City; and 2. The tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development by private enterprise as it will enable the City to provide the necessary public improvements for development; thereby encouraging redevelopment in the area. 3. The tax increment financing plan conforms to the general plan for the development of the city as a whole as it will result in construction of an apartment building and a manufacturing facility which will provide needed housing, create new jobs and increase the tax base of the City. 4. The tax increment district to be established Is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 10(a)(3) in which the conditions described in Section F of this plan exist. Adopted by the City Council this _ day of March, 1985. ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor Tax =Mccermeri-t 'b1s+f,rw+ t CONSTRUCTION L5 ADDITION rw I If hi Council Agenda - 3/25/85 6. Consideration of Vacating Portions of Sixth Street, Seventh Street, Hennepin Street, Washington Street, and Fallon Avenue, Also Known as the Old Copeland Road, All Lying Within tho Proposed Construction 5 Addition. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Prior to granting any approval to the proposed subdivision, which lays out now street alignments and new street names, the City is required to vacate the existing streets so that they may be replotted into lots and blocks. Again, as a reminder, the entire matter began with a request to vacate Sixth Street. As this developed into a subdivision proposal, we, of course, held the public hearings on the subdivision and discussed the vacation of streets; so, consequently, the public hearing requirement has been met. It is somewhat difficult to discuss exclusively the vacation of streets without looking at the following agenda Item, which has to do with the subdivision. The following discussion on the subdivision is more extensive and will cover the matter In greater detail. What is of primary importance for this agenda item in that in order to vacate streets, it must be found to be in the public interest. I think we have no difficulty in testing that criterion. The vacating of the streets listed allows for the subdivision to occur and the Lauring Lane extension to begin. The Lauring Lane extension is discussed in the Comprehensive Plan, no that can be justifiably ruled to be in the public interest. Similarly, the proposed subdivision will make buildable Iota out of an area that is not currently buildable. When built upon, there is an increase in tax baso, as that moots the public interest criterion. Likewiso, in the southern portion there will be commorcial activities which will both increase tax base and create job opportunities, both of which aro considered to be in the public interest. Thus, the public interest criterion for the vacation of atroets is clearly mot throughout the plat. I do wleh to nota that while we aro vacating Washington Street as a atroot, when approval is granted to the subdivision, we will be retaining a substantial drainage easement lying over the majority of what was originally platted as Washington Street. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: I. vacate the portions of streets listed - this will allow for the Construction 5 Addition to be processed and recorded. As noted by OSM in a much oarlior letter, the vacation must occur prior to the approval of the plat. 2. Do not approve the vacations - thio, in essence, will block the approval of the proposed plat an wall as eliminate the proposed multiple dwelling complex. Without the vacation of the streets, thorn in no subdivision. Without the subdivision, there in no buildable lot north of Sixth Street that will accommodate the multiple dwelling proposal. -4- Council Agenda - 3/25/85 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the portions of streets identified within the plat be vacated in order to process the subdivision request. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Site plan showing the streets to be vacated. -5- /.a�.•. ��G/• moi; �//\`1`�`--- - -� - -- - -- — �- IF 1,4 .. + a •.�/ i•9Ut0� 11 %'� 47' y/ ` tV , (1 q :1'f,• I ty 1 ` h/ JrTA./� ,1�t 'I��i� •/ ��•1, 1i[C,•',\� ([-1ti +l;'.. �: :.:{�,',. •.iia NO !.� I;w to 90 .."• o PLI 70 .I Council Agenda - 3/25/85 7. Consideration of Granting Final Approval to the Final Plat for Construction 5 Addition. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This plat is coming to the City Council in its final form. It has been approved at the preliminary stage by both the Planning Commission and the City Council and has received final approval from the Planning Commission. Planning Commission's final approval was contingent upon three tasks being completed. First, it needed to be clearly established that there would be no outdoor storage allowed in this plat. Secondly, a screening/planting plan had to be, established for the lots fronting on 1-94. This notion also included discussion of allowable signs. Lastly, at the recommendation of Howard Dahlgren & Associates, it was recommended that some type of architectural controls be established since construction in this plat will be fully exposed to both the freeway and to Lauring Lane. Since the meeting of the Planning Commission, I have met with the developer and his surveyor. It has been agreed that there shall be no outdoor storage. It has further been agreed that there will be only one pylon sign allowed for the entire subdivision. The single pylon sign may have more than one sign placard advertising the businesses located within the subdivision. This is not a billboard advertising a business at some other location. Similarly, each building may have what is allowed as a wall sign. With respect to the planting buffer, John Uban has indicated that a planting plan along I-94 and Lauring Lana be established, but the plantings would not have to occur until construction occurs on a particular lot. The dovolopor'e primary concern has to do with the severe topographical conditions. They fool that when it is time for construction, the necessity to move dirt around to develop a suitable building oito will moan going right to the edges of the property linos. If they aro required to plant all troos at this time, they could conceivably and up digging up all their own tress when it comes time to landscape. John Uban conceded that phased screening as development occurs is acceptable provided there Is a pro-eotabliahod plan which a developer must follow at the time of construction. A suggested plan is being submitted to me by Uban, but has not arrived at thio time. with respect to a statement on architectural Controls, Construction 5 agreed to my creating a statement that concurrently hold certain prohibition statements with respect to metal buildingo and also included permissive statements for acceptable construction standards provided there was a statement allowing for omissions or oven now construction materials. when I discussed this matter with John Uban, he suggested that it perhaps would be beneficial to all to simply establish an architectural control board as we have done with the Oakwood Block. My initial response is -6- Council Agenda - 3/25/85 that that seemed rather stringent for a typical subdivision. Mr. Uban-s response was that the vacating of so many streets to allow development to occur was a leverage point and that because of the extremely sensitive nature of the area fronting both on the freeway and on Lauring, we should request architectural controls that are considered reasonable. I will be drafting such an architectural policy and presenting it to Construction 5. The essence of the statement will be that a 3 -member panel will review each building proposal with respect to suitability of its exterior and architectural harmony. I don't anticipate this becoming a major problem. Assuming we have full agreement from the developer on all of these issues, the final plat has reached a stage suitable for approval and recording. Included in your supporting data are the memos from Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates which were covered item by item by the Planning Commission and resolved. I discussed our resolutions with Mr. Uban, and he felt each issue had been adequately covered. I think rather than going through every issue in this supplement, I encourage you to see if the issues concern you and give me a call so we can discuss each issue. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Assuming that the City Council has approved the vacation of the streets in the previous agenda item: 1. Grant final approval to the Construction 5 Subdivision - this, in essence, gives us the extension of Louring Lane that we have boon seeking, creates a now City park, and ro-aligns Fallon Avenue (Old Copeland Road). It croatos a number of buildable lots along the freeway and provides s lot big enough to accommodate the proposed 18 -unit multiple dwelling. Ono additional note which should have been included In the discussion above. On the south aide of the freeway, there is a small land locked parcel which is both inaccessible and unbuildablo. It is currently owned by Construction 5, and lion adjacent to City owned Lot 5 in Oakwood Industrial Park. As part of the platting requirement, we will be insisting that we receive a dead for this portal of land to be attached to our property. Construction 5 has boon made aware of thio, and to data has voiced no objection. 2. Do not grant final approval to the subdivision - this leaves everything as it currently is. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council grant final approval to the proposed subdivision. I make this statement assuming that Cha architectural control board has boon approved by Monday night -7- Council Agenda - 3/25/85 by the developer. Because they have been so cooperative up to this point, I anticipate no real difficulty in establishing our agreements. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the proposed subdivision; Copy of memos from Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates and OSM; Copy of the planting plan; Copy of the architectural control system (provided the plan can be written and agreed upon by the time of delivery. If the plan has not been fully established, it will be delivered under separate cover to you or provided at the Council meeting). -B- Consultinq Planners One Groveland Terraee _(612l377.3536 ---.Minnesota 55403- - - - -- Howard Dahlgren Aesocletes /I ncorporated MEMORANDUM DATE: 8 February 1985 TO: City of Monticello Attention: Gary Anderson FROM: C. John Uban, Principal Planner RE: Preliminary Plat of Construction Five, Inc. As indicated on the attachad maps the total'site is to be a City park accord- ing to the comprehensive plan. Should the City decide not to purchase the property then the comprehensive plan should be changed and the plat approved with the following comments: 1. The vacation of the existing lots and streets within the preliminary plat provides for a more reasonable development of the property. The proposed alignment for Loring Lana is conaletent with general alignment proposed in'the comprehensive plan. 2. The proposed uvea should be more carefully defined on the plat. A half - acre park is clearly defined along with an 18 -unit apartment house on the northern portion of the plat. Ibwever, the uses that outlet A and Lots 1 through 5, Block 2, are to be used for is not clearly defined. This leads to soma Questions and concerns about the size and shapes of these parcels. Soma of the 'parcels aro much too small for industrial use■ and should therefore be limited to an office use of soma sort. This is of greatest concern where the Lot is directly across from residential property. it is difficult to properly develop an Industrial Site under 2 acres without the added expenditure of fencing and screening elements to properly adjust to a mixed-use area. 3. we recommend that a design framework regarding use of materials, quality of construction, landscaping, lighting, signage and so -forth, be compiled to address the future uses of the proposed plat. This 'is very important because of the great variety of uses within the plat and its sensitive location, both to existing residential and Interstate Highway 94. Page 1 of '2 MEMORANDUM 8 February 1985 RE:- Preliminary Plat Page 2 of 2 Construction Five, Inc. 4. The proposed park is quite small in size and oddly shaped. The City should determine, prior to approving the final plat, a possible use regarding this small parcel of property. Perhaps this area would best develop as a passive or historical area relating to the Rand property. 5. More detail site information regarding the proposed apartment building should be submitted prior to approving any development on that parcel. This parcel is fronted on all sides by streets and is very oddly shaped. The property is also directly adjacent to the Rand home and could have a negative impact on its historical setting should the site be improperly developed. Screening and landscaping will be an important element of this proposed apartment use. 6. The proposed treeline buffer along Interstate Highway 94 should be more carefully laid out and presented in a plan which identifies the species and size of each tree. Most of the businesses that will be located in this area along Loring Lane will actually have their back door to the Interstates the image of the Star City of Monticello could be soverly impacted should this area not receive appropriate screening and landscape enhancement. Additionally, a control of signage along the Interstate should be given careful consideration prior to approving the plan. Cortain guidelines could be prepared ahead of time to be included in some design framework for the property addressing the consolidation, size, and aesthetic treatment of all signs. 7. Outlet A should have a minimum of 100 feet as frontage along the Interstate. The other lots that front the Interstate have lot widths in the range of 170 feat to 233 feet. Perhaps all of those can be evened out and adjusted to produce more regular lot patterns. S. It would be our recommendation to prohibit outside storage in this area. We believe the successful screening of such storage areas would be unsuccess- ful duo to the extreme visual exposure from both the Interstate and the residential properties that surround the proposed plat. CJUips enclosures MEMORANDUM TO: Monticello Planning Commission FROM: John Uban RE: Construction 5 Final Plan Stage of Subdivision Plat DATE: March 12, 1985 1. Outlet A should have a minimum of 100 feet as frontage along the Interstate. The other lots that front the Interstate have widths in the range of 165 feet to 236 feet. All of those should be evened out and adjusted to produce a more regular lot pattern. Also, I believe that lots within Block 1 aro very irrogu lar and would be difficult to develop with frontagoo both on Lauring Lane across from residential and with highly visible frontage on Interstate 94 to the roar. I believe Block 1 should be readjusted to contain only three lots. 2. Setbacks along tho Interstate should be 30 fact for both parking and accessory uses. Signe along the Interstate could be closely controlled in this particular condition. A strong landscaping plan should be committed to by the proposed dovolopora. 3. To control the aesthetics of a mixed use land plan combining both industrial and residential uses, a design framework should be prepared addressing all issues of lighting, landscaping, eignago, architecture, setbacks, and other elements within the development. e. The memorandum from Howard Dahlgren Associates dated B February, 1985, on the preliminary plat of Construction 5, Inc., still stands and should be reviewed prior to acting upon the final plat. 07 Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors March 11,•1985 ORR•SCHEIEN•MAYERON BASSOCIATES, INC. i City of Monticello ; 250 East Broadway Monticello, HN. 55362 Attn: Mr. Gary Anderson Building Official Re: Construction 5 Addition Final Plat and Site Plan Dear Mr. Anderson: The final plat of the Construction 5 Addition has been received and reviewed by my staff and we offer the following comments based on the zoning and subdivision ordinances of the City. A site plan was also submltted,and was also reviewed. FINAL PLAT: The final plat seems to be in order and meets the requirements set forth In Section 11-4-2 of the City Subdivision Ordinance. The plat description Indicates that Construction S. Inc. is fee owner of certain blocks In the exist- ing Lower Monticello addition. This is not the case until the City approves the vacation of certain portions of Hennepin Avenue. Washington Avenue, 6th Street and 7th Street within the newly platted area. This vacation of -these streets must be recorded prior to the recording of this plat. i1he Council can act upon the Construction 5 Addition plat but the vacation' must take place prior to recording. SITE PLAN: We have several consents regarding the' site plan that should be considered by the developer prior to our recommendation for approval. (1) The finished grade contours on the east tide of the proposed 18 -unit apart- ment and at the driveway are not complete. i (2) The culverts under the driveway must be designed to carry approximately .160 cfs with 1 foot of head. This can be done by using three 36' round or two 31'x51' arch pipes (all to be In concrete). (3) The driveway grade must be at elevation 937 or higher to accommodate these pipes. (4) The horizontal angle of the driveway to the south, just inside the property. Is much too sharp for turning movements. 2021 £est Hennepin Avenue - Suite 238 . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 - 612 / 331.8660 Page Two Mr. Gary Anderson March 11, 1985 (5) Fallon Avenue intersects Lauring Lane at a 3% grade. There should be a flatter landing area, 1% grade. of about 100 feet between the proposed easterly curb line of Lauring Lane and Fallon Avenue going eastward. Then Fallon Avenue would continue at 34% grade with a vertical curve at the -100' point. This concludes our comments regarding the final plat and the site plan. There- fore. we recommend approval of the final plat and the site plan as well when our Comments as are recommended are resolved. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Yours very truly, ORR-SCMELE M-MAYER014 AF ESQ z_k� John P. Badalich, P.E.City Engineer JPB:min enclosure cc: Tom Eidem. Administrator - City of Monticello Taylor Land Surveyors CONSTRUCTION 5 ADDITION J `t9 �Vg ' M rA!! s ++[It rwa... w e•rr...r<r r rrwrr. r M._.w ernYrr. f..+• M r i,rt.+r♦ ,,,rn.r 1�� • p TT�w+ .p,r, 11, .1 'M r.1 Y ,ew YI,QL/ d r�/Y Mr rY�l. �YY ..Y.� ,..� _ +i'= .rt_ �..,� uiai¢il•uwa.e+4+r.Y.r �yZY`a�.(�+o,•.+++ar�c. i'•urir�r..�iYi.�:. •MY,wY.. rW Wi _ _ C�. e. +.. � �'w �� j, �• � .., y.J'='"�CGO. wr�w M..iirY.r•!rY. r,.. rr+lw w'iw�. y.��;,� '•'/ .r� .f �°a .=-yl .a .:f;+�"�iw:rr•��a+�,w+�.wra:rr. �i.�r.Y..r wr�'r .r.. r. "„ -✓ !i! •i« ? * '��.M+a,�+.i���.�� � wrY.w, ilr.rr r. r.r.rw+!ti,+ „ Yr •an. +..r. w � na G e•w tt Oita,..„ • 8 + ,n•i,� �ii'.�y �y�rrr ,Y`. 41 4 fur.o'rp' w arWii� w�e1 w w. a�w',`YYw•.ur. •'.1+ #. " ..�, rr ttr ww•r wwy rrtrr•.+. rr.+r,,.,u. �ar r,rr .• '+.y: ^+"` �C:i'.w':• wW�:IfT rt'r..r .. "'Z'�� r�inr.w r � .Y..'.., .+. Y.. /��� ��'� �'pr ici ni.w+ ewwr.•w M�MrWr+ or •�ir�w.�..i. w:l�' j ~. ` ���"' +� RIS • . I' . �e y.- " �•, � I .7 ' %. a •l. � ti rr ��., er+yrs w rrrt.Nryr. r+�r u�.... n., a w.., �,. , kyr. ��".I. -,� � . • r.L"l lYw, IYI+•• � _ �..•��,jN Or s p • r i � i .' .�.': •.e• .o '.. �•yiiLrlw niw � •. ..wr.s f ri���� fir._ y• � : 1 1 r', r/rM4MOY�•ASMWrN1YtW MrrW1r W��M q�. ..+,.+. Y.Rrr/�,..�� .� } ,��� � •+(f � r."'1Mn.iYr Obi rl rYltl..IiW._UY�/l •{-.���.+r,« • �P 4 �^ ��-`� ��! ` � � ,rr r rY�rhi lr 4Y.s rr�4 •! . +•._. - , •• - ./ �1 r - • ���*�w ♦ i �, 6... wr b+w rr rV r•..�.. sw+..�r.Y�.r r ... ` a t . - W ' , r..4 rrY4 w+ ..r �yur. a a w+�r. 1,r wY rsr v Or .Y—w •+�..:�:r-. , yy �1 +��•+7.Y •� �� � WC .+rWrrWYus=f.•..�{,u.ft�.s+rVwer.Miy���iY..#. +wrrw .�..4N ` PROTECTIVE COVENANTS CONSTRUCTION 5 ADDITION, CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA Know All Men by These Presents, that the City of Monticello, a Minnesota municipal corporation, being the proper regulatory agency for subdivisions and land use controls and Construction 5, a Minnesota the developer of Construction 5 Addition, do hereby agree as declared and by those presents do declare that all the land above described within the Construction 5 Addition is, and for a period of time hereinafter stated, shall be, subject to the following protective covenants, restrictions, and servitudes, and that every subsequent owner of said property shall be bound to said covenants, restrictions, and servitudes, and shall accept title subject thereto. 1. The purpose of those covenants, restrictions, and servitudes is to regulate development which may occur on the land in question, said land in question being sensitive to development by virtue of its exposure to Interstate Highway 94. Z. All proposed development shall be reviewed by a three (3) member architectural review board, said board being created solely for the development of said Construction 5 Addition, and whose membership shall be one member selected by the developer, ono member selected by the City of Monticello, and the third member selected by the other two members. This board shall review, prior to application for building permit, the proposed development plane, including, but not necessarily limited to, the general development plan of Construction 5 Addition 07 and/or any of. its individual lots, exterior design and aesthetics. traffic flow, intensity of use, detailed landscaping plans, and compliance with the general screening requirements as previously agreed upon. (Copy of said screening plan attached hereto.) These reviews shall cover any and all proposed structures. The review of landscaping plan shall include, but not be limited to any removal of any trees. Provisions of other applicable ordinances shall not be suporceded by this board. 3. These covenants are to run with the land and all the persons claiming under them for a period of twenty (20) years from the date these covenants are recorded. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands this day of , 1985. CITY OF MONTICELLO, a Minnesota municipal corporation. By Its Mayor, Arva A. Grimace BY Ito City Administrator, Thomas A. Eidem CONSTRUCTION 5, a Minnesota By Its President, By Its -2- STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF WRIGHT ) SS CITY OF MONTICELLO) The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to and acknowledged before me this day of , 1985, by Arve A. Grimsmo, Mayor; and Thomas A. Eidem, City Administrator, of the City of Monticello, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public Council Agenda - 3/25/85 8. Consideration of Granting Approval for a Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Multil2le Dwelling in Excess of 12 Units - Applicant, Construction 5. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: This issue similarly is related to the two earlier issues. Assuming the streets have been vacated, and the final plat has been approved. Construction 5 would like a conditional use to construct an 18 -unit multiple dwelling in Lot 1, Block 2, of the new Construction 5 Subdivision. The proposed construction of 16 units conventional housing was the impetus to the entire process we are concluding. Construction 5 does have plans to build commercial property on the south side of the Lauring Lane extension, but their immediate concern is the construction of an 18 -unit multiple dwelling in the newly created Lot 1, Block 2, of the subdivision. The Planning Commission, at their regular meeting, granted final approval to the conditional use contingent upon the resolution of three issues. First, there needed to be provisions drawn in to allow for a screened refuse dumpster. This has been resolved by the developer. Secondly, the parking lot had to be slightly relocated to the cast to create a greater traffic flow and turning radii from the garages to the unenclosed spaces. This matter has been resolved. Lastly, there needed to be a planting plan supplied. At the time we met with Construction 5 regarding the planting buffer along I-94, I indicated that a planting plan needed to be submitted for the apartment complex. They have agreed to submit before the and of the week a proposed planting plan. This plan, if found to be insufficient by staff, will be returned to the developer for upgrading. Hopefully by Monday night's meeting an agreed upon landscaping and planting proposal will be established. The main thrust of the planting suggestions that I submitted to Construction 5 is that there be substantial shrubbery and trop density along the back side of the proposed garages, and that there be fairly donee ohrubbory typo plantings along Fallon Avenue in order to complement the heavy lilac planting on tho oast side of the road. The remainder of the plantings I indicated were at their discretion but that we encouraged the planting of sizable ahado trees along boulevards in order to recover from tho Elm losses we have suffered. At the time of our discussion, they did not Boom to be overly concerned and indicated that they would be willing to comply. An with tho subdivision proposal, we have certain commants provided by John Uban, all of which were satisfactorily resolved at the Planning Commission level. Again, as indicated earlier, rather than explaining the revolution of each of those ioouon within the supplement, if they aro of concorn with you, I will bo happy to moat with you on a ono -to -ono basis to illustrate the planned resolutions. -9- Council Agenda - 3/25/85 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Grant the conditional use - this will allow construction of an 18 -unit apartment to commence in the spring of 1985. Assuming that we have a Tax Increment District in place, it will allow the generation of half of the $25,000.00 increment that we anticipate. 2. Do not grant the conditional use - this basically would restrict the number of units to 12, which according to the developer would lessen the economic feasibility. At the Planning Commission public hearing, both Ed Doran and Bill Malone spoke with the emphasis primarily on the cost of assessments, and not in opposition to the proposed development. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the conditional use be granted. Construction 5, with the one exception of going into Hennepin Street without permission, has been a reliable developer in the community. They have constructed attractive buildings and are renting at conventional rates. Their cooperation with the City in going through this entire subdivision process and the potential tax increment development has been excellent. We assume that we can rely on their currant high standards in development. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the comments from Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates; Copy of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting; Copy of the site plan. -10- -Consul Iin9-Piannet5 One Groveland Terrace 16121377-3536 Wnnmp 6. efineso _55.443 Daw"Vlow, and Uban/Incorporated DATE: 8 March 1985 TO: Monticello Planning Commission FROM: C. John Uban RE: Construction 5, Inc. Addition Plat Site Plan Review on 18 Unit Apartment Building, Lot 1, Block 2 The parcel is fronted on all sides by public roads, Loring Lane to the south, Fallon Avenue to the south and east, and Washington Street to the went and intersecting with Fallon Avenue to the north. This odd -shaped parcel will be difficult to develop and should not be expected to reach its maximum use because of the setbacks required on the entire perimeter of the property. It would be safe to assume that some variance will be requested in order to fit a more regular development on this parcel. The key here is to recognize that the plat was created and the parcel purchased knowing of its irregular shape and the difficulties that lay ahead and to obtain maximum development will be quite difficult. 2. The plan submitted to me did not include any elevations of the building to determine entrance functions and relationship to the areas adjacent to the property. Also not included was any indication of signage, lighting, and most importantly, landscaping. Because of the extreme exposure to residential areas adjacent to the property, both from the historical Rand site and others to the weat, the landscaping plan is quite critical and required to screen parking and garages. 3. 1 believe the siting of the building would be more successful if placed on the north end of the property allowing corners of the building to penetrate the setback requirements along Washington and Fallon Avenues. I believe this would have minimal effect on the neighborhood while garages and parking in that urea would be more detrimental. Caragee and parking can be screened and successfully placed on the southern portion of the property. G. Another consideration here is that the building is at the curve of Loring Lane and will hold a very prominent visual point in that whole area. If it is done poorly, it will have a detrimental effect on all the properties within the area. It is critical that this building not be approved until full details are provided and plans are completed by the appropriate professionals. (1) MEMORANDUM. RB: Conetruftion 5/ IB Unit Apartment Building page 2 5. No dumpster or trash facility was located on the plan for my review. All places available for this will have extreme exposure either to the passing public or to the new residence. 6. The relationship between the parking and the garages is much too tight. The garages themselves are only 10 feet by 20 feet, stacked in a row, giving very little maneuverability within the garage space itself. In order for vehicles to maneuver successfully into an enclosed garage, there should be 75 feet of turning movements apace between the front of the garage and the rear of the parking stalls. This area can be reduced if the garages are built to a more normal standard for a single garage that of 12 feet by 22 feet allowing more maneuverability within the garage opening itself. 7. The proposed parking stalls are lees than 9 feet in width and should be adjusted accordingly. The curbing for the entrance drive should reflect the 20 foot depth of the parking stall and protect the back side of the parked cars. At present, it cute the parking stalls short to only 16 feet is depth. S. interior circulation is very poor, allowing very little room for vehicular drop-off and turn around movements. One solution may be a drive-through loop on the property allowing both an entrance and an exit at separate points. The grading plan should also provide for a ovale or more positive drainage along the east aide of the building adjacent to the embankment coming off of Fallon Avenue. There is approximately a 10 foot change in elevation that drops almost directly against the building. 9. The site is approximately 56,000 square feet and the proposed 16 unite require 47,000 square feet of site. It is my estimation that this site works beat at 70 percent efficiency because of its odd size, leaving approximately 40,000 square feet for reasonable development. Using the present formula of exterior garages instead of underground garages I believe the maximum number of units placed reasonably on the property without variance would be approximately 12 to 14 unite. ,.• J i .o, t--'n•�..—" ".�:t ,J;,.a`i,r. •��Y="'. �. r� .`� �, _'yi`:3' .#r ,: wV �..:•1� �.4.'.s a�.S; -.•- 1 "��iJ as_'S"�L",'S•''w'� • _ s`�Sy'. .:`�'=��,f r+rti:i'IC'' „,,. ,,,;.. e.++fid.. '23r 6Fr: �_-=�_: _`.i ��.�. :.j�;�a„' ate'.— •..',F .:_• t�`-,�ji; i��h�,.• :•it' "•': ip. .4��i' i iti ^,'� :�.''-'t±i:' .._ i-.��:: .�+�'' �,a... na:•”. _ ..<:«._._,i;:.,.�•,+. .1.., � .r. •,v.. :i:Yr���r,�,�3 "� ' r�r."�i..�i\.�•r ��. .A�` �ti4:l�. •� '`t ���..� i '��rr.'• :-.. ••`y.� � '.t;�y'r ::. •,,�^••„� _tis .�'�,�1�:�. �, •ltdi 'r1a .it4� wtC`.;..;d ''r%ti ~b:a ^�,,>', .�' i 't.•'�+d• °•3A����TT,,'+ d t '' w �-l:ia' .. •.r... w+ - ra �•, � a. r. !:r .i�, �' .Qt; th., :�`'� f "t s} `�; •w+ •�•:'t���, ;j::•v� • �' ''`'�`�.t 4' � 'Y a.r�: i^. ;" ,,pa `t=?�!Y^,'s..t r�..-ti'j}�•�� . ".`sir•.' IJ�/y _'� '.+,'.. •' <';.". � ,,.'t. + ry��'' �;?^ �:�`•v'.v37.��r• ':'�•. ..r t 'R," •,�,`aR:'7 Y�,z�•�-y�'••«• ¢ •r' a`, ` ''•!'. •i r«•,• , r\p\ »nxf+"',s;<�', •`' ' ,S� • '" 'a' ��.'.r., r»�: .; .r,- .'`'•i`• � '• �; "a j DIDC-K 49 e�u�.+iP•-e! f '��tl' 'aT/;,,. •�rw`�t•^ -.. ��; `i� � t: .t .'•' r - `'�'••�'' +� v e _ � ,'i.n} `MCr'6�39YfR�. '+•V�+ .Y. 3 •. t•+� • r Y . un:'. r � a�nwrY . �,; �" .. _ n • , r ^. _ 1 . �t\.�. ��rp . ;• �+ :'.mow .. , Planning Commission Minutes - 3/12/85 0. Public Hearin(j - (Continued) Conditional Use Request to Allow an Apartment Building to be Constructed in Excess of 12 Units - Appllcant, Construction 5, Inc. Gary LaPromboiae, partner in Construction 5, Inc., was present to propose construction of an 18 -unit apartment building on Block 2, Lot 1, Construction 5 Addition. The apartment building would consist of 18 two-bedroom units with one of the units equipped for the handicapped. There would be 18 single stall garages constructed with 17 regular sized parking spaces and one handicapped parking space. Mr. Ridgeway opened the meeting with information submitted in a memorandum from John Uban of Howard Dahlgren B Associates. I) They should consider locating the apartment building to the far north of the property even if varianeen aro needed within the OOLbaek requirements. Mr. Eidem countered that the proposed location of the apartment building woo submitted in a way that it wouldn't need any variances regarding setbacks and the sight lines aren't obscured With the new apartment building to the existing Rand building located just to the oast of the apartment building site. 2) Any outside dumpater ahould be screened from exposure. Mr. Eidom agreed with that, and it waon't shown on the proposed plot. 3) The clone proximity of the parking and the garages does not allow adcquato maneuverability of vehicles going into or leaving the garage. It was the conoonauo that the parking lot could be moved back forthor to accommodato smoother flow of traffic in and out of the garagoo. Thera being no input from the public, motion was made by Richard Martie, seconded by Joyco Dowling, to approve the conditional usa request to allow an apartment building to be built in oxceoa of 12 unito with the following conditions: 1) The outside dumpater be screened. 2) The parking lot be moved oamtward to accommodate more oven flow of traffic through the parking lot. 3) The grading and landacaping plan be reviewed by City staff,, and upon their approval be aubmittod to city Council. -3- Council Agenda - 3/25/85 Consideration of Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction and Operation of a BMX Track in a B-3 (Highway -Business) Zone - Applicant, Chuck Teslow. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Chuck Teslow, part owner in Rolling Wheels, Inc., Fun Center, is proposing to construct and operate a BMX Track. For those of you that are not familiar with a BMX track, it is a track for smaller non -motorized bicycles which run on an obstacle course on a dirt surface. Mr. Tealow is proposing to hold sanctioned races only on weekends, probably twice a month, from April through October during daylight hours only. The sanctioned races will be conducted by an individual experienced in running BMX races and will be covered by insurance authorized by the USBA on riders, spectators, and property. Adequate parking will be provided in the existing tarred parking area for the Fun Center, with an overflow parking area between the go-cart track and the BMX track. Restroom facilities are currently provided in the Fun Center building; but if needed, portable sanitary facilities will also be provided. In the event of a medical emergency, an alternate access to the BMX area will be provided for the ambulance to reach an injured person without delay. The BMX track will be open to local riders on a monthly or seasonal basis during daylight business hours. Mr. Teslow has mot the conditions which were attached for his outdoor go-cart track, with his permit reviewed ovary year to ensure the permit and conditions attached have boon mat and are maintained. Much concern was addreseed to screening along the Interstate 94 aide of the property. Commission members suggested some typo of landscaping and screening plan be worked out with City staff. We have reviewed the landscaping plan and offer the following recommendations. The plantings of the tress and/or shrubbery along the freeway be according to the plan as submitted. we aro suggesting the minimum troo height be 10-12 foot and the minimum troo diameter be 15-21-. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the conditional use request to allow construction and operation of a BMX track in a 0-3 (Highway-Buoinosa) Zone. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow construction and operation of a BMX track in a D-3 (Highway -Business) Zone. cum Council Agenda - 3/25/85 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff goes along with the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the landscaping/screening plan as submitted by Mr. Teslow and reviewed by City staff be approved. Staff recommends the operational plan of the BMX race track with the eight items listed as conditions be approved. and the conditional use be granted for a period of one year from Council approval. At that time it would come up for review by the Zoning Administrator. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of location of proposed BMX race track; Copy of John Uban's comments; Copy of operational plan; Copy of the conditions of the ordinance amendment allowing a go-cart track in a B-3 Zone; Copy of the Planning Commission minutes of 3/12/65. -12- A conditional use request to allow Construction and operation of a BMX Track in a B-] (Highway Business) Zone. Chuck Teslow. �5) OPERATION PLAN FOR RMX TRACK 1) Sanctioned races will be held on weekends, once or possibly_ twice a month, from April through October during the daylight hours. 2) These sanctioned races will be conducted by an individual experienced in running EM races and will be covered by insurance authorized by U.S.B.A. on riders, spectators, and property. 3) If intoreat is shown by local and Wright County BMX participants, one or two smaller non -sanctioned events may possibly be held. 4) Adequate parking will be provided in the existing tarred parking area for the Fun Center with an overflow parking area between the go-cart track and the DMX track. 5) Rest room facilities for men and women are currently provided in the Fun Center building but if deemed needed, portable sanitary facilities .will also t -e provided. G) Concession stand may possibly also be established. 7) In the event of a medical emergency, on alternate access to tho Mgt area will be provided for the ambulance to be able to reach the injured person without delay. B) The IIM1t track will be open to local riders on a monthly or seasonal basis during normal daylight business hours. C-multing Planners One Grovefand Terrace (612)377.3536 _ Minneapolis Mtnnesote 554(13 Dahlgrefn, Shardlow, and Uban/Incorporated MEMORANDUM DATE: 8 March 1985 TO: City of Monticello Planning Commission FROM: C. John Uban RS: Rolling Wheels, Inc. Fun Center Proposal for BMX Track 1. The property is in the B-3 Zone adjacent to Interstate 94. The following ordinances generally control the condition of the development on this property. 10-3-2 (C) Required Landscaping 10-3-2 (H) Clare 10-3-2 (J) Dust 10-3-2 (L) Noise 10-3-3 (C) Yard Setback Requirements 10-3-5 (M) Lighting 10-3-5 (0) Curbing and Landscaping 2. The general requirements include the curbing of all perimeter parking with a five foot landscape strip and that lighting be shielded. 1 do not believe the existing facility has set these requirements as there is no landscaping in the parking setback and the lighting produces a great deal of glare and is quite dangerous to passing motorists on I-94. This brings up the overall condition to avoid along the interstate which has not been properly addressed in the existing ordinance. The following is a suggestion for an ordinance change to help eliminate some of these problems. Add a setback for parking of 20 feet from any street right-of-way for all cones where lose prohibitive and a 30 foot setback for parking from Interstate 94 right-of-way. This will allow for safe and enjoyable passage through the City without creating a blighted appearance to the general public. Although significant development has not occurred along much of the interstate right-of-way, this is an opportune time to make the necessary adjustments to the ordinance. 0 < ? 'l ,iii i' Page 2 3. The existing go-cart facility should be brought into conformance before a BMX track is installed. From the information supplied to me, the following comments relate specifically to the proposed design: 4. There is no access drive to the overflow parking and it appears that one must drive over the existing go-cart track or miniature golf area to get to it. The emergency access should not be used for the parking and spectator activity in the BMX area. The interior circulation must be better designed abowing lighting, proposed landscaping, and so forth. 5. From our observationo and information on similar facilities and events authorized by the United States Bicycle Association, such a track and sanctioned races can draw crowds close to 2,000 spectators and participants. To accomodate such events, 400 to 500 parking stalls need to be installed. If this cannot be done, sanctioned events or races of any sort should not be allowed. 6. The total area needs to be fenced in for security and medical first-aid must be on-site and readily available at all times. The BMX course needs to have adult supervision on the course full-time during all hours of operation. 7. As this property will hopefully obtain greater value in the future we expect that these existing recreational uses will be moved in the future and a new commercial development will be put in place. The life of this recreational facility should be reviewed with the City and some agreements made so that it is not a dilapidated and irritating use some years down the road. It is important to remember that this site holds a prominent visual place in the City of Monticello and careful attention should be made to all aspects that relate to aesthetics and impacts on surrounding land use. Planning Commission Minutes - 3/12/85 5. Public Hearing - Conditional Use Request to Allow Construction and Operation of a BMX Track in a B-3 (Highway -Business) Zone - Applicant, Chuck Teslow. Chuck Toolow, part owner in Rolling Wheels, Inc., Fun Center, was present for his proposal for construction and operation of a BMX Track. Chairman Ridgeway opened the public hearing with questions regarding the memorandum submitted by John Uban of Howard Dahlgren 6 Associates. 1) The property is adjacent to Interstate 94, and the following ordinances control the condition of the development of this property: Required Landscaping, Glare, Dust, Noise, Yard Setback Requirements, Lighting, Curbing and Landscaping. It is the consensus of City staff that these would be addressed as conditions to the conditional use. 2) The existing go-cart track facility be brought into conformance hefore a DMX Track is installed. Zoning Administrator Anderson countered that the existing yo -cart facility in already in conformance. 3) There is no access drive fur overflow parking. "Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated to Commission members that there is an existing access along the fence next Lo the miniature golf area. 4) From our obsurvations and information on similar facilities end events authuri•red by Lhc United States Bicycle Association, such nanCLioned racer: can draw crowds close to 2,000 spectators. To accommoddte spectaLors, 400 to 500 parking stalls aro needed. Two (jent3emen LCem Northstar Corporation, the sanctioned raceway orynnizers, indicated that these types of racing events draw approximately 200 apectaturc on a yood day. Therefore, the existing facility would more than exceed what in needed. 5) The total area be fenced in and have £trot -aid medical facilities on alto and readily available at all times. The two gentlemen from florthatar Association Indicated that the area in currently fenced in for security reasons and that they, an part of their arrangement with Mr. Teslow, carry insurance and have emergency personnel available at all Limon during race events. G) Agreement be made to control the property to avoid a dilapidated and irritating use nomo yearn down the road. Zoning Administrator Anderson countered that this in addressed an a condition listed In 12 allowing a go-cart track as a conditional use in a 0-3 Zone. With no input from the public other than the two gentlemen from Northstar Asaociatlon, motion woo made by Joyce Dowling, seconded by Richard Martie, to approve the conditional use request to allow construction and operation of a BMX race track with the following conditions: 1) A landacapiny and screening plan be worked out with City ntaff and Mr. Toolow and be proosntsd with their recommendation to the next City Council meeting. 2) Include the operation plan with the eight items listed as conditions. 3) The conditional use be granted for a period of one year from approval of the City Council. It would coma up for review at that time. Planning Commission Minutes - 7/13/82 6. Public Hearinq - Ordinance Amendment - Go-cart Track. Mr. Jim Teelow of Monticello proposed a go-kart track for his property which lies on the west side of Elm Street where Elm Street abuts the north side of I-94. This property is zoned B-4. As a result of Mr. Teslow's request to build a go-kart track, Monticello's ordinances must be amended to make a pro- vision to allow a go-kart track since they are not allowed anywhere in Monticello at the present time. John Uban of Howard -Dahlgren Associates proposed the following amendment to allow go-kart tracks within a B-3 zone as a conditional use. The following is the proposed ordinance amendment: Section 10-3-4 (M) Outdoor go-kart tracks provided that: 1. The proposed use must meet all conditions of Sec- tion 10-3-4 (A)1 2. The conditional use permit will be reviewed yearly to determine whether or. not the use is compatible with neighboring properties and lin conformance with the conditions of the conditional use. 3. A solid wood, 6 foot high fencemust be part of the 7 screening required when the adjacent property is residential. 4. For duet and noise (70DB at residential property line) must be controlled at all times 'to the satisfaction of the City. A motion was made by Dowling, seconded by Bondhus to adopt the or- dinance amendment maintaining a provision whereby go-kart tracks, if developed, would be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council an an annual basis. 7. Public Hearinq - Conditional Use - James Tcalow• In reference to the previous item, Mr. Teslow made his request for a conditional use to be allowed to develop a'go-kart track. Aleo, as a provision of his Conditional use, he requested a variance from the curbing requirement around hie parking lot since there is no ditch or public drainage area to control andlromwe the drainage water away from his property onto it would be directed into a drainage ditch it one were available. Only one person sent any objection to the Planning Commission in the form of a letter objecting to Mr. Toolw's request for a con- ditional use permit. Mrs. Tim Genung was proeont and supported Mr. Teelow's conditional use request. (Mra.'Genung is the im- mediate residential neighbor to Mr. Teslow's property and her property is zoned 8-3. The nearest residential property is more than 500 foot from Mr. Teslew's property). Planning Commission Minutes - 7/13/82 A motion was made by Bondhus, seconded by Dowling to grant the con- ditional use and variance request to Mr. Teslw, with an annual re- view to be conducted of the conditional use in order to ensure com- patibility with neighboring uses and compliance with the conditions of the conditional use. All voting in favor. {� G'y �P_ .bey y f ttt `4++ "Lys Ge+f raw {• -''�� ' Ytsp`Nse �� 4r •4` •M -_y .ib .4, Yvi� • _ dee. � •I �G.• .. i((( 49 oe 2•� � Ii• • '" 4eon;y • 4. >y �. 7a a .�. 3 f -J vn Council Agenda - 3/25/85 10. Consideration of Authorizing Plans and Specifications to be Prepared for the Reroofing of Monticello City Hall. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the January 28, 1985, City Council meeting, it was noted in our Department Head Reports under the City Hall Building Maintenance Program that we were looking at possible removal and replacement of the existing shingles on the City Hall roof. It was the consensus of the Council members to appoint a committee of two, with Councilman Dan Blonigen and Building Official Gary Anderson selected, to come up with a cost estimate of reroofing. Over the past several weeks, Councilman Blonigen and Building Official Anderson have been working on the best alternative to reroofing our City Hall building. At this time, we feel we have come up with the best possible alternative and will be recommending approval for preparation of plane and specifications. We have obtained some cost estimates on building materials and have estimated labor costs, coming up with a total City Hall roof replacement coat of approximately $28,000.00. We are suggesting removal of existing shingles, applying one layer of 5" plywood roof sheathing, applying two 1" layers of Thermax rigid insulation, applying an additional layer of 5" plywood roof sheathing, and then applying our felt paper with the application of 235 lb. 3 tab asphalt shingles. Also included in the above cost is cho continuance of the roof lino elope on the northwest portion of the Council Chamber to extend over the existing north entry to the building. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the preparation of plans and specifications for City Hall roof replacement. 2. Do not approve preparation of plane and specifications for City Hall roof replacement. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff foola that we are proposing a long-term solution for our City Hall roof. We realize that the amount of money we have expected for total reroofing coats is sufficient to cover the reroofing project. we also fool at this time that we will be getting soma favorable bids with possible early construction, and the availability and pricing of material is very favorable at this time. We also recognize that there woo only a certain amount allocated for City Hall roof replacement this year. We aro looking at possible Council approval to axeood the amount that woo budgeted for this itom. Thera is no supporting data for thio item. -13- Council Agenda - 3/25/85 11. Consideration of Approval of Plans and Specifications for a Portion of the Interceptor Sever. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the March 11 meeting, the City Council approved the feasibility report for that portion of the interceptor sever under Highway 25. The Council at that time also limited the amount of construction to only that area near Highway 25 so that future construction would not encroach upon the Highway 25 right-of-way. Mr. John Badalich indicated he would have the plans and specifications available for your review at the March 25 Council meeting. I have spoken with Mr. Lepak of OSM, who is in charge of preparing those plans and specifications. He has indicated that the plane will be presented at the Monday evening meeting. Therefore, there will be no further information provided for this agenda supplement. -14- Council Agenda - 3/25/85 12. Consideration of Granting a One Day License for :he On -Sale of 3.2 Beer - Applicant, Lions and 13. Consideration of Granting a One Day License for the On -Sale of 3.2 Beer and to Sell Set-ups - Applicant, Ducks Unlimited. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: I am combining both of these issues within a single supplement. Annually, Mark Irmiter comes to the City representing both the Lions Club and the Ducks Unlimited organization. The Lions Club annually serves 3.2 beer on the 4th of July; Ducks Unlimited as an annual fund raising dinner at the Monticello Roller Rink where they sell 3.2 beer and set-ups. In order to begin the processing of these annual licensee, we need a motion from the City Council granting the one day approval. As we have done in the past, I am requesting a motion from the City Council granting approval for both licenses, contingent upon the timely submittal of fees and documents as required under Ordinance and Statute. This is the process we've utilized in the past to expedite the granting of these licenses. I am assuming that since there have been absolutely ro problems with the granting of the one day licenses in the past, the Council is willing to continue this practice. Consequently, I am not presenting alternative actions, staff recommendation, or supporting data. A simple motion granting approval contingent upon the conditions listed will suffice. _15_ Council Agenda - 3/25/85 16. Information on Starting a Municipal Compost Pile for Leaves and Grass Clippings. (J.S.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The country, in general, is faced with a significant problem today that many people may not be aware of. The country's landfills, which receive mixed municipal, residential, and commercial garbage, as well as demolition materials, are filling up. Many of the landfills are at or near their ultimate capacity. More and more restrictions are being placed upon the landfills as pollution control agencies are finding out that the landfills are creating some problems for the environment. In Wright County we have four landfills. One of the landfills is due to be closed shortly. Two of the other landfills are extremely small with limited capacity. These two smaller landfills have, at best, only a few years to operate before they are full. Our fourth landfill, nearest to Monticello, belongs to George Yonak. Prior to his death, he sold the landfill to Mr. Jerry LaPlant of Buffalo. The ownership of this landfill is currently being challenged by Mr. George Yonak's heirs. The future operation of this landfill may be in jeopardy. The decreasing amount of landfill apace available, coupled with the increasing cost of operating a landfill, make it more and mono important to analyze our country's state and city waste d 1spoeal practices and reduce the amount of waste where possible. Ono of the easiest methods to reduce the amount of waste put into a landfill is to remove from that waste the loaves and graoe clippings. In the City of Monticello, the City is estimated to generate approximately 300 cubic yards of grass clippings and leaves per year. The coot of just the disposal of these leaves and groes clippings once transported to the landfill will be $3.00 after May 1 when the County'o surchargo is enacted. This comas to a coat of about 5900.00 par year. Those estimates do not include any of the leaves swept from the City streets or removed from tho City parka by City personnel. Those loaves are being disposed halter okoltor throughout the City and miscellaneous fill projects. It is a simplo process to make a compost pilo with leaves and grass clippings. Many communities in the state of Minnesota have boon operating compost facilities for many years,, and the project generated, a rich black compost material, has boon easily disposed of by people flocking to use it on their gardens and around troos and for top dressing for towns. To build a compost facility, one merely has to ootabliah an aroa of approximately 1 acro for the City of Monticello and build a roadway through it that can be traveled by core, pickups, and light trucks. -16- Council Agenda - 3/25/85 �_• The leaves are placed in wind rows on each side of this roadway in widths of approximately 25 feet wide on the bottom, stacked approximately 8-10 feet high, and in piles 150-200 feet long. The piles are watered initially and periodically during periods of dry weather. The piles are turned approximately three times per year by a front end loader; and in 18-24 months, a rich black material is produced. C The City of Monticello does not have a site totally suitable for a compost pile facility. There is an area, however, in the County Park adjoining our current City dump site which would be ideal. A combination of a piece of property already having a road on it and buffered naturally by evergreen trees would be the,most suitable site. A portion of the property would be City property, and a portion of it would be County property. I have approached three members of the Wright County Board with the possibility of obtaining a piece of property within the County Park for the operation of a composting facility. These three Board members were totally in favor of the proposal. We would ultimately, however, have to use the proper channels in order to require some property from the County; and that would be through the County Park Board and then on to the County Board. I do believe, however, we would have little problems with that process. You may auk yourself what typo of coats are associated with the operation of a composting facility. There would be a certain amount of coat needed in Class V for building a trafficable road that could be used in the spring and fall of the year. This road would have to be approximately 20 or 22 foot wide and have a cul-de-sac type turn around at the and to facilitate trailer turn around. The site near the County Park and City dump is idea, as an old road bad currently exists there and little gravel would be needed to repair it. Secondly, the site must be secured, no no to not allow unauthorized dumping of materials other than composting materials. This would easily be done, as the Pins trees at the site provide a natural barrier on the west aido and the City dump provides the easterly barrier. A gots would be located on the south border off of River Street, and a small fence would be placed on the north border of the site. The City currently has enough materials to construct thio fence and gato system. All of the recommendations coming from other cities have boon that the facility should be monitored during the time it is open for disposal of loaves and grass clippings. Thorn aro several ways to handle this. We have boon approached by organizations ouch as the Boy Scouts looking for projects, and there are other organizations as wall. The only concern that I have currently is the transportation of the leaves to the facility. Currently, -17- Council Agenda - 3/25/85 leaves are being picked up by Corrov Sanitation and mixed with the municipal garbage and transported to the landfill. A small portion of the leaves generated in the fall are being picked up by Corrov through the aid of City labor and transported to a landfill for composting. If leaves are transported directly to a landfill and not mixed with municipal garbage, there is a 90% savings in that the surcharge is not applied to leaves. We need some system of getting all of the leaves to the site. Most of the cities currently in this type of program allow the general public to transport leaves to the site on certain days; and they also pick up in the fall leaves stock piled at curb aide and covered with a canvass. City crews come by and vacuum up the leaves, placing them in dump trucks and then transporting them to the site. There have been numerous problems with the City picking up bags of leaves at curb side. Once the leaves are transported to the site, the bags must be emptied, and this is a time consuming process as well as enlightening, as often the bags do not contain leaved I have presented this information to the Council more as an information packet. If there is favorable consensus from the Council, we will present the request at the April 8 meeting to enact a resolution to request that the Wright County Park Board consider leasing, renting, or transfer of ownership of a small portion of the County Park to the City for the purpose of operating a composting facility. We will also work out the details more with the groups interested and the problem of loaf pickup. Such a facility could be operational for the fall, 1985, leaf pickup. -18- C Council Agenda - 3/25/85 15. Consideration of Authorizing the City Attorney to Perform a Title Search and Pending Clear Title Opinion, Authorizing an Offer for the Acquisition of the Northerly Half of Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 50, Original Plat, City of Monticello. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: As you are aware, Gary Anderson and I have been speaking with Ruby Hass, the owner of the property in question, concerning a possible acquisition for future development by the City. What prompted this entire discussion was that Mrs. Hass came to Gary Anderson to request a building permit last fall. At that time, I initiated discussion for potential acquisition by the City for downtown redevelopment purposes. The concept I was following at that time was very similar to the acquisition of the Saxon property. If you will recall, the Saxons came before the City Council to request a building permit and variance to construct a garage on their property. Knowing that the bridge and Highway 25 were to be rebuilt in the near future, we initiated land acquisition discussions so as to avoid greater expense in the future. Obviously, if Saxons had invested $5,000-$7,000.00 in a garage only two years prior, they would certainly want to recover that money from the City at the time we purchased the land. Using this same approach, I conveyed to Mrs. Hass that while we had no concrete prospects for development, we wish to investigate acquisition at this time so that they would not invest further funds into property improvement, thereby costing the City greater dollars when a developer comes along that could utilize the property. Prior to any one to ono discussions, the City authorized an appraisal of the property. St. Cloud Appraisal, doing only an exterior appraisal, valued the property at $25,000.00. From the vary beginning, since tho City was initiating the sale and asking persons to leave their homestead, we anticipated paying a substantial relocation expense in addition to tho actual property acquisition. This is not an uncommon practice and is often used to circumvent potential aminant domain proceedings. In moat cases, one can look at paying relocation expense to the "unwilling" sollor, or paying legal expense to two attorneys for eminent domain proceedings. It was my original estimate that wo probably would tomo out financially about the Game oither way. Basod on our appraisal and a projection of soma relocation oxponae/logal oxponeo for aminant domain, I presented to 11assls and to tho Council an original offer of $25,000.00 for tho proporty and $15,000.00 for total relocation, making a total price of $40,000.00. Haoa'o opening request was $75,000.00. After our initial discussions with Mrs. Haas, sho had an appraiser from Dig Lako do an appraisal of the property for comparison purposes. That appraiser submitted a figure of $30,000.00 for property ME! Council Agenda - 3/25/85 and structure. The $5,000.00 difference was given to the structure, where the City's appraiser did not give any value to the structure. Conceding the $5,000.00 increase, our discussions elevated to a point of purchase price being $45,000.00. As you know, I confirmed these figures with you informally and individually prior to any Council action. The Hassle, during this process, investigated alternate locations and drafted purchase agreements that were contingent upon the City paying certain dollars for their property. Through the ongoing process of negotiation, we have finally arrived at the following position, confirmed by each Council member individually. The City's offer is for $45,000.00 plus the abatement of between $800.00 and $900.00 of outstanding special assessments against the property. The last counteroffer by the property owner was clear payment of $50,000.00. In informing each of you of their latest counteroffer, you have indicated to me that our offer will stand firm. Because negotiations seem to have come to a halt, I met with Jack Maxwell to discuss what might be the proper method to re-initiate action. It was hie suggestion that we have a title search and opinion completed and if satisfactory, prepare a formal purchase agreement offering a specified sum as earnest money. If that is the Council's desire, the motion should authorize the preparation of a title opinion on the northerly half of Lots 1, 2, 3, in Block 50, City of Monticello, and, pending a satisfactory opinion being issued, further authorizing the issuance of a purchase agreement for the acquisition of said property and the issuance of an earnest money check in the sum of I hope you all are aware that this proceas has progressed solely because of the anticipation of future downtown davolopmont. As far as I know, the City has not in the past paid sumo substantially greater than appraised values. The uniqueness of thio case is that the City has initiated discussion of the acquisition, in assonco, roquasting the owners to vacate the premise. Also, this property lies within the Downtown Tax Incrament Finance District and the monies can be recovered through proper development. While the imago the Council may create in paying more than the appraised value for a piece of property, I find it more crucial to ensure that the property becomes available for quality development and that in the and the City has not lost any money on it. Currant estimated projections of devolopmant potential in the area indicate that the City, by facilltating oven a small davolopment, would easily recover its money through the resale of the land and the capture of tax increment over the period of the District. Pinson do not misconstrue my negotiation efforts to data as being a wholesale give away of City fundo. From a land use planning perspective, it strikes me that this aornor of Block 50 can be extremely advantageous to the City when rodavolopod -20- Council Agenda - 3/25/85 and further, is crucial to an overall Downtown Redevelopment Plan. This block serves as the westerly boundary of the Central Business District and core of commercial services. That is the only reason that I have pursued acquisition of this property thus far. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt a motion authorizing title opinion and subsequent actions. 2. Take no action, but attempt to reopen verbal negotiations. 3. withdraw the last oral offer and inform the property owners that they may proceed in their building permit application process. There is no staff recommendation, nor supporting data on this item. After discussion with Councilmember Maxwell, I suggest the Council determine which course it elects to pursue. -21- DISBURSEMENTS - GENERAL FUND - MARCH - 1985 AMOUNT CHECK 6 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone charges for Jan. - '85 872.52 20248 Equitable Life Assurance Society - Ins. ptemiums - reimb. 40.00 20249 Joseph Johnson - Animal control expense - Feb. 250.00 20250 ,Jerry Hermes - Janitorial services - Library 172.92 20251 Mary Ramthun - Animal control expense 212.50 20252 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 160.04 20253 Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H - February 2,484.00 20254 PERA - PERA Ins. - reimb. 18.00 20255 MN. State Treasurer - FICA W/H - 2/15/85 thru 2/28/85 2,523.42 20256 MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H - 2/15/85 thru 2/28/85 1,342.97 20257 Arve Grimsmo - Mayor salary 175.00 20258 Mrs. Fran Fair - Council salary 125.00 20259 William Fair - Council salary and mileage 150.75 20260 Dan Blonigen - Council salary 125.00 20261 Jack Maxwell - Council salary 125.00 20262 James Preusse - Cleaning city hall 308.35 20263 I'ICA of Mpls. - Monthly contract payment 458.33 20264 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 36.00 20265 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 87.00 20266 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 180.00 20267 Corrow Sanitation - Feb. contract payment 4,727.00 20268 Country Travel Store - Air fare to San. Fran. for K. Hansen 218.00 20269 Country Travel Store - Hotel expense for K. Hansen's seminar 368.92 20270 Karen Hanson - Sen. Cit. Ctr. - Retmb. salaries at Inf. Ctr. 719.95 20271 Power Process Equip. - Reg. fee for J.Hoffman - seminar 175.00 20272 MN. Pollution Control Agency - Reg. fee for S.Hancock d A. Meyer 90.00 20273 PERA - Interest for late payment 5.00 20274 MN. Pollution Control Agency - Reg. fee for M. Theisen seminar 45.00 20275 MN. State Trearurer - Dep. Reg. fees 180.00 20276 MN. State. Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 52.00 20277 MN. State Treasurer - Dep. Reg. fees 102.00 20278 North Central Public Service - Utilities 4,755.13 20279 Northern States Power Co. - Electricity 10,036.34 20280 Monticello Fire Dept. - Wages thru March 13 960.00 20281 Mnry Ramthun - Animal control expense 212.50 20282 Jerry Hermen - Janitorial services 172.92 20283 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 160.04 20284 Internal Revenue Service - Payroll ded. 150.00 20285 Thomas Eidem - Car allowance - March 300.00 20286 U. S. Postmaster - Stampa 220.00 20287 I,COA - Conference reg, and meals 184.00 20288 Wright County State Bank - FWT taxes 3,702.00 20289 MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 1,421.49 20290 State Treasurer - FICA W/H 2,657.60 20291 Wright County State Bank - Investments 110,000.00 20292 Anoka County Social Services - Payroll ded. 132.00 20293 Al A Julie Nelson - Sub. 11.70 20294 Wright County Journal prose - Adv. for truck 5.50 20295 Mobil 011 Corp. - Cas - Water b Fire Depts. 49.42 20296 Foster Frnnxan Agency - Est. insurance renewals 26,550.00 20297 Richard Wolfsteller - Mtsc. mileage 113.50 20298 OSM - Eng. fees 16,857.12, 20299 Liberty Systems, Inc. - Bulb for overhand projector 29.50 20300 Big Lake Lumber - Steel for pole barn - Mtca. Bldg. 88.20 20301 Mitchell Instrument Co, - Parts for Water Dept. 67.00 20302 Flexlbla Pipo Tool Co. - Supplies for Sower Dept. 392.59 20303 Bowman Barnes - St. supplies 54.80 20304 1 1 �� GENERAL. FUND Bergstrom Lawn 6 Carden Equip. - Public Wks. Dept. supplies Earl F. Anderson - Signs Sherburne County Equipment - Pin Unitog Rental Service - Uniform rental fees Allen Pelvit - Misc. mileage Johnson's "J" Store - Lettering for Fire Dept. 6 coveralls Garelick Steel Co. - Flat stock - WWTp Bentec Engineering - Charts for,WWTP Arvig Phone Center - WWTP supplies Seelye Plastics, Inc. - Fittings for WWTP Viking Safety Products - Tubes6 sensors for WWTP Ranger Products - Supplies for WWTP Northwestern Bell - Fire phone St. Cloud Fire Equip. - Fire Dept, mtce. expense General Safety Equipment. - Gauges for Fire Dept. Banker's Life Ins. - Group Ins. Harry's Auto Supply - Pnrrs for all Depts. Coast to Coast - Misc. supplies Our Own Hardware - Misc. supplies Suburban Gas - T coupling Big Lake Machine - Mtce. for St. Dept. National bushing 6 Parts - Oil filters 6 fuses Hoglund Bus Co. - Light and socket Hydraulic Specialty Co. - Repairs to St. equipment Gordon Link - Gnu J M 011 Co. - Gas Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone Olson 6 Sona Electric - Misc. repairs- WWTP, Library, McDowall Co. - Furnace repairs at City Hall 6 Library Voss Electric - Light bulbs - all Depts. Zep Mfg. Co. - WWTP supplies TKDA, Inc. - Eng, fee for Fire Hall - Nov. 6 Dec. fee United Electric Company - Clocks for WWTP Sentry Systems - Lease payment for alarms -at Reservoi Maus Foods - Misc. supplies for all Dept. Holmes 6 Graven - Prof. services for Tax Increment Phillips Petro. Corp. - Gas - Water Dept. Orkin Exterminating Co. - WWTP contract payment Monticello Times - Publishing and adv. Monticello Office Products - Office supplies - Midwest Computer Services - Repair 6 pnper - WWTP Marco Business Products - Office supplies Monticello 0. K. Hardware - Supplies for WWTP First Bank Mpla. - Public fund charge First Bank Mpla. - G. 0. Bonds - Fire Hall - Initial Wright County Sheriff Dept. - Contract payment Howard Dahlgren Assoc. - Planner fees for Feb. Int. C1tyManagement Assoc. - Compensation 'fly honk Communication Auditors - Fire Dept. repairs Independent Lumber - 12 ft, stair tread - %.WTP Greys, Johnson 6 Assoc, - Computer fees - Dec. Buffalo Block. Inc, - Supplies A T 6 T Information Systems - Fire phone fee L. B's Snow Plowing - HAuling snow Davis Electronic Service - Fire Dept, batteries National Life Ins. - T. £idam's pension premium Local #49 - Union duce Sewer fee American National Bank - St. Paul - Interest on 1960 bonds AMOUNT CHECK NO, 81.80 20305 88.38 2030f, 4.25 20: 394.40 20308 63.55 20309 750.00 20310 89.76 1 20311 522.50 20312 34.93 20313 78.96 20314 312.48 20315 97.66 20316 36.68 20317 31.70 20318 205.50 20319 4,210.40 20320 486.15 20321 235.96 20322 219.14 20323 8.22 20324 28.50 20325 32.48 20326 33.88 20327 134.75 20328 490.54 20329 1,692.60 20330 907.99 20331 617.32 207 898.83 203„ 575.84 20334 67.79 20335 21400.00 20336 68.60 20337 90.00 20338 114.82 20339 264.00 20340 77.45 20341 106.00 20342 595.44 20343 183.26 20344 184.50 20345 121,77 20346 15.06 20347 8.00 20348 400.00 20349 9,779.58 20350 425.00 20351 b4.00 20352 33.56 20353 6.48 20354 290.00 20355 3.44 20356 3.39 101-1 560.00 20. i 55.00 20359 100.00 20360 126.00 20361 3.167.50 20362 GENERAL FUND AMOUNT Adams Pest Contra•], Inc. - Library contract payment 39.70 Cary Anderson - Misc. mileage 34.58 Thomas Patco Co. - 29 traffic cones for St. Dept. 174.00 Allen Pelvit - Mileage to St. Paul 27 .50 Mega Products - 320 gauge 12.80 Tom F.idem - Misc. mileage 6 parking 39.55 Gruys, ,:ohnson 8 Assoc. - Computer fees for Jan. 290.00 Smith, Pringle. Hayes - Legal fees for 1/17 thru 3/17 1,194.00 Payroll for February 25,246.38 SUB - TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR MARCH $255,54 7.52 ADDITION: Moores Excavating - Snow hauling 560.00 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS - MARCH $256,107.52 C CHECK N 20363 20364 20365 20366 20367 20368 20369 20370 20371 E DISBURSEMENTS LIQUOR FUND MARCH - 1985 0. AMOUNT CHECK NO. Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax - January 4,607.96 11655 Ed Phillips & Sons - Liquor 2,321.89 11656 Gruys, Johnson & Assoc. - Computer charge for Dec.- '84 110.00 11657 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 20.00 11658 Commissioner of Revenue - State W/H - Feb. 227.00 11659 State Treasurer - FICA W/H 285.98 11660 State Treasurer - PERA W/H 167.34 11661 VOID -0- 11662 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 4,357.10 11663 Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor 125.27 11664 Griggs, Cooper & Co. - Liquor 3,143.04 11665 PERA - Interest for late payment 5.00 11666 North Central Public Service - Gas 380.55 11667 Northern States Power Co. - Electricity 493.42 11668 State Capitol Credit Union - Payroll ded. 20.00 11669 Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor 1,483.18 11670 Wright County State Bank - FWT 355.00 11671 MN. State Treasurer - PERA W/H 167.11 11672 MN. State Treasurer - FICA W/H 285.60 11673 Twin City Wine Co. - Liquor 613.82 11674 Commissioner of Revenue - Sales tax for Feb. 4,504. 54 11675 Slifka Sales - Misc. mdse. 89.13 11676 Bridgewater Telephone - Telephone 53. 32 11677 Banker's Life Ins. - Croup Ins. 364.91 11678 Maus Foods - Store expense 36.87 11679 Buffalo Refrigeration - Cooler repair 32.00 11680 Viking Coca Cola - Misc. mdse. 279.05 11681 Seven Up Bottling Co. - Misc. mdse. 299.75 11682 Bernick's Pepsi Cols - Misc. mdse. 231.35 11683 Jude Candy & Tobacco - Misc. mdse. 454.65 11684 Frito Lay. Inc. - Misc. mdse. 112.31 11685 Old Dutch Foods, Inc. - Misc. mdse. 112.94 11686 Thorpe Dist. Co. - Beer 2,925.06 11687 Crosulcin Beverage - Beer 8,243.28 11688 Day Dist. Co. - Beer 644.60 11689 Dick Beverage Co. - Beer 1,761.05 11690 Liefert. Trucking - Freight 284.73 11691 Dalilhcimer Ilist.Co. - Beer 10,726.19 11692 Yonnk SanitaLion - Contract payment 82.50 11693 Forster Frnnxen Agency - Ins. renewal - (Est.) 12,700.00 11694 Grays. Johnson & Assoc. - January computer charge 110.00 11695 Ed Phillips 6 Sons - Liquor 1,461.10 11696 Engle Wine Co. - Liquor 745.76 11697 Pnyroll for February 3,611.33 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS FOR MARCH $69,035.68 0. INDIVIDUAL PEI' IT ACTIVITY REPORT MONTH OF February 1985 �_-- 2'ERM1T- WMBER DESCRIPTION P NAME/LOCAT ION I. VALUATION PERMIT SURCHARGE PLUMPING SURCKARGJ 85-722 Interior Renovation ACI Holiday Station Store/101 W. 7th St. 515,000.00 $110.50 5 7.50 $12.00 S.50 95-723 House Addition AD David Kranz/807 Moet Broadway 8.500.00 71.50 4.25 TOTALS 523,500.00 $182.00 $11.75 $12.00 S.50 i j I I I - TOTAL REVENUE i $206.25 I . �. CITE OF MONTICELLO Report Monthly Building Department PERMITS and lssEs NOnth of Februaryl9 85 �LAAL -...SBteB Ta MDnth 1.eAt �CBi' A BBT PERKETS I3= Month January Month February Lest Tear To Data To Date RESIDENTIAL Number .. 2 1 4 6 3 Valuation $56,430.00 S 8,500.00 : 882,900.00 i 887,100.00 $64,930.00 Fees 312.30 71.50 4,120.41 4,171.91 383.80 .Surcharges 28.20 4.25 441.40 443.50 32.45 I COMHMCIAL Number 1 1 6 8 2 Valuation 1,430.00 15,000.00 180,200.00 231,700.00 16,430.00 i Fees 14.30 110.50 1,152.65 1,637.10 124.80 Surcharges .70 7.50 90.10 115.85 8.20 ba6TRI AL Number Valuation Fees i Surcharges PUMBING Number 1 4 5 1 Fees 12.00 242.00 258.00 12.00 ,Surcharges .50 2.00 2.50 .50 OTHERS Number Valuation Fees Surcharges TOTAL NO. PERIQTS 3 3 14 I 19 6 TOTAL VALUATION 57,860.00 23,500.00 1. 063, 100. 00 1,118,800.00 I� 81.360.00 TOTAL FBS 326.60 194.00 ' 5,515.05 5,809.01 520.60 TOTAL SURCIlARG6S CURRENT MMM 28.90 12.25 533.50 559.35 41.15 IPERMIT • Number to Date NATVRS Number� PiR1Q; _ Valuation This veer Laet Year Single Family S S S 0 2 Duplex 00 Multi-taml.ly 0 , Commercial 0 2 Industrial 0 0 Res. Garages 0 0 Sipes 0 0 Public Buildings 0 0 ALTERATION OR REPAIR j Dwellings 1 71.50 4.25 8.500.00 3 3 Commercial i 110.50 7.50 15,000.00 2 .6 Industrial 0 0 i f PLUMING All types 1 12.00 .50 1 5 ACCESSORY STRUCTURU Swimming Poole 0 0 Docks 0 0 I TEMPORAAV veRxiT 0 ' 0 DEMOLITION 0 0 TOTALS 3 3194.00 812.25 823.500.00 6 19