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