City Council Agenda Packet 03-14-1994AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Monday, March 14, 1984 • 7 p,m.
Mayor: Ken Maus
Council Members: Shirley Anderson, Clint Herbst, Brad Fyle, Patty Olsen
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held February 28, 1994.
3. Citizens comments, petitions, requests, and complaints.
4. Public Hearing --Consideration of adopting a resolution relating to the
modification, by the Houscing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), of the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the modification of
the plans for Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1.151,
and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-16 and
adoption of its Plan.
5, Public Hearing --Consideration of proposed increases in retail license fees for
non -intoxicating and intoxicating liquor licenses.
6. Public Hearing--Considerution of the issuance of an on -sale liquor license for
a restaurant in the Sixth Street Annex mall.
7. Consideration of confirming 1994 Board of Review date and acceptance of
Assessor's summary report.
R. Consideration of it conditional use permit allowing open and outdoor
storage, and consideration of a parking lot and drive aisle conditional use
permit in mi 1.21heavy industrial) zone.
9. Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing open and outdoor storage
and consideration of it parking lot and drive aisle conditional use permit, in
an 1-1 (light industrial) zone.
to. Consideration of amendment. to Section 3.9: (F) of the zoning ordinance
regulating definition, size, number, and bwation of premise and product
signs allowed within the I1ZM, B-1, I1-2, 13.3, B-4, 1-1, and 1.2 districts.
11. Consideration of amendment to Section 3.2: (F) of the zoning ordinance:
regulating placement of fences. The amendment would allow placement of
fences on it property line only with written approval from property owners
arreeted.
12. Consideration of authorizing the specifications for the purchase of a new
pumper and rescue fire truck.
13. Consideration of an application for a one -day gambling license --Ducks
Unlimited Banquet.
14. Adjournment.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, February 28, 1994 - 7 p.m.
Members Present: Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson. Brad Fyle, Clint Herbst, Patty
Olsen
Members Absent: None
2. Consideration of approval of minutes of the reeular meetine held
Fehruary 14. 1994.
After discussion, a motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Shirley
Anderson to approve the meeting minutes as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. Citizens comments/uetiLions. reouests. and complaints.
Dave Anderson, representing Century 21 Realty, described difficulties with
removing snow from the sidewalk in front of this business along Highway
25. He noted I.hot the snow on the sidewalk consists of an icy windrow
created by plows clearing State Hwy 25. The icy consistency of the snow
makes it difficult to remove. In addition, there is little room to place the
snow after it has been piled onto the sidewalk. Anderson asked if the City
would be willing to waive the requirement that the snow he removed within
48 hours as required by ordinance. He noted that the State Highway
Department clears the sidewalk within 3-4 days after a snowfall and he
wondered if the removal of snow by state crews would be sufficient.
John Simula, Public Works Director, informed Council that. the State is not
required to clear the sidewalks. They can come as Irate as 5 days after it
snowfall. Must of the business owners along Highway 25 havu been able to
comply with the snow removal requirement. Simola noted that removing
snow from the sidewalk to the extent of one shovel width would he sufficient
prior to the State coining in to remove the rest of the snow.
Mayor Maus informed Anderson that the stuff and Council would look into
t,be matter further and respond accordingly.
Consideration of an amendment to the zonine map which would chanee 1.110
zonine district degienation of a portion of Lot. 4. Block 1. I.aurine Hillside
Terrace Addition. from H-3 Onult.i-family residential) to PPM (performance
zone mixed). Anolicant. VauOhn Veit.
Assistant. Administrator O'Neill reported that in conjunction with the
proposed re-estahlighment ()fit restaurant tit the Sixth Street Annex,
I'age 1
Council Minutes - 2/28/94
Vaughn Veit requests that the City allow rezoning of a portion of Lot 4,
Block 1, from its present zoning designation 1R-31 to PZM. The rezoning is
needed to accommodate additional parking for a proposed restaurant at the
Sixth Street Annex. According to the city ordinance, an additional 56
parking stalls will be needed to accommodate the new restaurant facility.
There is not enough room on the Sixth Street Annex parcel for the 56
spaces; therefore, the spaces must be developed off site on an adjoining
parcel.
O'Neill reported that at a special meeting on February 22, the Planning
Commission reviewed the case and recommended that the rezoning allowing
parking area expansion be allowed to occur. The Planning Commission
recommended that the area rezoned be limited to the perimeter of the
parking lot expansion area. in addition, it was recommended that the lot
lines lie adjusted so that the parking area would be combined with the Sixth
Street Annex property and taken away from Lot 4, Block 1.
Council discussion focused on site plan issues relating to parking. There
was it concern that restaurant customers would not park in the rear of the
facility as proposed under the site plan and, as a result, parking problems
would then be created in the front of the building and along Cedar Street.
Brad Fvle noted that we should he very careful not to approve it site plan or
rezoning that would result in on -street parking on Cedar Street Ken Maus
noted that he has it problem forcing people to the rear of the facility. In
response, it was noted by .Judy Leming that the rear of the facility would he
modified to include glass windows and double doors w encourage people to
use the rear entrance of the facility to enter the restaurant.
John Purmort., owner of the Depot in Elk River and owner of the proposed
restaurant., indicated that the restaturant includes on -Rale liquor sales. He
noted that no minors tire allowed in the restaurant after 9 p.m. without a
parent or guardian. The restaurant features it Ground Round type menu.
it will employ 30 part-time residents. It is hoped that the restaurant will
become it gathering spot after sporting events. Purmort, also noted, as he
has done in Elk River, that he plans on becoming involved in the
community and will he sponsoring various youth athletic programs.
Alter discussion, it motion was made by Brad Fyle and seconded by Ken
Maus to approve the rezoning request contingent on realignment of lot lines
which result in additional parking area being added W the Sixth Street
Annex. Motion based on information contained within the City Planner's
report and on the finding thatthe rezoning is consistent. with the character
and geography of the area and is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Voting in fervor: Brad Fyle, Ken Maus, Shirley Anderson. Opposed: Clint
tferbst. Abstaining: 1'atl.y Olsen,
Page 2
Council Minutes - 2/28/94
In citing his reasons for voting against the rezoning, Councilmember Herbst
noted the potential negative impact on the mall tenants that could be
created by parking conflicts between restaurant parking and retail shop
parking. Herbst also noted that the proposed parking area located toward
the rear of the facility will encroach on the residential zone to the rear and
could have a negative etlect on the residential uses. The boundary of the
district as proposed will not he well defined and will result in intrusion into
the residential area, which is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
5. Consideration of amendment to a conditional use hermit which would allow
expansion of an existing restaurant in a PZM (performance zone mixed)
zone. Applicant, Hillside Partnership.
This item was not addressed at this time due to denial of the previous item.
6. Consideration of granting preliminary approval for issuing an on -sale liquor
license for restaurant in the Sixth Street Annex mall.
This item was not addressed due to denial of item p4.
At this point, in time, Brad Nyle left the meeting.
Continuation of consideration of amendment to contract with 1) & K for
curh-side reeveling services.
John Sintola reported that Lit the last meeting, Council discussed the
possibility of increasing life contract to 1) & K Recycling by $17 per ton to
recycle newspaper. According to Simoln, tbkndy (.inn from 1) & K has
indicated that it is difficult for the D & K firm to absorb such if significant
cost increase even on a short-term basis. Council chose to table action
pending gathering of additional information.
At the previous meeting, Council questioned whether the increase in cost for
recycling newspaper was offset by increases in revenue for other materials
such as aluminum. According to information provided to Council, revenue
from sale of other recyclied material has not offset the large increase in the
cost to recycle newspaper. In his recommendation, Sintoln noted that as the
Public Works Director, he dues not like to see any cost increases; however,
it is in our hest, interest to work with D & K, as they provide a high level of
service to our community at an economical rate. He recommended that the
City Council amend the contract to compensate 1) & K for the increase in
the cost to dispose of newspapers stating that the increase will hopefully he
if temporary situation with the market for newspaper improving in the next
few months.
]'age :1
Council Minutes - 2/28/94
After discussion, a motion wits made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to amend the current contract with D & K Refuse and
Recycling and pay an additional $17 it Lou for recycling newspaper on a
temporary basis effective February 1, 1994. Motion carried unanimously
with Brad Fyle absent.
N. Consideration of reviewing vear-end liquor store financial statements.
City Administrator, Rick Wolfsteller, summarized the financial performance
of the liquor store as follows. For the year ending December 31, 1993, total
sales at the liquor store were down approximately $10,300 from the
previous year, however, cost of merchandise also dropped approximately
$20,000, resulting in an increase in gross profit over the previous year by
$10,000. With regard to general operating expenses, expenditures for 1993
showed an increase of $5,300 over 1992. The operating income for 1993 was
approximately $4,700 higher than the operating income for 1992. Operating
income over expenses amounted to 10%. Total operating income for 1993
was $147,700.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to accept the financial report as presented. Motion carried
unanimously with Brad Fyle absent.
9. Consideration of reviewing sketch plans and authnrizing preparation of
nreliminary plat., Out.luts C and D, Meadow Oak Estates.
(tick Wolfsteller reported that based un Council action at the previous
meeting, he net. with the City Engineer and John Bergh of Loucks &
Associates to review Outlot C and 1) for the purpose of determining the best
development design for creating spacious residential building sites.
Wolfsteller noted that the proposal would be to create 30 residential lots
that, are above-average in size. The layout minimizes Clic amount of grading
and tree removal and hits flexibility built within it to enlarge some of the
lilts.
Wolfsteller noted that by continuing with this project mid controlling how
the development progresses, the City will experience a number of
advunlages. The first one is Chat it will give us a better chance of
recapturing not only our initial investment in the land but give us the hest
opportunity to pay ourselves for some of Che lost penalties and interest that
hits accumulated over time on this forfeited property. Wolfsteller noted that
the city would not hey able to recover penalties and interest if the property
wits sold in it present undeveloped condition. In analyzing the estimated
cost of improving and marketing the property, it appears very feasible to
not, only recapture our initial cost but receive additional funds to pay for
some of the Inst penalty and interest we've experienced. Rased on estimates
Page 4
Council Minutes - 2/28/94
by our City Engineer for completing street and utility improvements and
allowing for additional funds for grading and platting costs, along with
funds for landscaping, development of entry signs, and also assuming
interest holding costs, the City needs to average $22,000 to $23,000 per lot
to cover all anticipated costs. Due to the fact that the lots will he larger
than most lots that are available today and by setting restrictive covenants,
the city can be assured that the homes developed will possess above average
market values. There shouldn't be a problem with the City commanding
the type of prices that will exceed the $22,000 to $23,000 cost to break even.
Wolfsteller noted that according to the existing market, it appears
reasonable to expect that we would he able to get as much as $28,000 per
lot.
Clint Herbst agreed that $28,000 appears to he a reasonable amount to
expect per lot.
Patty Olsen was concerned that all of the City's expenses relating to
development of the site are not included in the cost estimates. Olsen
mentioned that she preferred that the City place the property for sale on
the open market.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to accept the proposed layout as presented and authorize
preparation of a preliminary plat based on the concept design. Voting in
favor of the motion: Clint Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Ken Maus. Opposed:
Patty Olsen. Absent: Brad Fyle.
Shirley Anderson also noted that the property is for sale at any time and
that the City should consider an outright sale if the buyer guarantees
development of higher value homes and if a price is offered that equals the
initial debt against. the property along with penalties and interest.
10. Consideration of auuoint.ine Council member to ulanninc committee for allev
construction uroiect.
,John Simola reported that on September 27, 1993, at the conclusion of the
public hearing liar the alley improvement project in the downtown area, the
City Council voted to establish it committee for the purpose of prelxuing it
plan for reconstruction of the downtown nlleys. At that time Council voted
to establish it committee but did not appoint it Council representative to the
committee. Apparently no one volunteered for the duty.
Council discussed the matter. After discussion, Shirley Anderson
volunteered to serve on the committee.
Page 5
Council Minutes - 2/28/94
It. Consideration of a resolution authorizing feasibility studv and oreaaration
of plans for Cardinal Hills. Phase IV.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reported that Value Plus developers are
requesting that the City complete public improvements associated with
development of phase IV of the Cardinal Hills subdivision. Development
financing and associated agreements will be nearly identical to the
agreements governing the previous three phases.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Patty Olsen to adopt a resolution authorizing preparation of feasibility
study and plans and specifications for phase IV of Cardinal Hills residential
subdivision. Motion is contingent on developer providing $25,000 deposit
covering the cost of plans and specifications. Motion carried unanimously
with Brad Fyle absent. SEE RESOLUTION 94-7.
12. Consideration of treating wastewater trucked in from the Creek Hike
develoument in St. Michael.
John Simola reported that Tony Emmerich is developing it residential area
in the city of St. Michael known as Creek Ridge. The MPCA will not allow
any additional sewage from Creek Ridge to enter the City of St. Michael's
wastewater treatment facility, as it is currently at capacity. The City of St.
Michael is in the process of rebuilding their wastewater treatment plant to
increase capacity and should go on line with the expanded facility in early
1195. Emmerich has requested that the City of Monticello consider treating
the domestic sewage from Creek Ridge. Under Emmerich's proposal,
sewage would be trucked in to our wastewater treatment plant Monday
through Friday during regular business hours.
Simola reported that the current policy for serving residences outside the
city limits requires payment of it sanitary sewer fee three times the normal
fee . Simola noted that he could see no reason why Ute City couldn't assist
Mr. Emmerich in this case, since we do have the capacity available at the
wastewater treatment plait. We are currently talking to PSC to see if
there would be any additional unexpected costs on their part to handle the
waste.
After discussion, it inotion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to assist Emmerich in his St. Michael development. and
onphry the existing policy for charging nun -residents to utilize the City's
wastewater treatment plant. 'treatment of waste from Creek Ridge would
be allowed to (occur until such time that tit. Michael completes its
wastewater treatment plant, expansion or such time that waste treatment
proves to create it problem at the City of Monticellti s treatment plant.
Motion carried unanimously with Brad Fyle absent.
Page 6
Council Minutes - 2/28/94
At, this point in the meeting, John Gries, representing the Hillside Partnership,
requested that the City Council consider approval of the conditional use permit
allowing expansion of the Hillside mall (item 51:
5. Consideration of amendment to a conditional use permit which would allow
exuansion of an existing restaurant in a I'ZM (performance zone mixed)
zone. Applicant, Hillside Partnership.
In his proposal, Cries suggested that the Hillside Partnership would be
willing to allow a portion of the Sixth Street Annex to remain vacant in
order to keep the parking stall requirement at a level that the site, as it
now exists, could accommodate. Cries suggested that by leaving 9,100 sq ft
of retsil space vacant, the site as it now exists could accommodate the
restaurant use along with the existing uses on site. It was noted that this
alternative would allow the restaurant facility to be established, which
would result in a better understanding of parking demand and patterns.
This practical information regarding parking demand would he useful when
addressing full utilization of the structure at some point in the future.
Clint Herbst indicated that the alternative proposed is a good solution as
long as the developer is willing to leave a portion of the building vacant.
Rick Wolfsteller was concerned that the short-term solution as proposed will
not solve the problem and that it was unrealistic to expect that the
developer would he supportive of leaving 9,100 sq ft of building vacant for
any length of time. It is likely that as soon as a tenant is interested in
filling the space, another amendment request to the zoning ordinance will
he forthcoming.
After discussion, n motion wits made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to approve it conditional use permit allowing expansion at a
restaurant in a commercial mall in a PZM zone. Approval of the conditional
use permit. subject to the following conditions:
1. 9,100 sq ft of space available for occupancy within the mall shall be
left vacant, which results in it parking demand?? that matches the
capacity of the parking lot.
2. To improve security and to create an appealing entrance point,
windows and double doors shall he installed in the rear of the
structure facing the parking area.
3. Additional lighting shall he provided in the rear of the facility to
improve security.
4. Parking along the front of the building shall he limited to 15 -minute
parking only and signed arordingly.
Page 7
Council Minutes - 7128/94
Vii. All other conditions noted by ordinance and noted in previous
conditional use permits.
Motion to approve the conditional use permit based on the finding that the
expansion of the restaurant is incidenuil to the commercial use of the
stricture and is acceptable in a I1ZM zone when operated in a commercial
mall setting. The operation of the restaurant, under conditions as noted,
will result in a use that is compatible with the area and will not result in a
depreciation of adjoining values. Voting in favor: Clint Herbst, Shirley
Anderson, Ken Maus. Abstaining: Patty Olsen. Absent: Brad Fyle.
Shirley Anderson was concerned that the absence of Brad Fyle would have
an impact on the validity of the vote and requested that staff research the
matter.
6. Consideration of granting preliminary approval for issuing, an on -sale liquor,
license for restaurant in the Sixth Street Annex mall,.
Kick Wolfsteller reported that John Purmort of Elk River will be the owner
of the restaurant proposed within the Sixth Street Annex. As part of the
operation, he is requesting an on -sale liquor license. Wolfsteller noted that
the sit-down restaurant proposed will have a sandwich menu and home -
baked pizza with a local sports motif. Purmort currently operates the
Sunshine Depot restaurant in Elk River that also has an on -sale license.
The operation has been in existence for 15 years; and according to the
background check completed, there appears to be no problem that would
prohibit Mr. Purmort from having an on -sale license in Monticello.
Wolfsteller noted that the purpose of Council action is to provide Purmort
with it preliminary idea us to potential of an approval of the liquor license.
Prior to formal approval, it public hearing will need to he conducted, which
is scheduled fur the next meeting of the City Council.
After discussion, it motion wits made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint. Herbst to grunt preliminary approval to issue all un -sale license to
Mr. Purmort contingent on successful cumpletiun of the public hearing
requirement.. Furthermore, the investment of the building and lease
improvements meet minimum investment requirements 1$200,0001. Voting
in favor of the motion: Clint. Herbst, Shirley Anderson, Ken Maus.
Abstllining: fatty Olsen. Absent: Ili -Lid Fyle.
1:1. Considernt.ion of updat.im, the utility hilline system.
City sta0' requested that Council consider making an upgrade to the utility
hilling system in the amount of $4,362 for the purpose of improving
response tittle laid information accuracy.
Page 8
Council Minutes - 2/28/94
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to authorize improvements to the utility billing system at
a sum not to exceed $4,352. Motion carried unanimously with Brad Fyle
absent.
14. Consideration of vurchasimg Planfile system for mai) storage.
Karen Doty requested that Council authorize purchase of a new storage
system to upgrade the existing hanging file system. She noted the current
system has served its purpose of the last five years in helping organize and
store maps in an orderly fashion; however, because it's an open storage
system, the maps are not protected. In addition, the system requires that
many maps be clipped together so that if one map is needed, the entire
group of maps in that section must be taken apart in order to take the one
map needed, or the entire section of maps must be transported to the office
or meeting where the map is needed. The result is many maps being moved
around unnecessarily which results in damage to the maps. The system
itself is showing wear, as the knobs that tighten groups of maps into place
are breaking off, making it very difficult to remove and file maps.
Doty went on to propose it Planfile system that places maps in large "file
folders." Maps are stored vertically in an enclosed cabinet which contains
flexible canvass pocket bottoms that grip the folders to prevent the bottom
edge of drawings from curling.
After discussion, it motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to authorize staff to purchase a Planfile system from CRI of
Minneapolis at it cost of $3,029.92. Motion carried unanimously with Brad
Fyle absent.
15. Consideration of suecial meetine or workshou for wastewater treatment
plant exi)nnsion planning.
After discussion, it stwcial meeting was scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on
March 11, 1994.
Ili. Consideration of annual Junk Amnestv Dav on Muv 7, 1994.
After discussion, it motion wits made by Clint Herbst and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to authorize City staff to hold the 7th Annual Junk
Amnesty Day on May 7, 1994. The 1994 amnesty day to no include
acceptance of fluorescent. light bulbs and to include acceptance of demolition
materials with an accompanying charge. Motion carried unanimously with
Brad Pyle absent.
Pago 9
Council Minutes - 2/28/94
17. Consideration of demolishine the Cole house near city hall.
.John Simola informed Council that it is clear that the cost to refurbish the
Cole house for rental is high, relative to the potential revenue that could be
obtained through railing the facility. In addition, more damage has been
done to the building and interior, and it is becoming a liability for the City.
After discussion, a notion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to authorize staff to advertise for demolition removal of the
Cole house. Motion carried unanimously with Brad Fyle absent.
18. Consideration of reulacement of 1978 International heavy dutv snowolow
truck.
John Simoltn reported that the public works department is proposing to
replace the 1978 International snowplow truck. The truck is equipped with
a 6 -yd dump box, a sander, a side -mounted wing, and 11 -ft front plow. Over
the past several years, it has broken down on numerous occasions and is no
longer reliable. Simola noted that the cost to replace the truck was
budgeted at $62,000 and approved for the 1994 budget.
After discussion, it motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by fatty
Olsen to authorize advertisement for bids for a new heavy duty dump truck
with snowplow equipment, with the truck being bid separately from the
dump hody and snow equipment. Motion carried unanimously with Ilrad
Fyne absent.
19. Consideration to adout, a resolution calline for it public hearine for
modification of Itedevelounrent, flan for Redeveloumari Prniect, No. 1.
modificuct.ion of TIF uhms for TIF Districts No. 1.1 to 1-15. and the adootiou
of the TIF clan for TIF District No. 1.16 (Pulvcast Manufacturine).
011ie Koropchak reported that the TIF plan for Polyeast Includes
construction of it 16,640 sq f, metal office production facility on 4.4 acres of
indnst.rial land in the Oakwood Industrial Park. The up -front TIF
assistance of $r)5,000 will write-down the land cost for the property.
Projected employment is 20. The minimum estimated market value for the
land and building is $400,000. Kuropchak noted that, copies of the TIF plan
were distributed to the schiml, county, and hospital district. The HRA will
hold it public hearing on the acquisition and disposition of the raw lands
and adopt a resolution relating thereto and adopt it resolution on the TIF
plan on March 2, 1994,
Page 10
Council Minutes - 2/28194
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst, and seconded by
Shirley Anderson to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing on
March 14, 1994, for TIF District No. 1-16. Motion carried unanimously with
Brad Fyle absent. SEE RESOLUTION 94-3.
20. Consideration of approving application for aamblina license renewal -
Monticello Javeces.
After discussion, a motion was made by Shirley Anderson and seconded by
Clint Herbst to accept the summary report presented by the Monticello
Jaycees and adopt the resolutions approving application for renewal of each
of the three gambling licenses for the Monticello Jaycees. Motion carried
unanimously with Brad Fyle absent.
SEE RESOLUTIONS 94-4, 94-5, AND 94-6.
21. Consideration of bills for the month of Februarv.
After discussion, a motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by Patty
Olsen to approve payment of bills as submitted. Motion carried
unanimously with Brad Fyle absent.
22. Other matters.
A. 011ie Koropchak reported that a slight inconsistency exists between
the slate funding program and the Greater Monticello Enterprise
Fund associated with the funding program supporting financing of a
piece of equipment that will he used at the Standard Iron site. She
noted that the state and GMEF funds will he used jointly to fund
purchase of it major piece of equipment used by Standard Iron.
Under the state program, it is required that the term of the loan
must be Ill years, while the Greater Monticello Fund Guidelines state
Clint generally the tern should be 7 years or for it period not
exceeding the life of the equipment. According to State rules, the
term of the loans inust he the same. Koropchak asked Council if it
wits comfortable with using /;M EF funds for purchase of equipment
with it term of 10 years.
After discussion, n motion was made by Clint Herbst and seconded by
Shirley Anderson ter allow it Creater Monticello Enterprise Fund loan
for equipment to he issued with it term period of 10 years. Motion
carried unanimously with Brad Fyle absent.
Page 11
Council Minutes - 2/28/94
B. City Council discussed the issue brought forward at the public
comments section of the meeting. It was the general consensus of the
City Council to maintain the existing policy that requires individual
property owners along Highway 25 to clear sidewalks. However, in
the case of Century 21 Realty, due to the limited snow storage area
and due to the fact that the State Highway Department clears the
area of snow within 5 days of a snowfall, it is not necessary that the
entire sidewalk be cleared within 24 hours. Removal of snow to the
extent of one shovel width is sufficient. This modified snow removal
requirement applies to Century 21 Realty only.
C. City Engineer, Bret Weiss, reviewed the status of the transportation
study. Council reviewed various roadway segments and intersections
and identified three critical problem areas that the study should focus
on. The three areas are as follows:
1. Development of an interchange at County Road 118 and 94.
2. Improvement of traffic circulation in the area of Highway 25
and at the intersection of Highway 25 and Oakwood Drive and
Dundas Road and Highway 25..
3. Improvement of CSAH 75 and Hart Boulevard between the
high school and County Road 118.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned.
Jeff O'Neill
Assistant Administrator
Page 12
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
4. Public Hearing. -Consideration of adopting a resolution relating to the
modification. by the Housing and Redeveloument Authority (HRA). of
the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelooment Proiect No. 1. the
modification of the plans for Tax Increment Finance (TIF) Districts
Nos. 1-1 through 1-15, and the establishment of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1.16 and adoption of its Plan. (O.K.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
On February 28, 1994, upon the request of the HRA the City Council set a
public hearing date of March 14, 1994 for modification of plans and for the
establishment of TIF District No. 1-16. Said public hearing notice appeared
in the Monticello Times on March 2 and 9. School District 11882, Wright
County, and the Hospital District received a copy of the TIF District No. 1-16
Plan on February 11, 1994 thereby satisfying the 30 -day notice requirement
for comment or questions.
Punic HM:A tm
Therefore, the HRA requests the City Mayor open the public hearing for
comments, questions, or opposition relating to modification of the plans and
the establishment of TIF District No. 1-16 and its plan.
TIF District No. 1-16 is being established for Todd R. and LeRoy E. Schub.,
dha, Polycast Mfg, Inc. The HRA adopted a resolution modifying the plans and
approving the plan for TIF District No. 1-16 on March 2, 1994. Highlights of
the plan follow:
1. Description of Proiect. 16,800 sq R office/manuracturing facility.
Construction beginning summer of 1994 and completed by January 2.
1995. 20 local jobs created: county retains 12 jobs and creates 8 new
john.
2. Leenl Descrint.ion of Parcel. Lot 3. Block 3, Oakwood Industrial Park.
3. Parcel in Acuuisition. The upfront TIF assistance of $55,000 (land
writedown) is an expenditure of the HRA -TIF Surplus Fund.
4. Siened Contract.. The HRA and the Schulz Properties officers will
execute the Private Development Contract prior to or on March 14,
1994.
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
5. Tax Capacity. The estimated tax capacity at project completion is
$16,661, the original tax capacity is $693, and the estimated annual
captured tax capacity is $15,968.
6. Type of District. An Economic Development District is established
because the project does not meet the requirements for a Redevelopment
or Housing District. In the public interest, the project results are an
increase to the local and county employment base, an enhancement to
the local and county tax base, and discourages an industry from moving
their operation to another county.
7. District Duration. Eleven years from approval of the plan or 9 years
from receipt of first tax increment, whichever is less.
8. Estimated Impact on Tax Jurisdictions. The impact represents the
captured net tax capacity and potential taxes not received by the
jurisidictions as it relates to the "but for" test. The 'but for" test means
if the project would not have occurred.
9. Cash Flow Assumptions. Tax capacity payable 1995 is $16,661. Receipt
of first full tax increment is 1996. Original tax capacity is $693. Tax
capacity rate is 112.873%. Estimated annual tax increment is $18,023.
Calculations based on a zero percent (OSS.) valuation increase.
10. District, No. 1-16 Budeet. Land acquisition, $55,000; administration and
professional services, $15,000; capitalized interest, $8,365; discount,
$1,6;115. Total budget of $80,000. Note: the budget was structured to
allow the City to issue bonds if necessary.
11. Inclusion of District. District No. 1-16 is within Monticello Central
Redevelopment Project No. 1.
The Private Development Contract, which supports the TIF Plan, defines the
dtvelopment ohligations of the Schulz. Properties and the obligations of the
HRA. 'fire contract is between the Schulz Properties and the HRA: therefore,
it requires no approval by City Council. However, for informational purposes,
highpoints of the contract follow:
1. The developers shall construct a 16,640 sq It ollice/monufacturing
facility on Lot 3, Block 3, Oakwood Industrial Park.
2. The project shall be completed in 1994 and fully assessable on January
2, 1995.
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
3. Subject to satisfaction of the Private Redevelopment Contract terms and
conditions and upon 30% building construction completion, the
Redeveloper will receive $55,000.
4. Minimum Estimated Market Value (ENV) of $400,000 agreed upon
between the Redevelopers, the HRA, and the County Assessor.
With the assumption of no public comment, questions, or opposition, the public
hearing may be closed.
AlwvriON OF THE RESOLUTION
Secondly, the HRA requests the City Council consider adoption of a resolution
which finds, determines, and declares:
1. That the modification of TIF Districts Nos. 1-1 through 1-15 and
establishment of TIF District No. 1.16 will provide an incentive for
commercial and industrial development, increase employment, and
promote the public purposes and objectives of the Monticello Central
Redevelopment Plan.
2. That District No. 1-16 meets the requirements of an Economic
Development District as defined in the State Statutes.
3. That the proposed development would not occur solely through private
investment within a reasonable foreseeable future.
USE OF
FUNDS I
I SOURCE
OF FUNDS
Lund
$57,000
Bank
$218,000
Construction
$370,000
SBA 504
$188,000
Solt Costs
$9-81000
F gkiity
$u"(Inn
Debentures
$6,000
TOTAL
I $461,000
TOTAL
I $461,000
4. 'I'hnt the plan for TIF District No. 1.16 complies with Redevelopment
Project No. 1 objectives and'I'IF guidelines.
3
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
5. That the method of the tax increment computation set forth in the State
Statutes is applicable.
6. That the duration of TIF District No. 1-16 is pursuant to the State
Statutes.
B. ALTERNATNE ACTIONS,:
1. A motion to adopt the resolution relating to the modification, by the
HRA, of the Redevelopment Plan relating to Redevelopment Project No.
1, the modification of the TIF Plans relating to TIF Districts Nos. 1-1
through 1-15 and the establishment of TIF District No. 1-16, all located
within Redevelopment Project No. 1, and the approval and adoption of
the TIF Plans relating thereto.
2. A motion denying adoption of said resolution.
3. A motion to table the item.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION,:
Staff recommends alternative #1, as the project meets the TIF guidelines,
Redevelopment Plan objectives, and the Minnesota Statutes requirements. The
motion should he subject to execution of the Private Development Contract
between the HRA and the Schulzs, if necessary.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the public hearing notice; Copy of the resolution for adoption; Copy of
the TIF District No. 1-16 Plan.
4
" 'q--, Its-, '4--I hs ."y I. 1=1119 and tNuW9 of
mairnal to meoi MnDOT sp"e"cs Bid is to to on wine ry teherhaad end ifdude a 5% bid bond.
Selected Contractor Will also furnish a performance and payment bond. Dates Ise work will be
negotiated at the time the bid is awarded,
Aa sealed aids must be submitted to Clerk Lois Fox, 2585 Both SI, NW, Maple Lake, MN
55458 a be pretended lode Boetl at IM TowrasNp Heb before B p.m. On the 15th day of March,
1994. al Which ft. the Mals coil be opened and reed.
The Basedof Supervltor$ rmerves de dgm to W -pt a retia any a Of We to the best
Merest of tins TOWmsl,p.
-las Fac. Ctak
(Manch 3 6 10, 1994)
CITY OF MONTICELLO-COUNTY OF WRIO IT -STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the C4ty Council (the 'Councll') In and far the Cfty of
Monticello. Canty of Mot. State of Minnesota, well told a public teadnp on March 14, t984, a
approximately 7,00 p in. et City Hat, 250 East On odway, MOWCeib, Minnesota. rala8rky te alta
Pr ed maHkatcdn, by I—eased ora)oa costs and erhtrvgerl aprdc was. the F7ouslna
atkvetopnnem Audrafy's Redenve nI Pegea No. t fie approvat and adoption, of
the Moddled Rads�Mopmarm Wan relating me ate; dca proposed moallcation, try increased pro•
�ea costs. of de Modeled Tax lno,=ent Fmmxap Plea for Tax increment Fnenebq Districts
. 1.1 though 1-15, located within Redavetotxneni Project No. 1; and the proposed adoption of
Tax Increment Financirg Plan reladcg to Tax Increment Financing Plan No, 1-16, also located
whNn Redevelopment o)&O No 1, all pursuant to and in aaordamor with Mebroida(daStalues,
Sections 453 001 t0 489047, knUUushm, as smanded, mind Sections 489.174 to 489178, a ckno'e,
m amended. A copy of Ve Modified Redeveio{wnma Wan for Redevelopment Pro)W No. I and
To irxremem Fhancirg Pt" to Toa Maament Fkmxbq Dlstrkb No, t -t a.ough 1.16. as
proposed to be adopted at Via of4Ce of the City AdmkWtrator at Cdy Hell not tater then Fe0ruary
18, 1994,
The property cornprieag Tax trhnement Fnar+tlrp Polatrta No, 1-191s m fo/ovn:
tpraec nG B1 Sly
Lot 3. Book 3, Oakwood tndustrlal Park
PID Number: 15&018,003030
Further Information, regarding the Idendlcallm of the parcel to be Irxiuded W Two Invemerd
Fhmrhp Drama No 1.18 may be obtained from ore a" of the City Admkdsbafor.
Ad kderested persons may appose at the hearing and prasera thea veevrs aafy a F wrMrhp,
Dated: Mach 1. 1994
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
-RickWollstager, City Adrtawftrelor
(Meth � A 10, 19914)
i1`I-A -'
re r�nr_ wt, :o - i-�µ �) ��'• j � ,T{77 � 1
CRY OF WommELtd
AWAA MEMENT FOR 6101
ONE (1) NEW 194 SINOLE AXLE TRUCK CAB, CHASM AND ACCESSORMS
Boated bids will be received by the CRY Of Montkepo, 250 East Broadway, MontiCabb,
Minnesota, until 2 p on. Friday. Mooch 25, 1994, fix K#nW*q and dOWWV of One (1) new 194
sl n ado truce, Cab. clWsis. and actetealee en IIPedlbd,
},Ibide that ho addressed 10 the ON Aekrdnsbota, City of Mdmtee8o; 250 Fest Bmwhway,
L
Councilmember introduced the following resolution, the
reading of which was dispensed with by unanimous consent, and moved its adoption:
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE
MODIFICATION, BY THE HOUSING AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IN AND FOR THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO, OF THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN RELATING TO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NO. 1, THE MODIFICATION OF THE TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS RELATING TO
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. l-1
THROUGH 1-15 AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-16, ALL
LOCATED WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NO. 1, AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF
THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS
RELATING THERETO.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of
Monticello, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. It has been proposed and adopted by the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") in and for the City that the
Authority modify, by increased Project costs and enlarged geographic area,
Redevelopment Project No. 1, pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended. It has been
further proposed and adopted by the Authority that the Authority modify the
Tax Increment Financing Plans
D
for Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-15 and establish Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-16, located within Redevelopment Project
No. 1, and approve the Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto,
pursuant to and in accordance with Minnggota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to
469.179, inclusive, as amended.
1.02. The Authority has caused to be prepared and this Council
has investigated the facts with respect thereto, a proposed Modified
Redevelopment Plan (The "Modified Redevelopment Plan") for
Redevelopment Project No. 1, defining more precisely the increased Project
costs and enlarged geographic area to be made to Redevelopment Project No.
1, the proposed Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment
Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-15 and the proposed Tax Increment
Financing Plan (the "Tax Increment Financing Plan") for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-16 (collectively referred to as the "Plans").
1.03. The Authority and the City have performed all actions
required by law to be performed prior to the modification of Redevelopment
Project No. 1, the modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts No.
1-1 through 1-15 and the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-16 and the adoption of the Plans relating thereto, including, but not
limited to, notification to Wright County, Independent School District No.
882 and the Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital, having jurisdiction
over the property to be included in Tax Increment Financing District No.
1-16 and the holding of a public hearing upon published and mailed notice as
required by law.
1.04. The Authority hereby determines that it is necessary and in
the best interest of the City at this time to modify Redevelopment Project
No I, to modifv Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 thrnueh 1-15
and to establish Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-16 and approve the
Plans relating thereto, contingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and
Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority of the City of Monticello and Todd R. Schulz and LeRoy E.
Schulz.
D
Section 2.
L -LS_ and the E
2.01. The Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the
modification of Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1-1 through 1-15 and
the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-16, all located
within Redevelopment Project No. 1, is intended and, in the judgement of the
Council, its effect will be, to further provide an impetus for commercial and
industrial development, increase employment and otherwise promote certain
public purposes and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Modified
Tax Increment Financing Plans fur Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos.
1-1 through 1-16.
2.02. The Council hereby finds that Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-16 does meet the requirements of an Economic Development
District in that it consists of any project, or any portions of a project which
does not meet the requirements found in the definition of a redevelopment
district, mined underground space development district, housing district, or
soil corrections district, but which the Authority and City finds to be in the
public interest because:
1) It will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from moving
their operations to another state; or
2) It will result in increased employment in the municipality; or
3) It will result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the
municipality.
2.03. The Council finds, determines and declares that the
proposed development, in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and,
therefore, the use of Tax Increment Financing is deemed necessary.
"0
-3-
2.04. The Council finds, determines, and declares that the
proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-16 will afford maximum opportunity and be consistent with the sound
needs of the City as a whole for the development or redevelopment of
Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise.
2.05. The Council further finds, determines and declares that the
City made the above findings stated in Section 2 and has set forth the reasons
and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
2.06. The Council determines and declares that Redevelopment
Project No. 1 is hereby modified, that Tax Increment Financing Districts No.
1-1 through 1-15 are hereby modified and that Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-16 is hereby adopted, contingent upon the execution of the
Redevelopment and Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority of the City of Monticello and Todd R. Schulz
and LeRoy E. Schultz.
Section 3. Adoption of Respective Plans.
3.01. The respective Plans presented to the Council on this date
are hereby approved, contingent upon execution of the Redevelopment and
Assessment Agreements by and between the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority of the City of Monticello and Todd R. Schulz and LeRoy E. Schulz
and shall be placed on file in the office of the City Administrator.
Section 4. Implementation of the Modified Redevelopment Plan and
Modified Tax Increment Financing Plans.
4.01. The officers of the City, the City's financial advisor,
underwriter and the City's legal counsel and bond counsel are authorized and
directed to proceed with the implementation of the respective Plans and for
this purpose to negotiate, draft, prepare and present to this Council for its
consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary
to accomplish this purpose.
0
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly
seconded by Councilmember , and upon vote being taken
thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
And the following voted against the same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and
was signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Administrator.
Dated: March 14. 1994
Attest:
City Administrator
(SEAL)
Mayor
EXffi31T A TO RESOLUTION NO.
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the establishment of
the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-16 as required, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd.
3, are as follows:
1) Finding that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-16 is an
"Economic Development District" as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.174, Subd. 12.
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-16 consists of one parcel which
do not meet the requirements of a redevelopment district, mined
underground space development district, housing district or soils
correction district. The Authority and the City find Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-16 to be in the public interest because:
1) It will discourage commerce, industry, or manufacturing from
moving their operations to another state; and
2) It will result in increased employment in the municipality; and
3) It will result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base
of the municipality.
2) Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the Council,
would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonable
foreseeable future, and therefore, the use of Tax Increment Financing
is deemed necessary.
City staff has reviewed the available financing costs for the
development. Due to the cost of site acquisition, the project would not
be financially feasible without the City's assistance.
3) Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-16 will afford maximum opportunity,
consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the
development of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise.
-6-
The project to be developed, which will be located within Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-16, consists of an 16,800 square
foot office/ manufacturing facility. This facility is to be constructed in
1994 and be substantially completed by January 2, 1995. It is
anticipated that eight additional hill -time positions will be created as a
result of this project within two years.
4) Finding regarding the method of tax increment computation set forth in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, Clause (b), if applicable.
The Council does = elect the method of tax increment computation set
forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subd. 3, Clause (b).
5) Finding regarding duration of Tax Increment Financing District No.
1-16.
The duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-16 will be nine
(9) years from the date of receipt of the first tax increment or eleven
(11) years from the original approval of the Tax Increment Financing
Plan, whichever is less. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.177, Subd. 3, the City requests 100 percent of the available
increase in assessed value for current expenditures.
-7- D
MODIFIED CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
INCLUDING
MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLANS
FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS NO. 1-1 THROUGH 1-15
AND
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-16
March 14, 1994
This document was drafted by: Public Resource Group, Inc.
4205 Lancaster Lane,
Suite 1100
Minneapolis, MN 55441
(612) 550-7979
0
(As adopted August 10, 1992)
3 acres of land located in Lot 10 of AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 1, according
to the recorded map thereof, being in the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 13, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota lying easterly of
REMMELE ADDITION according to the recorded plat thereof, lying southwest of
Interstate No. 94 and lying northeasterly of the northerly right of way of Chelsea
Road.
Part of PID Number: 155-01I-OW101
(As adopted April 12, 1993)
Lot 6, Block 2, Oakwood Industrial Park.
PID Number: 155-018-002060
(As adopted March 14, 1994)
Lot 3, Block 3, Oakwood Industrial Park.
PID Number: 155-018-003030
Subsection 1.9. Public Improvements And Facilities Within Redevelopment
Inject No. 1. Publicly financed improvements within Redevelopment Project No.
I to be financed include:
(As adopted November 29, 1982)
1. Land acquisition; and
2. Special assessments.
(As adopted September 27, 1993)
1. Land acquisition;
2. Site development;
3. Site improvements; and
4. Utilities.
(As adopted August 10, 1992)
1. Land acquisition; and
2. Site development.
(As adopted April 12, 1993)
Land acquisition; and
Public Improvements.
(As adopted March 14, 1994)
Land acquisition.
Subsection 1.10. Estimated Public Costs and Supportive Data. The estimated
costs of the public improvements to be made within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and
financed by tax increments derived primarily from Tax Increment Financing districts
within Redevelopment Project No. 1 are as fullows:
I-26 (9
Tax Increment Financing District No 1-16
(As adopted March 14, 1994)
Land Acquisition S55 5 4
Subtotal S55,000
Administration 7,500
Professional Services 7500
Subtotal $70,000
Capitalized Interest 8,365
Discount 1635
TOTAL $80,000
(As adopted November, 1982)
Subsection 1.11. Lang. All new and/or existing development on land
identified on Exhibits I -C through I -F as "property to be acquired" or "possible
acquisition" will be subject to the following uses and requirements:
1. Uses Permitted in Designated Areas.
a. Industrial --All permitted, accessory and conditional uses as specified in
Chapters 15 and 16, Monticello Zoning Ordinance, relating to 1-1 (Light
Industry) and I-2 (Heavy Industry) zones. Planned Unit Developments,
where applicable, will be considered.
b. Housjng/Residential--All permitted, accessory and conditional uses as
specified in Chapters 8 and 10, Monticello Zoning Ordinance, relating
to R-3 (Medium Density Residential) and R -B (Residential -Business)
zones. Planned Unit Developments, where feasible, will be encouraged.
C. Downtown/ o r int --All permitted, accessory, and conditional uses
in accordance with the provisions governing all "B" zones and including
R -B, providing however that any commercial development in an R -B
zone shall be coordinated with the goals and objectives of the Housing
Plan. Planned Unit Developments, especially in the B-3 zone (Highway
Business), will be encouraged.
2. Additional Provisions.
I-37 Oq
SECTION XVII
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-16
Subsection 17.1. Statement of Objectives. See Subsection 1.4 of the
Redevelopment Plan.
Subsection 17.2. The Redevelopment Plan. See Section I, Subsections 1.1
through 1.20.
Subsection 17.3. Description of the Proiect. The project, located within Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-16, consists of the construction of an 16,800
square foot office/manufacturing facility. This facility is to be constructed in the
summer of 1994 and completed by January 2, 1995. The company currently employs
12 people. It is anticipated that 8 additional full-time positions will be created as a
result of this project.
Subsection 17.4. Parcels to be Included in Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-16. The following property is located in the City of Monticello, County of
Wright, State of Minnesota.
Lot 3, Block 3, Oakwood Industrial Park
PID Number: 155-018-003030
Subsection 17.5. Parcels in Acquisition. The Authority intends to acquire the
property listed in Subsection 10.4, which property is located within Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-16.
Properties identified for acquisition will be acquired either by the City or the
Authority in order to accomplish public improvements listed in Subsection 1. 11 of the
Redevelopment Plan hereof.
XVII -1 0
Subsection 17.6. Development Activity in Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-16 for Which Contracts will be Sited• The following contract(s) will be
entered into by the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the person(s) named
below:
Prior to the certification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-16, a
Development and Assessment Agreement will be executed between the Housing and
Redevelopment Authority of Monticello and Todd R. Schulz and LeRoy E. Schulz.
Subsection 17.7. Other Spccific Development Expected to Occur within
Redevelopment Proiect No. 1.
(As specific development is expected to occur, it will be inserted into this Subsection.)
Subsection 17.8. Estimated Public Improvement Costs and_Supportive Data.
See Subsection 1.10 of the Redevelopment Plan for estimated costs associated with
Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 17.9. Sources of Revenue. Land acquisition costs, and other costs
outlined in Subsection 1.10 of the Redevelopment Plan will be financed through the
annual collection of tax increments.
Subsection 17.10. Original Tax Capacity. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subd.
1, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the original tax capacity value for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-16 is estimated to be $693, based on the tax
capacity value of all taxable real property within Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-16. Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subds. I and 4, of the Tax Increment
Financing Act, the County Auditor of Wright County (the 'County Auditor') shall
certify in each year the amount by which the original tax capacity value has increased
or decreased as a result in a change in tax-exempt property within Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-16, reduction or enlargement of Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-16 or changes in connection with previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current tax capacity value of Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-16 declines below the original tax capacity value, no tax capacity value
will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the Authority.
XVII -2 /,/'
Subsection 17. l 1. Estimated Captured Tax Cgpacip� Value. Pursuant to Section
469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.177, Subd. 2, of the Tax Increment Financing
Act, the estimated captured tax capacity value in Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-16 at final completion will approximate $15,968. This estimated annual
captured capacity value is determined in the following manner:
Estimated Tax Capacity Value at Final Completion $16,661
Original Tax Capacity 693
Captured Tax Capacity Value' $15,968
Please refer to Exhibit XVI -B for the year-to-year expected tax increment for
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-16.
Subsection 17.12. Ty= of Tax Increment Financing District. Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-16, is pursuant to Section 469.174, Subd. 12, an Economic
Development District as described below:
"'Economic Development District' means a type of tax increment financing district
which consists of any project, or portions of a project not meeting the requirements
found in the definition of redevelopment district or housing district, but which the
authority finds to be in the public interest because:
(a) It will discourage commerce, industry or manufacturing from moving their
operati ,as to another state; or
(b) It will result in increased employment in the municipality; or
(c) It will result in the preservation and enhancement of the tax base of the
municipality."
Subsection 17.13. Duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-16.
Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. 1, of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the
duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-16 will be eleven (11) years from
the approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan, or nine (9) years from receipt of
the first tax increment, whichever is less.
XVII -3
Subsection 17.14. Proposed Development Analysis. Pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 1(7), specific findings and analysis have
been completed relating to the proposed development in Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-16. Additional relevant documentation relating to the findings and
analysis will be on file and available for review in the City Administrator's office.
Subsection 17.15. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing jurisdictions.
Test No. I: The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes
construction would have occurred without the creation of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-16. If the construction is a result of Tax Increment
Financing, the impact is 50 to other entities.
Test No. 2: Notwithstanding the fact that the fiscal impact on the other taxing
jurisdictions is $0 due to the fact that the financing would not have occurred
without the assistance of the City, the following estimated impact of Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-16 would be as follows if Test No. 1 (the
"but for" test) was not met:
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
XVII -4
Future Net
Captured Net
Original Net
Tax Capacity
Tax Base
Tax Capacity
Entity
Payable 1994
Payable 1994
Wright County
$48,638,744
$693
City of Monticello
$15,583,604
5693
I.S.D. No. 882
$18,344,524
$693
Hospital District
$23,874,025
$693
XVII -4
Future Net
Captured Net
Tax Capacity
Tax Capacity
District %
Payable 1994
Payable 1994
of Entity
$16,661
$15,968
.033%
$16,661
$15,968
.102%
$16,661
$15,968
.087%
$16,661
$15,968
.067%
01
IMPACT ON TAX CAPACITY
MILL RATES
Entity
Gross Tax Rate 1994
Potential Taxes
Wright County
31.965
S 5,104
City of Monticello
17.530
2,799
I.S.D. No. 882
60.634
9,682
Hospital District
2.744
483
TOTALS
112.873
$18,023'
Please refer to Exhibit XVI -B for the year-to-year expected tax increment for
Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-16.
Subsection 17.16. Cash Flow Assumotions and Analysis.
A. Future Tax Capacity. The estimated future tax capacity of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-16 at final completion as determined by the City
Assessor is $16,661, payable 1996. Please refer to Exhibit XVI -B for the
year-to-year expected tax increment from Tax Increment Financing District No.
1-16.
B. Projected Timing. The payment of the first full tax increment from Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-16 will be received by the Authority in
1996.
C. Odginal Tax Capacity. The County Assessor's records show the original tax
capacity of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-16 to be $693 for taxes in
1993 and payable in 1994.
D. Gross Tax Capacity Rate. The gress ax capacity rate is 112.873 percent.
E. Tax Increment. Total tax increment at the completion of all redevelopment
activity has been calculated assuming a static gross tax capacity rate and a
valuation increased by zero percent (0%) compounded annually.
F. Capotal Expenditures. Capital expenditures are a summary of the items
associated with the public improvement costs set forth in Subsection 10.8 and
are to be financed from the proceeds of the Bonds and tax increment revenue.
Subsection 17. l7. Estimated Amount of Bonded Indebtedness. It is anticipated
that $80,000 of bonded indebtedness will be incurred with respect to this portion of
the Redevelopment Project.
Subsection 17.18. Tax Increment Financing Account for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-16. The tax increment received with respect to Tax
Increment Financing District No. 1-16 will be submitted by the Authority to the City
and segregated by the Authority in a special account or accounts (the "Tax Increment
Account") on its official books and records or as otherwise established by resolution
of the City to be held by a trustee or trustees for the benefit of holders of the Bonds.
Subsection 17.19. Modification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-16.
As of March 14, 1994, there have been no modifications made to Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-16.
XVII -6 0
I
EXHIBIT XVII -A
BOtjNDARY MAP OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-16
•4
7/
--
11�
X%Al-'7 -'
EXHIBIT XVII -B
EXPECTED YEAR-TO-YEAR TAX INCREMENTS
RELATING TO TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-16
AND TAX CAPACITY ANALYSIS
ADJUSTMENT FACTOR:
A. March, 1994
Establishment Date
B. January 2, 1994
Base Year Capacity Date
C. $693
Base Year Capacity Value
D. January 2, 1989
Fifth Preceding Year Capacity Date
E. $972
Fifth Preceding Year Capacity Value
F. $279
Five Year Capacity Value Increase
G. (.28703)
Five Year Total Increase Ratio
H. (.05741)
Five Year Average Increase Ratio
I. 0
Annual Base Year Adjustment Factor
Base Adj.
Adj. Future Net Cap
Annual
Year TC Factor
Base TC TC TC Rate
n
1993/94 5693 0
$16,661 1.12873
4
1994/95
S693 $15,968
$ 0
1995/96
$693 $15,968
$18,024
1996/97
$693 $15,968
518,024
1997/98
$693 $15,968
518,024
1998/99
$693 S15,968
$18,024
1999/2000
S693 $15,968
$18,024
2000/2001
$693 $15,968
$18,024
2001/2002
$693 $15,968
$18,024
2002/2003
S693 $15,968
$18,024
2003/2004 $693 $13,968 _—J $18,024
Average Annual Tax Increment: $18,024.
XVII -8
0
EXHIBIT XVII -C
DISTRICT CERTIFICATION FORM
Date Prepared: February 11 1994
Name of District or Modification: Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-16
Date of City Council Approval: Mach 14. 1994
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CERTIFICATION
At the time of district creation or modjfrcadon. the following conditions annly:
The project does not meet the requirements found in the definition of a
redevelopment district, housing district, or a mined underground space
development district.
` X The project was created after August 1, 1979, and was designated an
economic development tax increment district, as defined in Mipnesot;s
Statutes, Section 469.174, Subd. 12, because:
a) It will discourage commerce, industry or manufacturing
from moving their operations to another state.
X b) It will result in increased employment in the municipality.
X c) It will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax
base of the municipality.
SgpportinQ documentation on file:
_ Land Use Pian Map
X City Council Resolution
Project Objectives
Other:
This Form Prepared by: Public Resource Group Ing.
Original Building Condition Data Collected by: N/A
Documentation in support of District Certification is on file at the City offices.
XVII -9
APPENDIX B
Chronology of Resolutions
Establishing the Development Program,
the Development District, the Tax Increment Financing Plans,
and the Tax Increment Financing Districts
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-16
DWe A&sisn
February 11. 1994 Letters sent to Wright County, Independent
School District No. 882, and Hospital
District.
February 28. 1994 Resolution of the City Council calling for a
Public Hearing.
February 28 1994 Submit Notice of Public Hearing to local
newspaper.
March 2, 1994/
March 9. 1994 Notice of Public Hearing is published in the
local newspaper, calling for a Public Hearing
on March 14, 1994.
March 2. 1994 HRA approval of the Modified
Redevelopment Plan.
March 14. 1994 Resolution of the City Council modifying the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment
Project No. 1 and modifying the Tax
Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-16.
Appendix B -I
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
5. Public hearing on proposed increases in retail license fees for non-
intoxicatina and intoxicating liquor licenses. (R.W.)
A. RFIF'RHRNCF; AND BACKGROUND
It has been nearly four years since any of the City's licenses pertaining to
beer, wine, on -sale, or off -sale liquor license fees have been adjusted. The
last time the fees were increased was in 1990, and it was recommended at
that time that the Council consider more frequent adjustments of a smaller
scale rather than waiting too long and requesting larger increases.
Although this is past the two-year recommendation, it still appears
appropriate for the Council to consider increases at this time.
The stuff conducted a brief survey of some of the surrounding communities
pertaining to license fees charged for all types of intoxicating and non -
intoxicating liquor licenses. As you can see by the survey, there is not a
consistent pattern of fees that is charged by any one community. In the
case of on -sale liquor licenses, which are the largest revenue category,
license fees vary from a low of $2,400 in St. Michael to $5,900 annually in
Annandale. Monticello's current fee is $3,750, and it is recommended that
this fee be increased to $4,000. This would amount to slightly less than a
7% increase over the four-year time period since the last increase. In
addition, it is also proposed that the on -sale :3.2 beer license he increased
$25 to $300 annually and that $25 increases also occur for the on -sale wine
and set-up license categories.
According to state statutes, a public hearing must be held by the City
Council before any license fees can be increased; and as a result, a notice
has been mailed to all current license holders 30 days ago informing them of
the date of this public hearing. In addition, a notice of the public hearing
was also published in the Monticello Times to meet statute requirements.
In mostcategories that are recommended for increases, the increase
amounts to approximately 21;. per year or less, which should not be deemed
excessive. If the Council feels that I,he license fees are already at an
appropriate level, the fees can he left as is.
ALTHIMATIVF: ACTIONS
Aller closing the public hearing and receiving public comment., the
Council call adopt the proposed recommended fee schedule for all
intoxicating and non -intoxicating liquor licenses.
S
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
2. The Council could adjust the fees to some other fee schedule than
those proposed.
3. Council could determine to leave the fee schedule as is for all
categories. ;r— -�p -"—' g" 0— r
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: cb� 5f1c
It is the recommendation of the Administrator that the fees be increased
and adopted as proposed. The resulting increases in all categories
recommended for an increase amounts to approximately 2% per year, which
should not be deemed excessive.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of license fees currently charged by surrounding communities and
recommended fee schedule for Monticello.
to
MUNICIPAL COMPARISON- LICENSE FEES
Annandale
Elk River
St.
M chael
Buffalo
Big Lake
Rockford Monticello
Recommend
On -Sale liquor
$5.900
$4,000
$2,400
$3,800
$3,750
$3,360
$3.750
$4,000
Sunday liquor
$200
$200
$200
$200
$200
$200
$200
$200
On -sale 3.2 beer
$300
$150
---
$200
---
$180
$275
$300
OII-sale beer
$25
$75
$50
$60
$75
$30
$75
$75
On-salewine
$300
$500
-•-
$100
---
$180
5275
$300
Set-up license
$300
•••
$300
•••
---
$250
$275
Off -sale liquor
$too
---
$100
$100
Comb wine/3.2 on -sale
-••
---
---
---
•••
$500
$550
Temp. non -Intoxicating
-•-
$20/day
•--
--•
$40/time
n
/ 0
Club license
$200
$300
$300
$200
---
••.
••.
$300-$2,000'
depending on
membership
One-time liquor event
$250
-•-
---
' VFW and Legion Club currently charged $300
LICFEES: 03/09/94
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
6. Public hearins< for the issuance of an on -sale liauor license for a
restaurant in the Sixth Street Annex mall. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
At the previous Council meeting, a modification to the conditional use
permit for the Sixth Street Annex mall was approved that would allow the
expansion of a restaurant within the complex that was intended to include
the sale of liquor. The restaurant was to he owned by Mr. John Purmort,
who is presently the owner of the Sunshine Depot restaurant in Elk River,
Minnesota.
Prior to issuing any on -sale liquor licenses, the City Council is required to
hold a public hearing to receive input from the public concerning any license
application. Since we were not able to meet publication deadlines for the
previous meeting, the public hearing is now being held at this meeting.
Notification has been published, and the Council should note any comments
that are received concerning this license request.
1 did have the Wright County Sheriffs Department conduct a background
investigation on Mr. Purmort and his operation he currently has in Elk
River. The Elk River establishment also has an on -sale liquor license, and
the Sheriffs Department indicates that all reports have been favorable in
regard to his operation, and there is nothing in the background check that
indicates we should consider denial of the request at this time.
Although the restaurant is being operated in u commercial zone, the strip
mall is adjacent to residential areas. Our current ordinances do not,
prohibit the Council from issuing a license to it qualified establishment
simply because it is adjacent to a residential area. The only limitation that
our ordinances indicate is that it must he at least 1,000 ft from the nearest
school or church. In that regard, this location does meet our criteria.
If the on -sale license is approved for this establishment., Mr. Purmorlwill
he required to supply the City and the Liquor Control Division with copies
of adequate liquor liability insurance in the amount of $300,000 before the
license can he issued. All on -sale license fees would he pro -rated on a
monthly hasis until July 1, 1994, at which time the renewals normally take
place.
i
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. After the close of the public hearing, the Council could grant approval
to the issuance of an on -sale license to Mr. Purmort for the
restaurant in the Sixth Street Annex mall. d�SD( ;ut-
2. Council would have the discretion to deny the license based on
background investigation reports or concenis expressed at the public
hearing.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
During our background investigation, the staff has not become aware of any
problems Mr. Purmort has had with his existing on -sale license in Elk
River, nor are we aware of any reasons why the Council may want to
consider denial of this license application. It should also be noted that if
this license is issued, the City would still have one additional license that
would be available for future use by other applicants. Therefore, unless
information is presented at the public hearing that may alter the facts
available, the staff` can see no reason to deny the request at this time.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of application.
H
CITY OF MONTICELLO
LICENSE APPLICATION
This application is being submitted for the following license(s):
Set-up license Off -sale, non -intoxicating liquor
VO On -sale, intoxicating liquor On -sale, vine a—
On-sale, non -intoxicating liquor On -sale, rine/3.2 beer
f- Dom
Ham: /-1s y8
Applicant Ha:SNd AR 2,.,e/tr Age: Y'� Date: '/2,G1q4f
Applicant Address:M3 9- /91- AVS, Aix/ Phone: (&/2)YVI-/3171 [w1 oZy/-9/33 0)
z x L, ✓ra. ma st 33o
Name of Business: •5/ xiN S-e-pFi % Aj•vt K
Address of Business: -510 - L �i C. AJ U a u n0 C.c .77,e
A7o,,7;ti/q iAla/ SS3(e2,
Business Phone: N1••
Describe nature of business operation: S%!
5....�/.,,�N /1.'f;,,N 1 ,�ii,„.e 'r�a(rtl Pizaa — Ga•�.� 3esr . wwL
LOCpI SAj..rt /Ao:�'P -A/�> E✓reTr +. wT -
If Corporation: Officers:
Directors :
Q. J, , .
Do you or does your corporation, partnership, etc., currently hold any license
allowing the sale wine, intoxicating liquor, non -intoxicating liquor, or
not-upa7 yes no
If yea: Name of Business: SUw)31ANS vF��
Addreas of Suninsos: 76/ A"'A'-A)
Phone :(&/1) /- / Z -7
Type of Licanoai O.) S'ali 4Viiva 'ria-•/ Years held,•
References:
Name
Address
Telephone Number
S'TIJE OS --b
fl,f KrUi2 /?) _J
'lam//— -n'S
C luf ry r .ter
f!k �', �s, m.�
�Fyr- z z s z..
177(i 1411v
b/z & a.
/
t' Lo
Credit References (list at least one bank you do business with):
Name Address Telephone Number
r %
'/./�zK 4"t . /J'.✓ `��f- a2aa
BSz2-
Amount of investment, excluding land: %7'ff 5 r G�tv t u
(Only applicants for on -sale, intoxicating liquor must provide this information)
Have you ever been convicted of a felony, or of violating the National
Prohibition Act or any State law or ordinance relating to manufacture or
transportation of intoxicating liquors:
I declare that the above information is true and correct, to the beat of
my knowledge.
Appti,
ignature
For City Una Only
Surety Bond Liquor Liability certificate of
Insurance
Application Foo License Foe
Sheriff, Wright County
/ J
Data Mayor, City of Monticello
City Administrator (6)
Council Agenda - 1/14/94
7. Consideration of confirming 1994 Board of Review date and
acceptance of Assessors sunimary report. (R.W.)
REFERENCE AND 13ACKGROUND:
County Assessor, Doug Gruber, has tentatively set Thursday, May 5, at.
7 p.m. as the date for our 1994 Board of Review meeting. The purpose of
the Board of Review is to allow property owners within the city the
opportunity to receive an explanation on how their market valuations were
established by the City Assessor for taxes payable in 1995.
Our City Assessors, Jerry and Peg Kramber, along with Mr. Gruber will he
at the meeting to field questions from citizens on their valuations. If the
Council has a problem with Thursday, May 5, the County Assessor would
like to know by Tuesday, March 15, so that a new date can he arranged.
Since the Council will he confirming the Board of Review date, I thought it
would be it good time to provide the Council with a brief summary report
that was prepared by Mr. Kriunb r summarizing the work they have just
recently completed concerning next ,year's assessment. As you will note, the
report lists the parcels that were reviewed under the 251X requirement and
also summarizes the new building permit activity that has been added to
the total valuation For the year. In discussing the 1994 assessment with
Mr. Kraniher, he did note that in analyzing our residential sales ratio for
1991, it still appears that our residential values are not excessively high
compared Ur what the market is actually dictating when sales occur. The
sales ratio summary indicates that the Assessor's market valuation is
averaging 911.2/ of actual sales prices for 1993. Ideally, we should be in the
90-1051,'1 range as an average.
I have asked Mr. Kramher to Ix in attendance at the Council meeting to
answer tiny questions the Council may have on the summary report
provided. The intention of this report is to give the Council it general idea
of die changes that may have incurred during this assessment year so that
you are also aware of some of the concerns that may he raised by citizens
during the upcoming Board of Review meeting.
The only action needed by the Council is to verify the Board of Review date
set, lin' May 5 or suggest an alternate date if there tyre conflicts.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of letter from Doug Gruber; Summary report from City Assessor, Jerry
Krtunher.
JNTY O,c
DOUGLAS M. GRUBER
�Sinceraly,
Wright County Assessor
Dough M.
Gruber
/.
Z
Wright County Government Center
10 N. W. 2nd Street
M
Buffalo, Minnevwta 55313-1193
tea. Q
Phu": (612) 682-7367 / (612) 682.7368688
Metro: (612) 339-W]
7866
FAX: (612) 682-6178
February 4, 1994
Rick Wolfstelier
Monticello City Administrator
250 E. Broadway, Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Rick.
Please be advised that your 1994 Board of Review has been
tentatively set for Thursday, May 5, 1994 at 7.00 P.M.
If we do not hear from you by March 15, 1994, we will assume this
Is satisfactory.
Thank you.
6Q -I Opp- unity / A//umatiur Arh n F:mPlny�r 5
�Sinceraly,
'
Dough M.
Gruber
l7right County Assessor
DMG/ga
6Q -I Opp- unity / A//umatiur Arh n F:mPlny�r 5
IT
51 am&r aE 5 s.:ociafes, .Inc.
REAL ESTATE MRULERf ASSESSGRS
P.O. so. 56
F md4 AN 55:43
(612)6713748
TO Rick Woltsteller, Gary Anderson
am]
Members of the Monticello City Council
SUBJECT Summary of Assessment for Taxes Payable 1994
FROM Kramber d Associates, Inc.
Gerald J. Kramber, President
cc: Uraglas Graber
Wright County Assesoor
✓ 4L amn -er Cl: -'Wssocf ales, gnc. REAL ESTATE MCRAGERS,ASSESSORS
March 3, 1994 P.O. BU 56
Nbnvo Mn 55363
(612) 6753746
Rick Wolfsteller, Gary Anderson and
Members of the Monticello City Council
250 East Broadway
Monticello, Minnesota
55362
Dear Mr. 11olfsteller, Mr. Anderson, Council Members,
Kramber d Associates, Inc. would like to thank you for the
opportunity of being your City Assessors for the 1994 Assessment
Year. The help and cooperation of everyone at City Hall was
greatly appreciated.
Please find enclosed the following data for your review:
1) Residential sales and sales ratios for 1993.
2) Commerical sales and sales ratios for 1993.
3) List of the 251 of parcels viewed by parcel number.
4) List of building permits issued for 1993 and the percent
complete as of January 1, 1994.
In summary, the residential sales ratio for 1993 was 90.2 and
the 1992 sales ratio was 90.4 which indicates that even with
the changes we made last year, we've lost a little ground. It
is apparent that the market is increasing at a much faster rate
than our estimated market values. We are still on the low side
of the required 909 to 1051 range. Our goal should be in the
951 area.
The County increased the residential rates as follows
1) Residential rates approximately 51.
2) Single and double garages (Classes Average, Good 8 Excellent)
were increased by $1.00 per square foot.
3) Basement Finishing :
Average :1.00 per square foot
Good $1.10 per square foot
Very Good $5.00 per square foot
4) Basement values increased from $3.50 per square foot to
$6.50 per square foot.
The abovo changes are expected to have an overall increase of
approximately 2-31. The charts and tables that were established
to equalize effective age will have an additional effect of
approximately 4-51.
Residential land was reviewed and sales indicated that special
attention should be given in the following areas:
1) River Lots: Land values were established on a front foot
basis rather than on a per lot basis. These values were
arrived at by sales and the values are:
A) $250 per front foot for the first 100 feet.
B) $125 per front foot for any additional footage.
C) Minimum river lot value is $25,000.
2) Lots abbutting the golf course on Club View Drive:
A) Sales indicated lot values to be in the $30,000-$45,000
range rather than the $13,000 values that were previously
on them.
3) Sales also indicated that lot values in Hillcrest Addition
and Ritze Manor should be equalized. Lots in these additions
were increased from $11,500 to $14,000 which brings them
more in line with competing areas.
All commerical and industrial properties in our 25% are reviewed
each year. County rates were used as well as the Marshall b
Swift Valuation Service. The rates used were also verified
with surrounding cities and counties.
If there are any questions on the data submitted, please don't
hesitate to call. Any questions or concerns regarding market
value by the residents of Monticello should be referred to
Kramber 6 Associates, Inc. at 612-675-3748, so their questions
and concerns can be resolved prior to the Board of Equalization
meeting.
Respectfully,
Gerald J. Kram r /
Kramber d Associates, Inc.
cc: Doug Gruber
Wright County Assessor
11/09/91 9.11
ate, SALES 11A11'1 ST A11S 71 CAL IAFCRPAI ICY „a
SPI10-D10`.91
-GL
11
111u Ifo !1, ..... •....••...
TOPN
1111
API,
E.oN.11
Er I%% PER
IOD FRDM 10/97 i0 9/91
SFl LC 11 vL A,IJNf. IVPLS .. t
P ANLf Uf I INNS1. I P S....
.. 101
luPll 110
AL1. Ll aS1 I'Pt S...,..,..
1111-.151 C17T OF MONT ICEIIO, 44C,-CU1
CL ASS -06
RCS 1-1 UNI t
:V PRICE
LI -PLA 7-PA9CIL
SALE UA1•_
CHC
SAE uP ILE
PMT VIEW
SALES PA 110
ACRES PER ACPI
MAL
IO PI ASCI
I5S-JIU-U 04011
01/'!1
a44SI
91.000
IIx IOC
90.15
GGOU
SALE
Ih1-UIU-"1 IUIU
JY/Y1
44941
SY•000
50.100
9h.atl
GCUU
SALE
I5) -a IU -0111110
10/42
41 915
lar IOa
17.500
111.Atl
GCOO
SAIF
151-010.0:4091
JI/91
4.511
71.9UU
.5. 1 a C
HS.Ee
Carlo
S:L1
I1S-UIU-02.1101
IU/'11
42 110
64.YCo
bh.000
ICO.Itl
GCOD
SALC
ISS -U IU -U 1nt1a0
11/'ll
411 1)
I'1. 000
SI.911
14.21
GCUU
SAI[
ISS-OIu-U Io1)H0
01/41
4f 111
iV. 9C0
aI.100
Ha.Y/
(;Coo
I A L L
ISS-OIU-011110
US/vl
44641
O1r 000
57.900
"S. II
GCOU
SALE
l5) -a l0 -Ura IOU
'17/91
Is 111
97x400
01.500
IOe.19
0000
SALE
IYS-aIa-"41uzu
Jo/'f1
44 tlr.
I4. aC0
61.900
.11 .HV
GCOD
S,LL
111-U 10-01. 1110
1)1/41
441159
/0.000
bo.OUO
HS. tI
Go )U
SAIL
IS1-01 f•Iltl l O rU
0H/'11
is 1110
71.000
o6.40C
IU.1!
GCnG
SALE
ISS -U I4 -1)o IJ fU
ur/•I1
4•. BBI
IOLf1U0
BY. IUO
hr. I1
GUOU
S:LC
ISS-UIi-UU 1040
U6/91
44414
HS.JUU
110.100
91.114
00011
S,1 f
ISS-UIS-U0AJ 10
U1/v1
4f Ii5
120. aU0
111. 100
11.41
GCCU
S,Lf
I%S-UI I-UI2)ho
.1,
1)4 116
n1, 1CD
h6. 100
91.11
0001!
SALT
III -JI S - III II IU
08111
•. tIII
-.a no
A/.IOC
IH. IS
I.I:Un
SAI I.
ISS -UIS -"1'1011
Or/'11
44111
144.000
Ito. 100
Ib. tlH
Lf•1111
SAIF
ISS -UIS -U: S0SO
04/•!1
44115
41. too
11.1110
1)C. 11
Cl Ii OII
SAL I'
1)Y -J 1-1 u rU 10
UH/91
"all
/7. C01M1I.MOC
114.16
00011
SAIL
IIS-JIS-.111Uo9
I1/vl
41 HO1
/I.9130
)'1.100
9l. lY
601111
S:IL
ISS -U 11.-11000Yl1
lIN/'!1
449!1
1414[0
b1. 0110
111).11
LUII(1
SAI I.
I11-011-01110S11u1)
M11. hUC
Y4. 11
GCfll)
SAII
I5S-UI!-0USa II
01/11
4 11/1
A1.OUJ
SI.aaa
Ma.Yl
OWill
1:II
Ih4-UIU-004111
11/41
1)16!11
/V.9Cn
I'.,to
91.11
Geon
5,11
11-10Ia"I
111/v1
411)99
8111100
6e.40C
tlC.Ve
601:11
SAIL
ISS -III I-0111 U/ll
01/vl
418111
'311. 100
111).400
Va.M1h
1.11'111
S:II
I) 11 VUH
,I7 '1
ii111
.1Va
.1:
-
IYI-0II-IIUI110
UI/'11
4w HU9
I111.0a0
91.100
111. IM1
I. U!1U
5111
IY'.-U1.-JJ IUIU
JI/'11
44001r1.lOf,
IY,tlf
I,CUn
SAIL
I NS•Ula-UutU1a
J1/ll
iw 101
H7.40U
A9, Af•0
ILII
GUOU
SAII
ISS-UTA-IlU IIT
Jh/4f
45101
.4.000
10.100
9f.S7
G,o"u
)ALE
ISS-U/n-11111010
111/YI
1)17411
61.1)5
61.000
91.11
GUUII
S:IF
ISS-u1n-0')111 fU
IA/41
♦)111
/h. UOJ
Ah.10a
9/,II
1.1100
S:lf
155-HIIr-aII I(I/U
I1/VI
44114
loo. no
111. 10C
P1.11
GCOU
SAIF
111-1l Ill-JU ItJ40
61/91
4w 714
H'1. 1Cf•
Ib1r,0O
7n,h1
GUOU
S:1L
IY)-011-0010IU
UI/'11
4 \4.41.IUGUOII
115-0 11-UU111J
llr/vr
44104
no. ODU
1U. 101)
84.11
GCUU
1:11
11h-011-UU 111a
Uf./'.f
4. 99)
111.'!011
61.4110
4-1
GI.OII
S:LI
ISS-UII-OUI I,
01/41
4\S,1
!7!700[
14.00/'
R1,!6
loot)
SAI!
1 Y1-011-0uIlbo
II/'!I
4: 901
91. 11)0
1117911E
"lC.11
1.1!1!0
SAL!
I SS -U 11-U) 1 11)"
I U/'ll
1119
91.1101)
9I .4'la
9r, r l
0[1111
111.1
1 Y•.-1111-001 fro
Or,I
10.100
"Y.Vn
1.61111
1:11
IYS-U11-Ull lu lJ
JI/'ll
41015
/I. YUJ
11. I1f,
47.11
1.111'0
1:l l
ISh-011-11)70 l"
JH/91
awM40
IIII. YOU
An. II.1
I7.nn
I.Loll
SAI I
ISS-,IIx-UUaJW
01/41
4101
I,, III
Ib.'4C
m,ll
LLdll
ULI
1s ,ter ,lw.s in isle i"Im inimina lm m a iif, Z a
11/04/41
A.1?
...
SAI ES QAt lt) ST AT IST ICAC IAFC'FYAf 101: eee Sol )0-01,1547
pact )4
S L'PIiU 4r ...............
IOF•I'H
Io
.4f.
PFIIPCFTV
U.5% pEFICU "('a IQ/41 Tl; 4/41
SEIfL iIVt nd (TINE t.MFS..
1
L ANG L 0' fUFn Sr.ipS......
1.11
t.-IoIto
ALL LLASS It.', S.........
INV -155 (-1ly .)f MUNI ILLLL4]. AFI
A -CC. CLASS -06 of 1-1 UNITS
LI-wl <I-V.+wCLL
SAI( Ull`_
fflC
Salt: pN ICF
Mlti VA4uE
AV vFiLf
SALES 9AI IU ACYLS v!F aLFE
InV AL IU Pk ASCN
tys-Usy-J,)4U 10
U}
4a 161
11 .t;C0
6N, 900
91.04
GCIIU SALE
I5Y•U IS-JU4110
06/')!
119 U5
111,400
11, TUU
U1.S9
GUUI1 SALE
ISI-015-UU41.10
11/4l
♦1755
64,4SO
lo.1p0
{0 ).1t
Go )o SAtE
I5Y-Jii-UJS07J
UA/91
4St44
14.000
11.4UC
9t .65
GODU SALE
IS5-111f-UUIJLJ
11411,
117 U6
6I. CU1
6Y,QGo
VI.CI
GC00 SALE
7S5-f�)t-rr,)vUnU
IU/+l
11i14
ty.Goa
71.}00
94,0!
G00!) 4atE
15S -u 1!•/11 pUS0
IU/Vt
4I011
I1, 50Q
nfl.nun
44,61
GCIIU 14LE
1}y -011 -UI OUYO
O)/4t
444)5
Is'soo
6..600
Nt. 19
Get7U SALE
IY5-Ua4-UUI 11J
JO/41
4h651
u1. 5011
41, Ino
46.11
f+Gtlfl SAI
154-0a4-(1U4,1vU
10/YI
4111n
IIl, QUn
IIa.1QU
v).nl
GC,7U $AIL
755-Ua5-UU701J
01/91
41 hal
"1 lot)
14.100
9).7A
t.CU(] SAL
IYY-Ua S_OJJU IU
Iltl/'+1
44414
N4, 100
tl1.1Go
ICO. JO
GL'[117 Salf
/5S-UyS-U)fJ40
.))/91
1;116
t4:p0U
T4. 900
101.11
Gu,10 SALL
ISs-uad-001710
11/41
1l AUG
114.500
116.CGo
46.15
GCCU SAIF
ISS-U4N•J0141,U
O5/94
449.16
IOH, Oco
IU5.6no
9t, IB
GCOU SAIL
154-F}4•+-nJlUJp
01144
41097
nS.Unn
60. Too
9}.;N
GU(I)) SALE.
155-04 r•p 11!110
U1/41
451 U1
n4. 400
n(1. 100
N6.tla
'CTAT SAL F.
i54-tF1 I. pU{U tQ
04Jo1
41.4
r.•f.000
r,U. 'no
1,V,Jt
40013 511E
IYy•Uy/-U:11n IJ
JY/41
11061
I, 1UU
1. SCS.
IOC.Cp
GC011 S.11.
1h5-u1,l-UJInl1O
J I/4I
411;16
I. 400
4. 5f)p
IOO.CC
Y,CCU SAf t
154-U5 f•0+1'}N+)
01141
41 COL
IGs.0o0
Y5. iC0
90.76
GCUU SAII
155-115J+pf1114n
(14/41
441 tl4
tl:l./Sp
HU,hGo
90. N7
GQryU Sa1.I
155-U5.f-U,)l+it0
{)0195
a5ryU9
81"1011
N{,1OC
9i.5)
GL'00 SALE
115 -U5+ -J)/ Itl0
11/41
414en
95, n011
rn. TUC
IC.1 .1')
Gl:lltl S.
155.041-U 110IJ
'11/v/
15445
'F ll. nCn
n4, IWO
44.11
GCf 111 SAIF
t Y.•UNI-01101U
114!It
1144tl
M1.GoI
0.4uo
ICa,ly
Gil+)o SALI
IaS""'-'�''I'+'•"
1i1V1
0
N4.9017
.4,NJG
qt. 11
GII'lll SaIC
{y5•iin `-U )iJoO
+)9/•+t
4NN1N
i4!, .)UU
IJn. too
V0.91
GC(}u SAI t
.V t.
041. 04j.
.410 041.
.94.
tUl ASST SS+I.•. V.i VAi
h, 141, i+)'1 504.600
C +1EQtAR
COLFi il. tihi Oi f.I Spt 15104
1.. N.6
.0
M; aN SOUS w.I IU
4Q.4
IOQ.4
.p SIANCArC
Q(Vf a/ILN
9,4 14.1
+MAN SAIiS Fat it)
-+FU.1
-Vi.S
.0 (Cl"i(Ft
NS i.f YAF 11110N
IO.4 14.5
.0
AGGM11.11I SAlls F4f IQ
49,1
9n.1
.0 Total
SAIf pw 1(t 5.911.41)
.L
PF it, wtF di+U UI)1
101.1
IOa..
.0 AVtu
AG4 SALE pw tL/ 40,C4n
SALTS uA 1111 FANG(
nr,.1
41.1
.0 NU.
-N ,,i Pau Ci1S tm It i4
T4 t
C
a a as= a a s a a a Ina A a a a a a IL
11/09/9) tl.l!
484
SALES PLT 10 STAT ISIICAL thFOPPAIION 444 Slit 30-010581
PAGE 19
SQN1E0 b,...... IOYNSH IP
AP FA
PMf)PEPTY CLASS PERIOD FRCP 10192 TO 9/91
SEL ECII VC '1•IUME TYDES.. l
N AhGE OF IJMhSHIvS.. .... IUI
THPU
!1U
ALL LIASS TTY,%.........
TMP -ISS CITY '.IF MONTICELLO, AREA -CO.
CLASS -11 COPMIPCIAL
IMP
AV PRICE
CT-PUT-PAMLEL SALE OATF
COC
D
SAIF PPILE
►ki VALUF SALES PAT10 ACRES vEP ACME
INVAL IO AF.ASCN
IS 5•UIS-u[fu 5.1 utl/Y1
♦S )I1
I.LSOr 000
1.025.900 17./S
CCOU SALE
15 $-ULB-OulOtl 10/9!
♦271♦
IIsr000
165.100 1a 1.51
6000 SALE
ISS-JNO-UC2100 OB/91
5468!
164. 000
1/).000 101.97
GOOU SALE
•91•
491•
•910
0914 4920
•914
T91 ASSFSSON'S MAI VAL 1.168.00.
U
0 MEDIAN COEFFICIENT CF CISPCPSION
21.5 .0
.0
MEAN )Alts NAIto
101.♦
.0
.0 SI ANDLPO OEYIAT ION
19.1 .0
.0
PEUTAN IAL ES MATID
101.9
.0
.0 COEFFICIENT OF VAPIATION
21.1 .0
.0
AyI:M eG All SALES NAF10
19.1
.0
.0 TOTAL SALE PLAICE 1.129.000
PRILL MEL.ICU UIFF
121.8
.D
.0 AVERAGE SALE PP ICE SP6.111
SALES MA TIu MA
P7.n
.0
.0 NUPPEP OF PAM1 USED )
1 0
[
EVi�-
v&O p
k
KNEES
k
FIRM
r nt7-rnIr, , 1 i
r --a!7- ,^o!O W
CITY/T IP
IN5PE lIOM - LAST
144. W. VALUFO REVALUED COMEHTS
✓
V
m
v
V
m
IN5PEOIDN LA51
LN1. EXf.
REVALUED C04ENTS
CME
PID 0
trc-M4-(,1ln11.1.i. �
_
` ' t. Nt n��
�
_------•
�5-Cf1S-f1f
iC•=�J(n t 1 � �
�
lc�tlt�}(1lt5
� /
t
.
7--1 [Jt
77
../
t'ci`rOrri' d" �Q
✓
'7a
`'
ta,
'CI Y11UM iP
TS
LAST INSPECTT VALUED RE�%PLIJED
PID b CODE 1N3.
(�
Fr. S_�roio ..� ✓
ri�..,��tnvn
L� -
✓'Si'lici' .h! i(}4"�� rte„ .
�r.
^ ,n I '�
r C _ i
- n
YzA�Li
CITY/TOWNSHIP
INSPE :TION LAST
INT. EXT. VALUED REVALUED fOlhENTS
J
t i
PID 9
CODE
r
l�rKv rlv:-Z•�'n
- /vN', 1,7
1-"' /) 1t 6r :/(,A'
1��-n15•nr•��'t ��1
10
t
;-M`"- llCitt3O
i
I5 -fYti4!!?1
tS�-n/s•u)LjIUD
l=.-, •nrti -f��n' 0
rss-nls• nr�9n
x��•n15•,�n�Itn
,�--.nrti• no�lao
j`t
!`•`r71S• (}U�x�»ib
L5 -/ x; 0tlC4110
/.,, n15- fxv.r5C
t • xti1 S - rr�'tnUt}
YzA�Li
CITY/TOWNSHIP
INSPE :TION LAST
INT. EXT. VALUED REVALUED fOlhENTS
J
t i
r
WIN NEW ',,r�►,,,r,r„N,,,,,s
Bak
rrs�►
ai
CITY/TOWNSHIP
CIX11TY
PID 0 CODE
INSPECTION LAST
INT. EXT. VALUED REVALUED C04ENTS
r»0 1
i �-a^,- nnlrxln 1
✓
/5 i •nl �. -6D101� I
•�
/�5•or=: mlp�0 I
d0 1
i
'75-1%.�C'�ll�lC� �
✓
l��:GYv I i
✓
Imo.-oo.�o�C '�.
✓
-nl? • nrl�r.yn
✓
l<,t.�l=-nal=.n I
✓
7I
/I�i�GJlln
W«�lo
CDIJNT
INSPVTION
LAST
l PID d
CODE
fig.
EXT. VALl1EO
REVAUlF1D COWNTS
/'rte-nl� n%/QUI]
/,q47-/VA - e-,71/3 70
i7iv^l>.r
✓
✓
---------f
ass-pin- /�%���
✓
/•�� nrn - o�rorO
✓
rSS-nln-nr^/dll
��
1 s<-evo
✓
h5-nry-�ro70
/<� nrn-n?1r1R�
�
✓
•
,�`,-nrn • �.^ �14U0
1
✓
/ �s-ola o��a�
i
✓
/rte-nm- n;r.ln^n
(
✓ •
/S�-oro- 0"�O�A
I
✓
/-i4-n/1- 00001/
!
✓
/SS-ora-ooro'a
�
,i
/�S-p►�-nnrn�J�
✓
��-r1r�_.rvvMO
t
✓
/1/11010✓
1� •Oil • ooaoro
a
,�
/==-"Q Mr-4nao
I
✓
��C►�•JU�oao
r
--6411141 i
✓P' rn
rd—'- 1.•, 'r1 off 11 ^
tet- r
1
It Eito" , LAV • y ypLUED
pt1.
cowI15
0
—'—" CiTVJTOYGi5�'fIP
INSPECTION L*T
INf. txr VALUED
REVALUED C"Ws
n
INSPECTION • LAST
PID C CODE M. - SRT. VALUED
js'�-olo-nv/00
/s,�-el o'75/d0
!ter-nlo- of-�lD I
/s5•ao-r�Nan I
/st•n!n-n��nr•n �
�S'S-NI •i'�'M�
i55 -ni I -NY�SU
L.•,.: nl! • ry�v�70
I /_-,-n/!•�/min
� •nl!-.YY1r�Qrl �
%-5-h//-n001M I
' 155.1)1,1-ivY)lnl
/SS-NI-iYYIlI/1 �
/.�S•o!l-rxb/fin �
L5S•0!l-DQ2IS/
t115-011- or"
/56 - nll • gym/ �!
/s�•olI_c�ro/an �
1 /F �-oll�roac�n i
.ls3-al •(rx�a� i
J-," a - Mlbd 0
REVALUED CDOWS
NEW CONSTRUCTION LIST - 1993
Date
Percent
PID# Address
Issued
Complete
155-031-002090 106 Balboul Circle
3/23/93
100%
Remove A Replace House Siding
155-031-002060 118 Balboul Circle
8/20/93
100%
Remove k Replace House Siding. Soffit,
Facia, Window and Door
155-070-002080 2523 Briar Oakes Blvd.
10/20/93
100%
New House and Garage
155-070-002170 2531 Briar Oakes Blvd.
9/27/93
50%
New House and Garage
155-070-001100 2532 Briar Oakes Blvd.
2/24/93
100%
New House and Garage
155-010-034102 130 East Broadway
5/11/93
100%
Building Roof Removal and Replacement
155-015-005050 319 East Broadway
5/7/93
100%
8'x16' Garage Addition
155-015-004070 419 East Broadway
8/6/93
100%
Remove A Replace House Siding k
Garage Roof Shingles, Remove
Existing 6'x7' House Addition and
Replace with 6-1/2'x7' Addition
155-015-004040 431 East Broadway
10/8/93
100%
Remove and replace house siding
155-015-012060 606 East Broadway
8/6/93
100%
101x24' Garage Addition
155-015-001090 707 East Broadway
9/28/93
100%
Remove & Replace House Roof Shingles
155-015-016090 825 East Broadway
2/8/93
100%
Remove A Replace House Roof Shingles
155-010-035070 106-1/2 West Broadway
4/7/93
100%
Interior Remodel
155-010-038150 154 West Broadway
5/17/93
100%
Build Pitched Roof over Flat Roof
155-010-036080 212 West Broadway
4/15/93
100%
Remove k Replace Bldg. Roof Shingles
a
r
r
155-010-036140 254 West Broadway
Remove k Replace 2 pump islands,
Install Canopy, Install new facia
over existing facia
155-010-037060 306 West Broadway
Remove Fuel Tank
155-010-037090 318 West Broadway
10'x16' Bldg Addition
Interior Remodel
155-010-049010 449 West Broadway
Interior Partition Walls and
Interior Remodel
155-023-001110 1311 West Broadway
10'x15' Deck
155-033-001250 7 Bunker Circle
Basement Finish
155-500-032200 2101 West Cty Rd 075
20'x26'Park Shelter Bldg.
155-073-006040 9331 Canvasback Court
J New House and Garage
155-073-006080 9350 Canvasback Court
New House and Garage
155-073-006050 9351 Canvasback Court
New House and Garage
155-073-006070 9370 Canvasback Court
New House and Garage
155-073-006060 9371 Canvasback Court
New House and Garage
155-500-114201500 Cedar Street
Interior Completion Leased Space
155-500-114202 518 Cedar Street
Interior Completion Leased Space
155-033-001170 4 Center Circle
Remove A Replace House s Garage Siding
155-033-001180 6 Center Circle
18'x20' Deck
7/9/93 100%
6/14/93 100%
7/27/93 100%
7/1/93
5/4/93 100%
8/13/93 0%
2/22/93 100%
4/7/93 100%
10/25/93 65%
2/26/93 100%
11/1/93 75%
8/3/93 100%
4/1/93 100%
2/16/93 100%
6/16/93 100%
2/2/93 100%
8/12/93 100%
155-018-002012 100 Chelsea Road
12/13/93
0%
56'x112' Cold Storage Bldg with
6'x112' Open Roof Overhang
Interior Remodel
12/28/93
0%
155-018-002030 200 Chelsea Road
10/1/92
100%
140'xl40' Manufacturing Building
155-075-001010 301 Chelsea Road
10/14/92
100%
107'x100' and 25'x23' Manufacturing
Building
155-046-001090 1103 Club View Drive
7/8/93
100%
New House, Garage R Deck
155-035-003080 104 Crocus Lane
4/20/93
100%
12'x14' Deck, New Entrance Door A
Interior Remodel
155-035-004020 121 Crocus Lane
7/14/93
100%
10'x12' Deck
155-064-003010 219 Crocus Lane
5/22/92
100%
Install 30'x40' Egress Crank Out Basement
Window, Finish Bedroom in Basement
155-500-142302 36 Dundas Road,
11/2/93
100%
155-500-142305 Bldg. 11401
301x241' Mini Storage Bldg.
155-018-002070 207 Dundas Road
20%
155-018-002080
Off/Mfg Bldg Foundation Mail
10/21/93
Off/Mfg Bldg Footings Only
10/14/93
New Off/Mfg Bldg.
12/16/93
155-018-002060 219 Dundas Road
5/10/93
100%
New Industrial 80'x100' 1 Story Mfg
and 22'x60' Off. Area
155-078-001010 9421 Eider Lane
11/24/93
25%
New House, Garage & Porch
155-078-002010 9480 Eider Lane
8/18/93
100%
New House A Garage
155-054-001010 611 Elm Street
3/4/93
100%
Reshingle Over Existing House d Garage
155-070-002060 1115 Endicott Trail
9/23/93
10%
New House k Garage
156-033-001030 5 Fairway Drive
9/1/92
0%
24'x28' Attached Garage
155-033-002050 10 Fairway
Drive
5/3/93
100%
6'x15' d 15'x16' Decks
155-033-001310 29 Fairway
Drive
3/3/93
100%
121x12' 3 -Season Porch
155-078-003080 5330
Falcon
Avenue
9/8/93
100%
New House R Garage
155-073-003090 5350
Falcon
Avenue
11/16/93
40%
New House A Garage
155-078-002050 5351
Falcon
Avenue
12/7/93
30%
New House R Garage
155-078-003110 5390
Falcon
Avenue
10/12/93
15%
New House & Garage
155-078-002070 5391
Falcon
Avenue
10/13/93
30%
New House R Garage
155-078-003120 5400
Falcon
Avenue
9/13/93
100%
New House R Garage
'
155-078-002080 5401
Falcon
Avenue
9/1/93
100%
New House 3 Garage
155-078-003130 5420
Falcon
Avenue
11/16/93
10%
New House h Garage
155-078-002090 5421
Falcon
Avenue
9/21/93
100% less driveway
New House A Garage
165-078-003140 5430
Falcon
Avenue
10/6/93
15%
New House, Garage A Deck
155-078-003150 5450
Falcon
Avenue
11/16/93
30%
New House d Garage
155-078-003170 5480
Falcon
Avenue
11/30/93
25%
New House % Garage
155-078-003180 5490
Falcon
Avenue
9/23/93
100% less driveway
New House 3 Garage
155-078-003190 5500
Falcon
Avenue
10/28/93
100% less driveway
New House d Garage
155-078-002170 5541
Falcon
Avenue
9/8/93
100%
New House & Garage
155-081-001010 9530
Fallon
Avenue N.H.
12/1/93
35%
80'x160' Mfg Bldg.
401x32' Office Bldg.
155-061-003010 9521 Gillard Ave. N.E.
11/30/93
30%
New House d Garage
155-061-002120 9591 Gillard Ave. N.E.
9/21/93
100%
New House, Caragc h Deck
155-061-002100 9621 Gillard Ave. N.E.
4/8/93
100%
New House A Garage
155-061-002080 9651 Gillard Ave. N.E.
2/24/93
100%
New House k Garage
155-061-002010 9751 Gillard Ave. N.H.
11/23/92
100%
New House, Garage and 3 -Season Porch
155-061-001020 9851 Gillard Ave. N.E.
4/16/93
100%
New House, Garage d Deck
155-500-101200 1005 Golf Course Road
10/14/93
100%
10'x16' Storage Bldg.
155-500-101203 1009 Golf Course Road
9/8/92
100%
24'x24' Attached Garage Addition
155-015-023050 1107 Hart Blvd.
67'x74' 2 -Story Addition to Clinic
8/13/93
50%
Int. Tenant Finish at Bamt Floor 4140af
12/20/93
50%
155-070-001090 1045 Hawthorne Place N.
7/26/93
100%
12'x16' Deck R 10' 8 -Sided Deck
155-070-002150 1125 Hawthorne Place S.
12/17/92
100%
New House with Garage
155-070-002140 1155 Hawthorne Place S.
11/6/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-070-002130 1170 Hawthorne Place S.
10/7/93
30%
New House, Garage A Open Porch
155-031-001090 151 Hedman Lane
6/1/93
100%
Basement Finish
155-073-003100 9050 Heron Court
10/7/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-073-003090 9051 Heron Court
9/17/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-073-003110 9060 Heron Court
4/16/93
100%
New House A Garage
155-073-003080 9071 Heron Court
3/5/93
100%
New House R Garage
155-500-142209 1219 Highway $25
5/27/93
100%
Remove k Replace 1 Window R Door,
Install New Window Unit
155-024-001130 100 Hillcrest Circle
9/8/93
100%
Remove k Replace Existing 20'x12' Deck
155-013-001050 108 Hillcrest Road
3/24/93
100%
Remove A Replace House A Garage Siding.
Cover Soffit, Facia d Door Trim
155-013-001090 116 Hillcrest Road
6/14/93
100%
Remove Existing Porch R Replace With
16'x16' 3 -Season Porch, Remove A
Replace House and Garage Shingles
155-500-032404 1509 Hilltop Drive
7/6/93
100%
6'x24' Addition to Garage, Reshingle
Over House h Garage
155-077-001010 108 Jerry Liefert Drive
7/1/93
100%
155-077-001020 110 Jerry Liefert Drive
100%
155-077-001030 112 Jerry Liefert Drive
100%
New 3 -Unit Townhouses
155-048-001170 123 Jerry Liefert Drive
7/12/93
100%
8'x14' Deck
155-048-004040 206 Jerry Liefert Drive
1/21/93
100%
16'x22' A 2'x6' House Addition
155-030-001020 102 Kampa Circle
3/22/93
100%
New Detached Accessory Bldg.
New House A Garage
3/3/93
100%
115-048-002070 112 Kevin Longley Drive
9/21/93
100%
Remove A Replace House d Garage Siding
155-048-002010 208 Kevin Longley Drive
7/7/93
100%
Remove Deck and Replace with 12'x20' and
4'x10' Decks
155-010-056042 13 Linn Street
5/20/93
100%
Remove & Replace House a Garage Shingles
155-073-005060 8141 Mallard Lane
6/11/93
100%
New House 3 Garage
155-073-003040 5148 Mallard Lane
9/17/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-073-005070 5149 Mallard Lane
5/13/93
100%
New House A Garage
155-073-003050 5152
Mallard
Lane
10/7/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-073-005080 5153
Mallard
Lane
7/8/93
100%
New House k Garage
155-073-003060 5156
Mallard
Lane
4/15/93
100%
New House k Garage
155-073-005090 5157
Mallard
Lane
5/17/93
100%
New House k Garage
155-073-003070 5160
Mallard
Lane
3/5/93
100%
New House. Garage R Deck
155-073-005100 5171
Mallard
Lane
9/21/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-073-005110 5191
Mallard
Lane
12/11/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-073-003130 5200
Mallard
Lane
11/30/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-073-004010 5250
Mallard
Lane
9/1/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-010-081031 613 Maple Street
6/24/93
100%
Remove A Replace House
Siding
155-057-002070 2760
Maplewood
Circle
10/13/93
100%
New House A Garage
155-069-001010 5031
Martin
Drive
10/21/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-073-001010 5123
Martin
Drive
New House & Garage
3/19/93
100%
14'x12' Deck
6/7/93
100%
155-073-002010 5124
Martin
Drive
9/1/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-073-001020 5125
Martin
Drive
6/24/93
100%
New House 3 Garage
155-073-002020 5128
Martin
Drive
1/7/93
100%
New House & Garage
155-073-006010 5131
Martin
Drive
9/16/93
100%
New House 3 Garage
155-073-006020 5133
Martin
Drive
7/27/93
100%
New House 3 Garage
155-073-002030
5134 Martin Drive
6/14/93 100%
New House h Garage
155-026-001050
109 Marvin Elwood Rd
8/23/93 100%
Remove k Replace
Existing Deck
155-026-003020
116 Marvin Elwood Rd
7/28/93 100%
231x24' Garage
155-021-002040
101 Matthew Circle
5/18/93 100%
16'x28' Addition
to Garage
155-045-003020
905 Meadow Oak Drive
10/25/93 100%
Install Fireplace
155-044-003140
2601 Meadow Oak Lane
2/18/92 100%
Basement Finish
- Interior Wall Partitions
and 2 Fixture Bathroom
155-044-003120
2605 Meadow Oak Lane
2/12/93 100%
Bamt Finish - BR,
FR and Office
155-010-081020
614 Minnesota Street
4/26/93 100%
6'x12' Roof -Covered Open Porch
155-014-003170
104 Mississippi Drive
9/10/92 100%
Move in Existing
House with Entry and
Attached Garage
155-014-002040
105 Mississippi Drive
11/5/93
14'x22' 3 -Season
Porch and
75%
10'x14' Deck
50%
155-014-003030
236 Mississippi Drive
6/11/93 100%
Bsmt Finish. Gas
Fireplace and Wood
Stove Fireplace
Inserts
155-014-001030
241 Mississippi Drive
9/9/93 100%
Remove A Replace
House R Garage Shingles
155-014-001020
245 Mississippi Drive
3/29/93 100%
Finish Int. 3-S
Porch, Install Patio
Door, 10'x12' Deck
155-080-005120
2631 Oak Ridge Drive
11/23/93 25%
New House, Garage
d Open Porch
155-080-005080
2671 Oak Ridge Drive
12/6/93 38%
New House, Garage
R Open Porch
155-020-001030
1025 Oak Lane
6/24/93 100%
Remove 8 Replace
House R Garage
Roof Shingles
155-021-002141
107 Oakview Circle
9/16/93 100%
Remove k Replace Existing 12'x20' Deck
155-080-005020
2691 Oakview Lane
12/13/93 25%
New House R Garage
155-080-005010
2701 Oakview Lane
11/24/93 75%
New House, Garage
R Open Porch
155-045-004090
2741 Oakview Lane
5/25/93 100%
14'x14' Deck
155-045-004060
2801 Oakview Lane
6/9/92 0%
12'x16' Deck
155-045-006030
2822 Oakview Lane
3/6/92 100%
Basement Finish -
3 Fixture Bathroom,
Family Room and 2
Bedrooms
155-045-004040
2841 Oakview Lane
3/3/92 0%
Basement Finish -
3 Fixture Bathroom and
Family Room
155-045-006010
2862 Oakview Lane
3/17/92 100%
Basement Finish -
Family Room and 2 Bedrooms
Remove R Replace
House R Garage Siding
2/12/93 100%
155-034-001030
109 East Oakwood Drive
10/25/93 100%
Tank Removal
155-500-113415
116 East Oakwood Drive
7/28/93 100%
Install Above -Ground
Fuel Tank
155-500-142401
1305 East Oakwood Drive
3/3/93 100%
Remove R Replace
House h Garage Siding
155-018-002120
1324 East Oakwood Drive
501x60' Int. 2nd
Floor Storage Area
1/21/93 90%
Bldg Addn, Footings
and Foundation Walls
9/28/93 90%
to Grade Only 84x299
and 30x60
Bldg Addn, Floor,
Ext. Walls & Roof Only
10/20/93 90%
155-500-113413
100 West Oakwood Drive
5/13/93 100%
Remove 5 tanks and
Replace with 2 - 1000 gal.
Above Ground Tanks
and 1 - 658 gal. tank
155-012-001090
113 Ottercreek Road
3/30/93 100%
Remove R Replace
House A Garage Siding
155-010-052110
103 Pine Street
3/9/93 100%
Reshingle Over Existing
on Pitched Roof
Portion of Bldg.
155-010-053130 106 Pine Street
8/18/93
100%
Interior k Exterior Remodel
155-010-035060 207 Pine Street
10/1/93
100%
Remove R Replace Bldg Roof Shingles
155-010-033011 316 Pine Street (925)
Demolition, Offices R Restoration of
8/9/93
100%
Former Switch Room
Interior Garage Remodel
1/21/93
100%
155-010-003010 700 Pine Street (*25)
7/20/93
100%
Apply New Insulation over Existing Roof
155-057-002080 2800 Red Oak Lane
7/30/93
100%
New House, Garage A Deck
155-010-067130 212 East River St.
10/6/92
100%
Remove Existing Entry and Replace with
10'x22' 3 -Season Porch
155-040-001020 225 East River St.
5/20/93
100%
16'x25' Detached Accessory Bldg.
155-015-006050 303 East River St.
New House, Garage a Deck
7/16/93
100%
Demolish Existing Garage Apt.
6/21/93
100%
155-015-008020 519 East River St.
7/27/93
100%
12'x15' Screened Porch A
3'x4' Deck
155-015-009050 601 East River St.
7/30/93
100%
12'x24' Addition to Existing Garage
155-015-010060 707 East River St.
10/4/93
100%
Remove 3 Replace House and Garage
Flat Roof Materials
155-010-065020 101 West River St.
Demolish Existing Bldg. Restroom
6/22/93
100%
Park Warming House 3 Restroom Bldg.
4/13/93
100%
155-010-051130 218 West River Street
9/28/93
100%
8'x8' Roof Cov. Open Porch Addn to Existing
155-010-048110 500 West River Street
7/30/93
100%
Remove R Replace Garage Shingles
155-010-048131 518 West River St.
8/17/92
0%
20'x28' Detached Garage
155-010-047120 606 Went River St.
7/23/93
100%
Remove A Replace House 3 Garage Shingles
155-010-045060
806 West River St.
8/30/93 100%
Remove Old Deck &
Replace with 10'x12' Deck
155-010-061030
911 West River St.
8/10/93 100%
Remove and Replace
Existing 14'x20' Deck
155-010-044020
912 West River St.
4/28/93 100%
28'x30' Det. Accessory
Bldg.
155-020-002010
1101 West River St.
5/20/93 100%
14'x20' & 4'x6' House
Addition with
4'x6' Roof Covered
Open Porch
155-021-001050
1505 West River St.
4/23/93 100%
Remodel existing
10'xl0' Deck into
3 -Season Porch
155-021-002110
1509 West River St.
9/15/93 100%
Remove & Replace
House Shingles
155-013-002030
1607 West River St.
6/8/93 100%
Remove & Replace
House & Garage Siding
and House Windows
155-024-001060
1810 West River St.
5/17/93 100%
Remove & Replace
House Shingles
155-500-041102
1813 West River St.
6/17/93 100%
New House & Garage
155-500-041300
2150 West River St.
4/16/93 100%
7'x16-1/2' Roof Cov. Open Entry, Front
Entry Ext. Brick
Facade
155-028-001070
13 Riverside Circle
Remove & Replace
B'X10' & 10'x2'2 Decks
5/25/93 100%
Stairs to New Deck
Remove & Replace
1 Patio Door & Window
5/25/93 100%
155-016-000100
337 Riverview Drive
9/8/93 100%
Remove & Replace
House & Garage Shingles
155-017-002020
406 Riverview Drive
5/24/93 100%
12'x12' Deck
155-500-182101
422 Riverview Drive
12/8/92 100%
Basement Finish
- 1 Bedroom and 1 Bathroom
155-500-18220
500 Riverview Drive
4/20/93 100%
Remove & Replace
House & Garage Shingles
155-074-001010
650 Riverview
Drive
8/13/92
100%
155-074-001020
640 Riverview
Drive
155-012-002070 1204
100%
155-074-001030
630 Riverview
Drive
100%
155-074-001040
620 Riverview
Drive
100%
New Townhouses with
Garages and
Decks
New House a Garage
155-074-002010
660 Riverview
Drive,
$610 7/13/93
50%
155-074-002020
660 Riverview
Drive,
#600
100%
155-074-002030
660 Riverview
Drive,
#590
50%
155-074-002040
660 Riverview
Drive,
#580
100%
New Townhouses with
Garages and
Decks
Starling Drive
4/27/93
155-071-001040
670 Riverview
Drive
4/7/93
100% less deck
Remove R Replace
Windows, Doors
R Siding
Interior Remodel,
I Story Addition
Remodel 3 -Season
Porch, 12'x12'
Deck
155-071-001030
680 Riverview
Drive
9/1/93
100% leas driveway
New House A Garage
155-051-003050
139 Sandberg Road
4/22/93
100%
Int. Remodel Leased Space
155-027-002040
217 Sandberg Road
8/20/93
65%
New Auto Body Repair Shop Bldg
155-020-004030
1108 Sandy Lane
4/21/93
100%
13'x16' 4 -Season
Porch Addn with
finished bsmt
155-042-001030
1124 Sandy Lane
11/24/92
100%
Gas Fireplace
155-042-001010 1128
Sandy Lane
7/1/93
100%
Int. Fire Damage Repair
155-012-002070 1204
Sandy Lane
5/11/93
100%
Reside Over Existing House A Garage
Siding
155-069-002050 5121
Starling Drive
8/11/93
100%
New House a Garage
155-073-003010 5130
Starling Drive
New House A Garage
6/23/93
100%
Basement Finish
10/15/93
0%
155-073-003020 5150
Starling Drive
7/19/93
100%
New House & Garage
155-073-006030 5181
Starling Drive
4/27/93
100%
New House R Garage
155-073-005050 5190
Starling Drive
10/21/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-073-005040 5210
Starling Drive
9/21/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-073-005030 5220
Starling Drive
12/31/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-073-005020 5240
Starling Drive
6/7/93
100%
New House A Garage
155-073-005010 5260
Starling Drive
4/6/93
100%
New House d Garage
155-073-006090 5261
Starling Drive
8/3/93
100%
New House, Garage & Deck
155-078-004010 5270
Starling Drive
8/24/93
100%
New House A Garage
155-078-003050 5331
Starling Drive
9/17/93
100%
New House h Garage
155-078-003040 5351
Starling Drive
10/19/93
15%
New House h Garage
155-078-004080 5380
Starling Drive
10/22/93
100% less driveway
New House A Garage
155-078-003020 5381
Starling Drive
11/3/93
60%
New House, Garage h Open Porch
155-078-003010 5391
Starling Drive
9/23/93
100% less driveway
New House k Garage
155-073-005120 9091
Tanager Circle
10/1/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-073-005170 9120
Tanager Circle
5/26/93
100%
New House A Garage
155-073-005130 9121
Tanager Circle
10/20/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-073-005150 9160
Tanager Circle
10/1/92
100%
New House and Garage
155-011-000093 506 Territorial Rd
7/6/89
100%
604 N. 8th St.
24'x36' Dot. Garage
155-500-141200 50 Thomas Park Drive
9/14/92
100%
9'x6' Equipment Enclosure Building
155-010-026061
305 Vine Street
3/29/93
100%
Remove & Replace
House & Garage Shingles
155-015-001030
105 Washington Street
9/27/93
100%
Remove & Replace
House & Garage Shingles
155-015-016030
106 Washington Street
Remove & Replace
House Siding
4/6/93
100%
Remove & Replace
House Windows
7/7/93
100%
155-015-011010
209 Washington Street
7/12/93
100%
Reshingle over Existing House & Garage
Shingles
155-015-026010
302 Washington Street
8/23/93
100%
Remove & Replace
Roofing, Roof Insulation,
High School Roof
155-015-013060
204 Wright Street
4/13/93
100%
Remove & Replace
House & Garage Siding,
Cover Soffit & Facia
155-015-035070
406 East Third Street
9/27/93
100%
Deck
155-015-014030
413 East Third Street
8/24/93
100%
Remove & Replace
Church Roof Shingles
155-015-033070
606 East Third Street
6/2/93
100%
14'x20' Det. Accessory Bldg.
155-010-031060
206 West Third Street
6/1/93
100%
Interior Remodel
155-010-036040
207 West Third Street
4/30/93
100%
Remodel Dwelling
to Office Space &
Add Parking Lot
155-010-036010
225 West Third Street
Remove & Replace
Front Entry Roof Shingles
8/3/93
100%
Remove & Replace
House Roof Shingles
10/6/93
100%
155-010-039010
525 West Third Street
8/18/92
65%
155-010-039020
Bedroom Remodel,
New Roof on Porches, Residing
155-010-033041 125 East Fourth Street 8/2/93 100%
Remove & Replace House & Garage Shingles
155-019-008060 330 East Fourth Street 3/29/93 100%
Remove & Replace House Shingles
1
155-010-006060 200 West Sixth Street
Interior and Exterior Remodel
8/18/93
100%
Interior Remodel
6/3/93
100%
155-010-011030 413 West Sixth Street
10/28/92
75%
Remove Existing Addiliun and Roof, New
8'x12' Entry with New Roof Over House
Addition
Reside Existing House, Cover Soffits
3/4/93
100%
& Facia
155-010-081060 502 West Sixth Street
5/3/93
100%
Reshingle over Existing House & Garage,
Remove & Replace Existing 8'x12' Deck
155-010-010030 503 West Sixth Street
9/1/93
100%
Remove & Replace House & Garage Shingles
155-010-081070 506 West Sixth Street
5/10/93
100%
Reside over Existing House Siding
155-010-010010 513 West Sixth Street
6/17/93
100%
New House & Garage
155-010-009050 601 West Sixth Street
6/22/93
100%
Remove & Replace House Roof Shingles
155-010-003060 124 East Seventh St.
5/17/93
100%
New Fast Food Restaurant
155-010-005010 123 West Seventh St.
New Convenience Store
9/28/93
20%
Install 4 underground fuel tanks
12/2/93
20%
155-010-001011 216 west Seventh St.
1/21/93
100%
Int. Leased Space Remodel SUITE /1
1/21/93
100%
Int. Leased Space Remodel SUITE •21
12/14/93
100%
155-500-113210 313 West Seventh St.
5 Unit Townhouse Units 610,612,614,616,618
11/8/93
5%
5 Unit Townhouse Units 621.625,629,633
11/8/93
5%
6 Unit Townhouse 619,623,627,631.635,639
11/8/93
5%
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing open and
outdoor storaee, and consideration of a parkine lot and drive aisle
conditional use permit in an I-2 (heavv industrial) zone--Sunnv
Fresh. (J.0.)
For the sake of efficiency, the Planning Commission agenda supplement
regarding this conditional use permit is provided. Please note that the
Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permits.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Planning Commission agenda supplement dated 3/3/94.
[L
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94
Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing
oxen and outdoor storage, and consideration of a narking lot and
drive aisle conditional use aermit in an I-2 (heavv industrial) zone.
Aoulicant. Sunnv Fresh Foods. Inc. W.O.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Sunny Fresh Foods is proposing to expand the company's meeting and
production facilities. In conjunction with the proposed expansion, the
Sunny Fresh Foods site must be upgraded to current standards. In order to
meet existing standards, Sunny Fresh needs to acquire a conditional use
permit which would allow a reduction in the standard driveway
requirements, and a conditional use permit allowing outside storage.
Following is a brief site plan review followed by alternatives.
The new employee facility will be a two-story structure on the northwest
side of the facility. The additional square footage added to the two-story
facility for meeting/office space and employee break room amounts to
8.200 sq ft. The second major construction component includes construction
of a 4.200 sq R addition to the production area in the northwest corner of
the structure.
PARKING
The total parking demand created by the proposed expansion in addition to
the existing facility amounts to 21 parking stalls. Under the site plan as
proposed, the site will generate 119 parking stalls; therefore, it complies
with city ordinance. In addition to providing sufficient parking stalls, the
parking lot design meets the minimum requirement of the city ordinance
except for those areas where it is proposed that curbing and asphalt be
omitted. The areas noted where no curbing or asphalt is proposed are
outlined on the attached site plan.
One of the unique aspects of this site is a shared parking and drive aisle
arrangement between Sunny Fresh and the Methodist Church. According
to Sunny Fresh officials, there is an agreement between the two that allows
joint use. Under this agreement, Sunny Fresh employees have free access
to the parking adjacent to the Methodist Church property. In exchange,
church members are free to use portions of the Sunny Fresh property for
parking during Sunday services. I have asked for a summary of the joint
parking agreement between the two organizations. Apparently this is a
friendly, informal agreement with nothing in writing; however, they may
put the agreement in writing prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
There are two locations where curb widths exceed 24 R. As you recall, we
n
amended the ordinance to allow for wider curb cuts where justified as
�U(
deemed by the 'Zoning Administrator and City Engineer. The two curb cut
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94
locations are at Walnut Street on the southeast side of the site and the
large opening on 4th Street near the truck scale. It is possible that the
36 -ft wide curb cut on Walnut Street could be narrowed. Thirty-six feet
may be excessive at this location. The wider curb cut on 4th Street is also
quite excessive; however, the presence of the truck scale and the turning
movements needed to enter the truck scale make it very difficult for any
other type of arrangement to exist. This may be an aspect of the site plan
that we may simply have to live with.
From time to time, there is parking of semi -trailer trucks in the southwest
corner of the site in an undeveloped portion of the property. The parking
area is currently surfaced with gravel. There is little use of this area by
Sunny Fresh and no public use at all. Due to the infrequency of use, it is
proposed that this area be allowed to continue as is with a gravel surface
rather than paving and curbing the entire area.
LANDSCAPING
The existing site, though well landscaped in the area of the Allen Research
Center, is deficient in terms of the number of trees and shrubs that should
be installed to meet the minimum defined in the ordinance. As you can see
in the site plan, Sunny Fresh is taking an aggressive approach to approve
the appearance of the facility through installation of a row of trees along
the railroad track side of the property. In addition, they are using shrubs to
screen areas that are considered to be outside storage, which include an
existing CO., tank and two other tanks on the south side of the structure.
Shrubs will also be planted at various locations throughout the perimeter of
the building.
City staff will be working with Sunny Fresh to see if we can convince them
to install additional landscaping on the 4th Street side of the facility in an
effort to create a better separation between the industrial use and the
residential uses.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve a conditional use permit allowing outside storage
and a conditional use permit allowing a reduction in the drive aisle
and parking requirements. Motion is based on the finding that the
conditional use permits, with the conditions as attached, are
consistent with the character and geography of the area. The 1.2
zoning district designation and will not result in a depreciation in the
adjoining land values. Furthermore, the conditional use permit is
consistent with the comprehensive plan for the city.
Q
V
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission may wish to require
that a written agreement between Sunny Fresh Foods and the
Methodist Church be established which allows joint use of the site. It
would seem to make sense that an easement be prepared allowing
Sunny Fresh vehicles to pass over the Methodist Church property to
reach a portion of the Sunny Fresh parking. In addition, as noted
earlier, the City Engineer will need to look at the curb cut openings
and make a finding with regard to the proper width. If the width of
the curb cuts as defined by the City Engineer are excessive, then they
will need to be reduced in conjunction with the construction of the
facility.
2. Motion to deny conditional use permit allowing outside storage and a
conditional use permit allowing a reduction in the drive aisle and
parking requirements.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission would make a
finding that the open and outdoor storage and the proposed reduction
in the parking design requirements will result in a negative impact in
the area and, therefore, should be denied.
Under this alternative. Sunny Fresh would need to retrofit their
entire site to meet the precise letter of city code and would not
necessarily mean that the plant expansion would not occur.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permits as requested.
The areas where curbing is asked to be omitted are areas where there is
little traffic or areas where joint use of drive aisles do not allow a curb line
to be established. With regard to outside storage, actual outside storage is
limited to tanks on the south side of the structure. The site plan calls for
proper screening of these tanks; therefore, staff recommends that the
conditional use permit he awarded. Finally, the plant expansion will also
include the complete repainting of the exterior walls of the structure, which
results in a more unified appearance for the building. As mentioned earlier,
a strong landscaping component is included. All in all, the development will
improve functionality for Sunny Fresh and will improve the appearance of
the site as viewed from the public right-of-way.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of site plan; Copy of joint parking, agreement from Methodist Church
to be provided at the meeting.
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
9. Consideration of a conditional use Permit allowing open and
outdoor storage and consideration of a Parking lot and drive aisle
conditional use Permit in an 1.1 (light industrial) zone --SMA
Elevator. (.1.0.)
For the sake of efficiency, the Planning Commission agenda supplement
regarding this case is provided. Please note that the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the conditional use permit with the provision that
outside storage he screened along the western edge of the outside storage
area as well as the Chelsea Road side of the property. Requiring screening
on two sides is consistent with the screening required at Custom Canopy
and Simonson Lumber.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Planning Commission agenda supplement dated 3/3/94.
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94
Public Hearing --Consideration of a conditional use permit allowing
oven and outdoor storage and consideration of a oarhing lot and
drive aisle conditional use permit in an 1.1 (light industrial) zone.
Applicant. SMA Elevator. (G.A.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
SMA Elevator Construction is proposing to construct a 54' x 80' addition
onto their existing building. In looking at the enclosed site plan, the site
plan shows the proposed addition to the west with seven off-street parking
spaces created in front of the proposed building addition and three
additional parking spaces to the west of the existing office. The existing
site, even where the proposed building addition would go, currently has
hard -surfaced concrete around its perimeter for curbing and a hard -surfaced
parking lot. To upgrade their parking lot to our current design standards,
we'd ask them to stripe the parking to accommodate nine spaces in front of
the proposed building addition, and also to stripe and sign for two handicap
spots in front of the existing office.
The existing site also shows 14 existing trees on site. The minimum
number of required overstory trees would be 26 total trees under the
building square foot requirement, or 12 trees utilizing the lot perimeter
requirement. They do have some existing, probably overgrown, shrubbery
which surrounds the building on the west and the south side of the existing
office building, with some additional oversized shrub plantings on the east
side of the existing warehouse/office portions of the building. The applicant
is proposing to ask for a 50% reduction in the overstory tree requirement.
With the existing site plan would show 14 trees, would meet the minimum
overstory tree requirement. City staff is recommending that these overstory
trees he spaded out and transplanted into a proposed area as located on the
staff recommendation site plan.
The applicant is also requesting to be allowed outside storage which
currently exists at the site. Most of the outside storage would go into the
new building addition, but there still would be some outside storage which
would occur outside or north of the existing and the proposed building
addition. The applicant is proposing only to put a screening fence from the
northeast corner of the existing warehouse building to the property line
parallel at a 90 degree angle to the north property line. City staff is
recommending on the enclosed staff recommendation site plan that the
screening fence also be installed from the northwest corner of the proposed
Wilding addition parallel to the west property line. Within this screening
Fence would be a gate for access out to the area where the outside storage
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94
would occur. The applicant is also requesting to be allowed to install a gate
in the screening fence on the east side of the property, which material
would consist of chain link fence with plastic slats in between it similar to
what was installed at Custom Canopy.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1A. Approve the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor
storage in an I-1 (light industrial) zone.
113. Deny the conditional use permit allowing open and outdoor storage in
an 1-1 zone.
2A. Approve the parking lot and drive aisle conditional use permit.
2B. Deny the parking lot and drive aisle conditional use permit in an 1-1
zone.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Taking into consideration the applicant is proposing to upgrade their
property by building an addition to store most of the outside storage but yet
still utilizing some area for outside storage, staff recommends approval of
the conditional use permit allowing open and outdoor storage and parking
lot and drive aisle conditional use permit in an 1-1 (light industrial) zone.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of the location of the proposed request; Copy of the SMA Elevator
Construction, Inc., site plan; Copy of the staff recommendation for changes
to the SMA site plan; Copy of the conditions for allowing open and outdoor
storage in an 1.1 zone; Copy of the conditional use for parking lot and drive
aisle conditional use permit.
(10
Sit V% ,
nJ
C
L �
o SYrloa
v 1 7/tfrwa
143'w Do - , VY iso
yl app
' CNeI Srq �oad ,
rn-
�- S fA F(AIW41ded Si 4
� C�► ®®C� �y�: sti'S
Awe
15 Y V
r T
'L yLY
o ► �a
�•, 5 @riu•rJ I
rvv* rsd R
ya 4
-4
(P] Blacksmith, welding, or other metal shop.
(Q] Laundries, carpet, and rug cleaning.
(R] Bottling establishments.
[S] Building material sales and storage.
[T] Broadcasting antennae, television, and radio.
(U] Camera and photographic supplies manufacturing.
(V] Cartage and express facilities.
(W] Stationery, bookbinding, and other types of
manufacturing of paper and related products but not
processing of raw materials for paper production.
(X] Dry cleaning establishments and laundries.
[Y] Electric light or power generating stations, electrical
and electronic products manufacture, electrical service
shops.
[Z] Engraving, printing and publishing.
(AA] Jewelry manufacturing.
(BB] Medical, dental, and optical laboratories.
[CC] Storage or warehousing.
(OD] Wholesale business and office establishments.
15B-3: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: The following are permitted
accessory uses in an "I-1" district:
(A] All permitted accessory uses as allowed in the "B-4"
district.
15B-4: (CONDITIONAL USES The following are conditional uses in an
l
"1-1 alaLiLL. Requires a conditional use permit based upon
procedures set forth in and regulated by Chapter 22 of this
ordinance).
(A) Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use provided
that:
1. The area is fenced and screened from view of
neighboring residential uses or, if abutting a
residential district, in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (G], of this ordinance.
2. Storage is screened from view from the publid�
right-of-way in compliance with Chapter J
Section 2 (G), of this ordinance.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 15B/2 .
3. Storage area is grassed or surfaced to control
dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that
the light source shall not be visible from the
public right-of-way or from neighboring residences
and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [H], of this ordinance.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
[B] Open or outdoor service, sale, and rental as a principal
or an accessory use and including sales in or from
motorized vehicles, trailers, or wagons provided that:
1. Accessory outside service, sales, and equipment
rental connected with a principal use is limited to
thirty (30) percent of the gross floor area of the
principal use.
2. Outside sales areas are fenced or screened from
view of neighboring residential uses or an abutting
residential district in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [G], of this ordinance.
3. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that
the light source shall not be visible from the
public right-of-way or from neighboring residences
and shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (H), of this ordinance.
4. Sales area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
5. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
(C) Industrial planned unit development as regulated by
Chapter 20 of this ordinance.
(D) Amusement places (such as roller rinks and dance halls)
and bowling alleys.
[E] Consignment sales provided that:
1. Sales and storage are not to exceed 1,000 square
feet in area.
2. At least 801 of the sales shall be of consigned
merchandise.
3. No auctions shall take place on the premises.
4. There shall be no outside storage. 0
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 15B/3�
(s) STALL AZS E AND DRIVEWAY DESIGN CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT:
Stall aisle and driveway design requirements
as noted in (k) Surfacing, (o) Curbing and
Landscaping, and (r) Curbing, may be lessened
subject to the following conditions:
I. Any reduction in requirements requires
completion of the conditional use permit
process outlined in Chapter 22 of this
ordinance.
ii. Final approval of parking and driveway
drainage plans associated with
conditional use permit request shall be
provided in writing by the City
Engineer. Engineering expenses greater
than portion of building permit fee
allocated for engineer plan review shall
be paid by applicant prior to occupancy
of structure.
iii. A surmountable "transition" curb or
cement delineator must be installed as a
boundary between an outside storage area
and a parking or drive area.
iv. Development of a curb along the boundary
between a parking area and an area
designated on site plan for future
parking is not required if said curb
line is not needed for drainage purposes
as determined by the City Engineer.
Exceptions to the standard curb
requirements do not apply to any parking
or driveway perimeter that runs roughly
parallel to and within 20 feet of an
adjoining parcel.
Vi. This conditional use permit is allowed
only in I-1 and I-2 zones.
vii. Drive areas that are secondary and not
used by the general public and not used
for routine delivery of goods or
services do not require hard surfacing
or curb unless hard surface and curb is
needed for drainage purposes as
determined by the City Engineer. Access
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
q
3/28
7
to such drive areas may be restrictD
a gate which must be closed afteruse. At such time that routine unoted, the drive area shall be pav
(4192, 7/9/90)
[E] MAINTENANCE: It shall be the joint and several
responsibility of the lessee and owner of the principal
use, uses, or building to maintain in a neat and
adequate manner, the parking space, accessways striping,
landscaping, and required fences.
[F] LOCATION: All accessory off-street parking facilities
required by this ordinance shall be located and
restricted as follows:
1. Required accessory off-street parking shall be on
the same lot under the same ownership as the
principal use being served except under the
provisions of Chapter 3, Section 5 (I].
2. Except for single, two-family, and townhouse
dwellings, head -in parking directly off of and
adjacent to a public street with each stall having
its own direct access to the public street shall be
prohibited.
3. There shall be no off-street parking within fifteen
(15) feet of any street surface.
4. The boulevard portion of the street right-of-way
shall not be used for parking.
S. SETBACK AREA: Required accessory off-street
parking shall not be provided in front yards or in
side yards in the case of a corner lot in R-1, R-2,
R-3, PZ, and 8-1 districts.
6. In the case of single family, two-family, and
townhouse dwellings, parking shall be prohibited in
any portion of the front yard except designated
driveways leading directly into a garage or one (1)
open, surfaced space located on the side of a
driveway away from the principal use. Said extra
space shall be surfaced with concrete or bituminous
material.
(G) USE OF REQUIRED AREA: Required accessory off-street
parking spaces in any district shall not be utilized for
open storage, sale, or rental of goods, storage of
inoperable vehicles as regulated by Chapter 3,
Section 2 (M], of this ordinance, and/or storage of
snow.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3 9
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
10. Consideration of amendment to Section 3-9: (E) of the zoninK
ordinance reaulatina definition. size, number, and location of
premise and aroduct signs allowed within the PZM. B-1. S-2. B-3, B-
4. I-1. and 1.2 districts. (.1,0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND,:
Holiday Stationstores requests a pylon sign and 3 premise identification
signs. Current ordinance allows 1 pylon sign and 1 premise identification
sign. Following you will find information relating to the original request for
a variance which was denied, followed by an associated request for a zoning
ordinance amendment.
The !Tanning Commission rejected the original variance request because no
hardship existed justifying the request. However, the Planning Commission
also felt that the sign system proposed by Holiday Stationstores, though not
in compliance, was acceptable and, therefore, the Planning Commission
called for a public hearing on an ordinance amendment accordingly.
Under Lite proposed zoning ordinance amendment, no additional sign area is
allowed. However, more premise signs would be allowed depending oil the
number of street Frontages that it business has access to.
Please see Lite Planner's report for detail.
It. Al.VERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt or modify the proposed zoning ordinance hased on
findings outlined in the Planner's report.
Under this alternative, Holiday could have 2 premise signs placed on
the walls or canopy and 1 pylon sign, or Holiday could have 3
wall/canopy signs and no pylon sign.
2, Motion to deny approval of the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment.
Under this alternative, Council should make a finding supporting
denial.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION -
Staff ff recomn.ends alternative p 1.
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance amendment; Planning Commission agenda
supplement dated 211/94; Planning Cnmmission agenda supplement dated
3/3/94.
13
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA, DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN:
THAT TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 9 [C], PERTAINING TO SIGN
REGULATIONS BY INCLUDING REGULATIONS FOR FUEL STATION
CANOPIES AND ALLOWABLE SIGNS PER STREET FRONTAGE, BE
AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING:
10. Signs may be located on conforming fuel station pump island
canopies. Such signs shall be considered as wall signs, and shall be
regulated in the same manner as any other wall signs on the
property.
THAT TITLE 10, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 9 [E] 2. (b) ii, PERTAINING TO
DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR SIGNS, BE AMENDED TO READ AS
FOLLOWS:
ii. Option B. Under Option B, either wall signs or pylon signs may be
utilized, or a combination of both. The total number of business
identification signs allowed (whether wall or pylon) shall be at least
two (2), or equal to the number of streets upon which the property
has legal frontage, whichever is greater. In no case, however, shall
more than one pylon sign be allowed. Only two product identification
signs are allowed, and these wall signs may be only on one wall. The
total maximum allowable sign area for any wall shall be determined
by taking ten percent (10%) of the gross silhouette area of the front
building up to one hundred (100) square feet, whichever is less. The
method for determining the gross silhouette area for wall signs is as
indicated in Option A.
This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication
according to the city charter.
Adopted this 14th day of March, 1994.
Mayor
City Administrator
3
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/1/94
Public Hearine••Consideration of a variance to Section 3-9 E: 2 (b) ii
of the Monticello Zonine Ordinance which would allow disolav of
two additional premise identification siens. AuolicanL Holidav
Stationstores. (J.OJ
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Holiday Stationstores requests that the City allow display of three premise
identification signs in addition to a pylon sign. Only one premise sign is
allowed by ordinance when a pylon sign is present. As you will note on the
proposed sign plan, one sign will face Highway 25, one will face 7th Street,
and one will face Walnut Street.
The sign plan presented did not show the location of any product
identification signs. According to the ordinance, Holiday may have two
product identification signs in addition to the premise and pylon sign. Their
ability to put additional product identification signs is limited because the
total square footage of sign area allowed under the ordinance is taken up by
the three premise identification signs.
The total square footage of all signs does not exceed the maximum allowed.
Essentially, Holiday is asking for a variance which would allow them to
take the total sign area allowed by ordinance and utilize it through display
of premise identification signs only.
It should be noted that somehow Taco Bell was allowed to have three
premise signs in addition to the pylon sign. I will be checking with Gary to
see how this occurred. It is embarassing that Taco Bell was allowed to
install a non -conforming sign system. However, the mistake does not serve
to create a bona fide precedent.
13. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to deny variance based on the finding that there are no
unique circumstances or hardship that justify granting of the
variance; therefore, granting of the variance would he contrary to the
intent of the ordinance.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission takes the view that
a pylon sign combined with one premise sign is sufficient to identify
the name of the business as noted by ordinance, and there are simply
no grounds for granting the variance due to hardship or any other
circumstance.
EV;
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/1/94
2. Motion to deny granting the variance based on the same finding as
noted under alternative Nl, but call for a public hearing to review a
potential sign ordinance amendment which would allow additional
premise signs to be displayed when a business has frontage on three
streets.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission would make a
finding that a hardship or unique circumstance does not exist to
justify granting of the variance requested; however, there appears to
be merit in looking at liberalizing our sign ordinance to allow more
premise signs (2 or 3) to be displayed where a business has frontage
on more than two streets.
Under this alternative, City staff would prepare an amendment to the
zoning ordinance accordingly for review at the next meeting of the
Planning Commission.
Motion to grant the variance to allow (1) or (2) additional premise
signs based on the finding that a variance in this case is acceptable
because the total sign area proposed under the sign plan does not
exceed maximum limits and, therefore, complies with the intent of
the ordinance. Motion to include the requirement that no additional
product signs are to he allowed because all of the allowable sign area
is taken up in premise signs.
Under this alternative, Planning Commission could make a finding
that the sign system as proposed basically meets the intent of the
zoning ordinance because the total sign area is in compliance. Under
this alternative, Holiday Stationstores would not be able to display
any product identification signs because if it did, the total sign area
would be in excess of the sign area allowed by ordinance.
It would seem unlikely that Holiday would agree to such a limitation.
Even if Holiday did agree to not display any product signs, it is likely
that such an agreement over time would be forgotten and ultimately
result in product signs being displayed in addition to the
identification signs, thereby resulting in a sign system with a total
square footage in excess of maximums allowed under the ordinance.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative a2. It is our view that there is no justification
for a variance based on a hardship. We disagree with the concept of
allowing three signs based on the reasoning that the total sign area is in
�O
Planning Commission Agenda - 2/1/94
compliance with the ordinance because ultimately additional product signs
could be placed on site, thereby creating a sign system that exceeds the
total square footage of sign area allowed.
It is our view that this situation is relatively unique and not addressed well
by the zoning ordinance; therefore, perhaps it makes sense to look at
making some minor modifications to the zoning ordinance to allow for the
additional premise sign to be displayed for businesses that have fronting on
three rights-of-way.
In addition to liberalizing the number of signs allowed, perhaps it makes
sense to increase the sign area allowed as well.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Excerpts from the zoning ordinance; Copy of the Holiday Stationstores site
plan.
0
identification signs and two business
identification signs. The total maximum
size of wall signs shall be determined
by taking twenty percent (20%) of the
gross silhouette area of the front of
the building, up to three hundred (300)
square feet, whichever is less. If a
principal building is on a corner lot,
the largest side of the building may be
used to determine the gross silhouette
area.
For purposes of determining the gross
area of the silhouette of the principal
building, the silhouette shall be
defined as that area within an outline
drawing of the principal building as
viewed from the front lot line or from
the related public street(s).
ii. Option B. Under Option B, either wall
signs or pylon signs may be utilized or
a combination of both. In no case,
however, shall more than one pylon sign
11olido-�y be allowed. Onlv two per;
identification signs and (L,_prmmtsa
identification sign is allowed, and
these wall signs must be only on one
separate wall. The total maximum
P y allowable sign area for any wall shall
1 r s�- .be determined by taking ten percent
(10%) of the gross silhouette area of
the front building up to one hundred
(100) square feet, whichever is less.
The method for determining the gross
silhouette area for wall signs is as
indicated in Option A.
3. Conditional Uses in Commercial and Industrial
Districts: The purpose of this section is to
provide aesthetic control to signage and to prevent
a proliferation of individual signs on buildings
with three (3) or more business uses. The City
shall encourage the use of single sign boards,
placards, or building directory signs.
(a) In the case of a building where there aro
three (3) or more business uses, but which, by
generally understood and accepted definitions,
is not considered a shopping center or
shopping mall, a conditional use shall be
granted to the entire building in accordance
with an overall site plan under the provisions
Of Option A or Option B (described in 2 (b) i
and ii above) provided that:
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE IO 3/46
Eli
W
`L
a ,,q l� Id C.'f. �'�• n�
abw„s:ness is
--__
't:Reg1
.
peep
r _
�
F--3
\
L__3
1e
a�
mw
m
Z--+
.....................
7 TH STREET
5CMACC KEY
6? ',m Haat. "down fa
Man own" on a rt WE. .
n am f»n
� acv n m,t. moon+ s rtt
vi ar +nur of o rtl . Pr4ww'. pt (1
a . auf+ mm
n • IaW.
le �n
M
Ito
ti
Q -S 1/Y Y
C
cc
H@00@ 7
O
\
_
El
�
q raj
I'sbotant cash 4k.I
GRAND OPSDO
Pv 1t 10A W/r-LL
p
i
mamy 0(9-1 ,/r 6-S) b/ !G rt.
MS 9W(E-, 1/r . 6-A') U3 M n
� eoum (e-, 1/r . r -r) zev n n.
TOTAL Ima 76 A
I=.
1�
PROPOSED PYLON SIGN
NO SGAIF
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94
7. Public Hearing --Consideration of amendment to Section 3-9: (E) of
the zoning ordinance regulating definition. size, number, and
location of premise and product signs allowed within the PZM. B-1.
B-2, B-3. B-4. I.1, and 1-2 districts. Applicant. Monticello Planning
Commission. W.O. )
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
This item stems from the recent variance request submitted by Holiday
Station. As you recall, at the previous meeting of the Planning
Commission, the Commission tabled the variance request pending
development of a potential zoning ordinance amendment that would allow
placement of a wall sign along each wall that faces a public right-of-way. In
addition, Planning Commission reviewed the ordinance with regard to signs
on gas station canopies and learned that we currently do not allow signs on
gas station canopies. Under the proposed zoning ordinance amendment, a
canopy sign would be considered to be an eligible place to display allowable
wall sign area.
Please review the Planner's report and associated proposed ordinance
amendment for more detail.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt or modify the proposed zoning ordinance based on
findings outlined in the Planner's report.
Motion to deny approval of the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission will need to bring
the previous variance request off the table and make a decision with
regard to the variance request If the Planning Commission denies
the variance request, then, upon petition by the property owner, the
variance request would be submitted to the City Council for final
consideration.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alternative #1.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of Planner's report; Copy of proposed ordinance amendment. 0
�- -" ° w .. . L- •• •• 1 n 11 - u t S 1 tl II . M A N R E I R 8 4 11 A R C M
N EMORjUNDUN11
TO: Monticello Planning Cc=ission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: 28 February 1994
Rs: Monticello - Sign Ordinance Amendments
FILE NO: 191.06 - 94.04
The attached Ordinance amends the City's Sign Ordinance in two
ways. First, it permits signs placed upon fuel station canopies to
be treated as wall signs. In this way, a fuel station owner may
choose to utilized the canopy for sign locations, but would
sacrifice a wall sign location elsewhere on the building.
The second amendment alters the calculation for the total number of
signs on a parcel which utilizes wall and pylon Signe. In such a
situation, the property is allowed one sign per street frontage,
with a minimum of two signs. Under this allowance, a property may
identify its business on each of the streets on which it has legal
frontage. This latter language would require full width frontage
on a street to qualify for sign identification. A property owner
could not acquire a narrow strip of land merely for the purpose of
constructing an additional sign.
5775 Wayzata Blvd.' Suite 555 - St. Louis Park, MN 55416 - (612) 595.9636 -Fax. 595-9837
to
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
11. Consideration of amendment to Section 3-2: (F) of the zoning
ordinance reitulating placement of fences. The amendment would
allow placement of fences on a property line only with written
approval from nropert.v owners affected. (d 0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For some time, Citv staff has been meaning to bring a possible zoning
ordinance amendment regulating placement offences before the Planning
Commission. The purpose of the ordinance is to utilize the City's regulatory
authority to ensure proper placement of fences along property lines. The
need for the ordinance has been identified by Building Inspector, Gary
Anderson. Anderson says that improper placement offences and associated
neighbor conflicts occur about 3 times per year. The proposed ordinance
would be employed to resolve such conflicts.
The City Planner has reviewed our ordinance as well as fence ordinances in
effect in other cities and has come up with a proposed amendment. Please
see the Planner's report for more detail.
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the ordinance. It was
their view that the problem between neighbors relating tan fences should
remain as civil matter to be worked out by the property owners. City
involvement in regulating fence placement is an unneeded drain on City
staff resources needed elsewhere.
R. ALTVRNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve proposed zoning ordinance amendment as
submitted based on the findings that there is a demonstrated need for
the ordinance.
2. Motion to deny approval of the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment..
C. S'I'AFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on information from the Planner, it appears that the proposed
ordinance amendment would help to solve the problem identified by the
Building Inspector. Like the Planning Commission, City staff is concerned
that overzealous enforcement of the ordinance could become a drain on stx►f1'
time. However, slafT'supports (.he ordinance amendment if enfiarcement
action is limited to "complaint hasis" only. Under this scenario, the City
li
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
would advertise the presence of the ordinance via the Monticello Times and
the City newsletter, and we would distribute the regulations to individuals
that come to the City seeking information on fence rules and regulations. It
is not envisioned that a permit process he set. tip whereby each fence in the
City would be inspected for proper placement. Rather, the ordinance would
he employed by the City under circumstances where a complaint has been
raised. Under this scenario, the City would be involved in correcting
violations. Conflicts would no longer be resolved as a civil matter between
two neighbors.
SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of proposed ordinance amendment; Copy of Planning Commission
agenda supplement dated 313/94.
tS
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTICELLO, NUNNESOTA, DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN THAT TITLE 10, CHAPTER S, SECTION 2 [F] 2, OF THE
MONTICELLO ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO GENERAL FENCING,
SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPING BE AMENDED BY ADDING THE
FOLLOWING:
(e) Except as provided in Chapter 3, Section 2 [F] 2, fences may be
erected on the side or rear lot lines of a property with a recordable,
written agreement between adjacent property owners. At the
discretion of the Building Inspector, a survey may be required to
locate the property line for proper placement of the fence.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after its passage and
publication.
Adopted by the City Council this day of 1994.
Mayor
City Administrator
0
Planning Commission Agenda - 3/3/94
9. Public Hearine--Consideration of amendment to Section 3-2: (F) of
the zoning ordinance regulating placement of fences. The
amendment would allow Dlacement of fences on a Drooerty line only
with written anaroval from property owners affected. ADDlicant.
Monticello Planning Commission. (J.0.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
For some time, City staff has been meaning to bring a possible zoning
ordinance amendment regulating placement of fences before the Planning
Commission. The City Planner has reviewed our ordinance as well as
ordinances in effect in other cities and has recommended an alternative if
the Planning Commission is interested in taking a stronger stand with
regard to regulating placement of fences. Please see the Planner's report for
more detail.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve proposed zoning ordinance amendment as
submitted based on the findings outlined in the Planner's report.
2. Motion to deny approval of the proposed zoning ordinance
amendment.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on information received from the Planner, it appears that adoption of
an ordinance regulating placement of fences as proposed is workable;
however, it should be noted that incorporation of this ordinance into our
books will result in additional administrative duties relating to regulation of
fences. On the one hand, it makes sense to regulate fence placement as
proposed. On the other hand, we are having a difficult time keeping up
with the work that we have already. It might be more realistic to table this
matter until we have the staff to adequately enforce this new ordinance.
We would suggest that the ordinance be modified to include language
requiring that a permit be obtained.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Planner's report; Copy of proposed ordinance amendment.
.. .. ..v�
V A R A N P L A N N I N Gy D,fi S}Ira N M AtA K E T`•A E S t A R C N
NEEM0RANDMI
TO: Morticello Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: 28 February 1994
RE: Monticello - zoning Ordinance Amendment - Fences
FILE NO: 191.06 - 94.03
The City has been discussing the issue of fence placement with
respect to boundary line fences. The attached Ordinance would
permit the construction of fences on property boundary lines with
the written approval of the property owner sharing the fence. The
primary concerns over the written approval are ongoing notification
and maintenance issues.
This Ordinance provides for an agreement which is recordable
against both properties. The agreement should address
responsibilities for maintenance and costs. It is not necessary
that the parties agree to split the responsibilities, only that
they make a determination as to who is responsible. The recordable
nature of the agreement is important since future owners should
have an understanding of the maintenance responsibilities.
If no agreement is reached, the Ordinance provides for a setback of
three feet to permit maintenance of the land and fence by the party
which constructs the fence. This option is less desirable, since
contiguous property owners who cannot agree on a boundary line
fence, but who both want fences, wind up creating an alley of
unusable area between them.
This approach has been used in numerous other communities with
success. No problems have been encountered with mortgage companies
or title search issues. We recommend it over a flat requirement of
fence setbacks or unrecorded boundary line fence agreements.
5775 Wayzata Blvtl. - Suite 555 - St. Louis Park. MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
P . O
FEB -20-94 MOH I 1 :24 O
Please insert the following text in place of that in the attached
Ordinance:
(e) Except " providod in chapter 3, Section 2 M 2, fences
may erected on the side of rear lot lines of a property
subject to a recordable agreement between adjacent
property owners. Said agreement shall assign maintenance
and cost responsibilities between the adjoining
properties, shall become null and void upon removal of
the fence, and shall be recorded against the titles of
each property. Where no agreement is reached, fences
shall be set back a minimum of three feet from any
lot line. 2
At the discretion of the Building official, a boundary
survey may be required to ascertain the exact location of
the boundary line.
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
12. Consideration of authorizing the specifications for the purchase of a
new Dumper and rescue fire truck. (H.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
For the past few years, the Joint Fire Board has been discussing the need
for acquiring a new pumper truck. Anticipating that the purchase would
not occur until 1994 or 1995, the City has included in the 1993 and 1994
budgets $35,000 annually toward the eventual purchase of this new fire
truck. Likewise, Monticello Township has been anticipating the need for
purchasing this truck and has also been setting aside funds to cover their
anticipated share of the new truck purchase.
The fire department truck committee will he in attendance at the Council
meeting to go over the type of vehicle they are investigating, but
preliminary indications are that the new vehicle would he a pumper and a
rescue vehicle combined, with seating capacity for six firefighters when
responding to it fire. The estimated cost will be in the neighborhood of
$220,11110, of which it is anticipated that the city's share would be
approximately 2/3 of the cost and the township one-third. This is similar to
our present contract, arrangement in that the township is participating in
the fire department budget at approximately 35% of our cost, and it is
assunwd this same formula would apply to it new fire truck purchase. The
Fire departmentis also recommending that the current 1976 Chevrolet
rescue van be sold and the new pumper/rescue vehicle would replace it. The
new pumper/rescue truck would actually fill two needs, as an additional
1,000 gallon pumper and it replacement vehicle for the rescue van. By
combining both purposes inUi one vehicle, the department can upgrade its
pumper capacity without adding as additional vehicle tit this time. The
recently refurbished 1973 township pumper will he retained as it backup
vehicle and could continue to he used in off-road situations where it may not
be feasible or wise to use our new fire truck. The 1975 rescue van was
purchased from another fire department a few years ago for approximately
$6,000 and has been updated with various amenities since then. It is
assumed that this vehicle would be sold to another fire department and
should obtain approximately $5,000 to $6,000 in resale value.
When we initially budgeted $36,000 per year to set aside for a new fire
truck, we had anticipated a replacement pumper in the $150,000 category.
Now that the cost has escalated to an estimated $220,000, the city's share
would he approximately $160,0011 instead of the original $100,000. Since we
have budgeted Only $70,000 through 1994, approval of this truck purchase
would require its to budget nn additional $80,000 in 1996 to cover our share.
/%
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
It is anticipated that approval to purchase a new fire truck could take 9 to
12 months before the truck arrives, thus allowing us time to accumulate the
balance of the funds needed.
At the Monticello Township annual meeting held recently, the township
voted to approve their participation in the purchase of this new fire truck
under the one-third/two-third arrangement. With the township's approval,
the Joint Board is now requesting City Council authorization to proceed
with this purchase.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Council could authorize the Joint Fire Board to continue preparing
specifications for a new pumper/rescue fire truck and authorize
advertisement for bids. It is estimated that the fire truck would be in
the neighborhood of $220,000 and will require city funding of
approximately $150,000. C 4 —A Qp
2. Council could decide not to authorize the purchase at this time.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
While the staff does not have a formal recommendation for the Council, the
Joint Fire Board has been discussing this replacement truck for a number of
years and is recommending both jurisdictions proceed with the purchase.
From the sta ff standpoint, the Council should he aware that we were not
initially anticipating the cost (A) be this high and if the purchase is
authorized, the city will have to budget the balance of approximately
$80,000 in 1995 to pay for our share. Fire department members will be in
attendance to answer any questions you have retarding the truck and its
features, etc.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Sketch of proposed truck.
/7
owls ao�(yt
.1. hl Wtv
C014 3
t
r 1 (1
Ck
Ej,
f=17.i n o n66
wre MIS .11-11 11 A.
It,rr.1s.90 Irl—mi
Council Agenda - 3/14/94
13. Consideration of an aaolication for a one-dav oambling license --
Ducks Unlimited Banauet. (R.W.)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Wright County Ducks Unlimited has requested approval of a one -day
gambling license to conduct a raffle as part of their May 9, 1994, annual
banquet. As in the past, the banquet has been held at the Monticello Roller
Rink. Before the State of Minnesota will grant a license, the City Council
must adopt a resolution supporting the request or denying the application.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Adopt a resolution approving issuance of the license.
2. Do not adopt the resolution supporting the license application.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Since the Ducks Unlimited Banquet, has been held for a number of years at
the Roller Rink and has always included a rattle as part of the activities, I
can see no reason why the City would not want to recommend approval of
the one -day license.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Copy of application; Copy of resolution.
RESOLUTION 94 -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE
OF GAMBLING LICENSE
WHEREAS, the Wright County Ducks Unlimited has submitted an application to the
City Council of Monticello for the renewal of a charitable gambling license to operate
a raffle on May 9, 1994, at the Monticello Roller Rink located in Monticello,
Minnesota, and
WHEREAS, upon review of the organization's activities, the Council is not opposed
to the gambling license being reissued by the State Gambling Control Board, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL that the Wright
County Ducks Unlimited application for a raffle license listed above is hereby
approved, and the State Gambling Control Board is authorized to process the
application.
Adopted by the City Council this 14th day of March, 1994
Mayor
City Administrator
etinnerota LmKftd Gambling
Application for Authorization for
Exemption from Lawful Gambling License
FW in fir. Inaneded portonv of ew.ppwam ler arernpW &W
send d w at Ammf fib drys boar. your gvnbaV ac" brpn uaarla
Name and Address gf Organisation
OwftKbn fare CureaTrerrur dceraa lunar
oke, d„I-,MrrEn CNr„ka. o39 c-,ij11 &.19(-012 -13-00 1
ane a.m tb ma
l02 Ttf6mks P•.� (� cL. N1oh%,�l/o JL4 Al <5 �� -
7fiRo.
n.. aur. Dayu- Pryor. Niro« Tran« «
G(teL— ((,12) Zlo3-$3ls3 ��- Pc11 76 Al
Type of Non-prgfit Organisation
Chu* the box below whkh iltdkatea your type of ortwiatbn
❑
Fraternal
❑ veteran
❑ Rallgcue
oafs nonyrofit
GambUny Site
NrM a w .nm. eaNay .e lace tra
/( �OntiCtLGO ALLE,e— Xi.✓t
aneCoy........ ••-•••-•Toaw
1,02f —,c P.A D-. Afiim fit�/�o
oerU a emwr tfar rens. elarye ar m a fir awagl
MAk'99
FOR BOARD USE ONLY
FEE CHK
INIT DATE
Curmeprewas =am reefer
I "Oft Ph" N WbW
(b/AZ%S -2796
CMok On box that bwdledee your pool of lrw4 t
.tshsaid .-- .. copy of am proof to Ilr.ppYwtlon
❑ IRs d egra im
❑ Certlfin0on of good atr I g from dw fAlmeeota
seawry of st.trs office
(� AldfW of peau mmollt oWnmam (dWWO
MN .S5310 z I / 4 h�T
Types gf Gan ft Mnanciat Report
oawmet
ora. RIMMOD
Bingo
❑
Raffles
Deb
Paddlewheels
❑
Tipboards
❑
Pull -tabs
❑
1 declare all information submitted to the
Gambling Control Board is true, accurate,
and complete.
CRY of many arM
Uvane. frren -
Coe ce Prete am Peel
up" Yekm of Prlae
(tip Dmublw
ww cow
kerer.or oow elYoili parreu 0 6worrrn ea purtwen
oemerreer. xcwr rumr
I dame fie maxim w.-tion.onb0 b are Demme ew"
Ilomd a elm. emaarf, ma acno.rw
r r-�
f ,O 1,f
Ouef lummne oebKe &enure
We Chief 11"WIM Olaofe &Oran
Deb
Local Unit gfOovaTfmentAcknowtedgmeM
1 new w.W d a mgr of On MWaL a, Thr MW=Mn me to Mead W dm O«1ee9 coma Baer aro me WCOrm a.edhe dD erre Vere are MM a
w W W am nY ar away. Wee am bce
re a tPw — Peen a rmmaem M Wealra0r Pwraat aWar. A COPY a are rMoUlm, Mr be waled
W Pm DamY1p Cama Board ween JD ore of ale cue &are M bebw, Cbae or tti fee dm Pore e0 UR a Maes to &NA m ere MWAY.
Car w Cow ay
tewrhtP
TownW* is
CRY of many arM
T01me1e nen'
❑ organized
M Wyoyganlzed*
Lwova a Proem Moenmv GPPWAM
agah" a Proem wawa eroabmn
❑ unincorporated*
Mach letter
Tb
Due waWea T6 gum Ra mm
This form w@ be made available
Moil tenth $25 permh fee and copy of
White • Grighol
in afiernative fomtat (i.e. large
proof of nonprofh emus to:
Yellow • Board returns to
print braille) upon request.
Gentling Control Board
organization ro corypU13
1711 W. County Rd. B. blear 300 S.
shaded area
Roseville. MN 65113
CITY OF MONTICELLO MONTHLY BUILDING DEPARTMENT REPORT
Month of February, 1994
PERMITS 8 USES
Last This
Same Month
Last Year
Thq Yea4
PERMITS ISSUED
Momh JAN_ Mmes FEB
_Uml_yea,
_ To Data
_ To Data
RESIDENTIAL
Number
5
3
7
9
a
Valuation
519,000.00
$2610.60000
$178,70000
5253,90000
5279.60000
Fees
520930
$1,715.58
$1,30935
SI.920.32
$1,924 as
Surcharges
$9.25
$13030
36860
$12620
$139.55
COMMERCIAL
Number
2
1
3
2
Valuation
531,500.00
30,Dw.00
$9.500.00
:31.50000
Fees
5306,60
$81.00
$119,00
5306.60
Surcharges
$15.50
S3 DO
54.50
$1550
INDUSTRIAL
Number
1
1
Valuation
$3.500.00
$9.000.00
$3.500.00
Fees
$35.00
$108.00
$35.00
Surcharges
$1.75
54.50
$1.75
PLUMBING
Number
1
4
3
4
5
Fees
$1300
$105.00
$75.00
$9800
$119,00
Surcharges
$0.50
32.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
OTHERS
Number
Valuation
Fees
SUIChil'(103
TOTAL# PERMITS
7
9
11
17
16
TOTAL VALUATION
322500.00
2292100,00
X184,700,00
_$272,400.00
_ $314,_800_00
TOTAL FEES
$267.30 _£2.
127.18
_$1.465.35
_$2.242.32
$2,384.48
TOTAL SURCHARGES
$11,50
$147.90
$93,10
$13720
$147,80
CURRENT MONTH_
_
-
FEF$
I
NUMBER iO DATE
PERMIT NATURE_
NUmb§I
PgrmllSwdm
VeWatlo_n 11X8 Yoat' L01 VB¢.
S1ngIn Family
3
$1,71558
i�130.30
3260.60000
3 3
Write.
0 0
MUItI-Famay
0 0
Commpcial
0 0
IMushkal
0 0
This. Garages
0 0
Signs
0 0
Pudic Btogs
0 0
ALIERAI IONREPAIR
Uwolllrlgs
5 6
Commaclal
2
$300,60
51550
331,50000
2 3
Irlouatrlal
1 1
PLUMBING
AB Typos
4
SIDS 00
52.00
$000
5 4
ACCESSORY
SIRUCTURLS
SvAmming Poole
0 0
Dacha
0 0
TEMPORARY PERMIT
0 0
10 ALS
_ 9._$2.127.10__$147.8
__$282.100 D0
16 _ 17
J
CITY OF MONTICELLO INDIVIDUAL PERMIT ACTIVITY REPORT
Month of February, 1994
PERMIT
FEES
NUMBER
OESCflIPTION
(TYPE
NAMEILOCADOH
v4LUATION
PERMILSURCtiARGE_ P UMBIHG_SURCHARGE_
9!-2210
Imanor a emanor ramcael
AC
Monticello Country Cludt 209 Golf Course Roes
$30.000.00
$291 60
$15.00
$26.00
$0.50
94.2211
(manor wall oamearls
iAC
Carroll BloomaahVDavia Kmnaro
11.50000
$1500
$0.50
94-2212
House A oarace
SF
Jonn Gum"9691 Gdlara Avenue NE
W5,80() OD
$558.54
$47.90'
$29.00
P50
94.2213
House a oareae
SF
.Value Plus Home315371 Falcon Avenue NE
$53,500 Op
$387.22
$26.75
$23.00
$050
94.2214
House A oaraoe
SF
James Neumarv9681 Gmam Avenue NE
1111.30090
4871 14
$5565
$2700
$050
I
TOTALS
I
$212,100.00
�
$1,887.50
8143.80
11105.00
$2.00
PLAN REVIEW
I
I
I
94-2212
House 6 oeraoa�SF
Jonn OymQv9691 GAiara Avenue NE
$§Q 85,
943213
House 6 oamoo
'SF
IValue Plus Homes/5371 Falcon Avenue NE
138,72-
94-2214
House A aareoo
ISF
(James NeumanrWl Glllara Avnnuo NE
$62 11 ,
TOTAL PLAN REVIEW
$138.66
�
TOTAL REVENUE
i
I
$2,274.98
�