Planning Commission Agenda Packet 11-06-1996AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMIMON
Wednesday, November 6, 1996 - 7 p.m.
Members: Dick Frie, Jon Bogart, Richard Carlson, Dick Martie, Rod Dragsten
1. Call to order.
2. Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held October 1, 1996.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
5. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for an amendment to a
conditional use permit which would allow expansion and conversion of one
manual car wash stall to an automated stall. Location is Lot 3, Block 1,
Macarlund Plaza. Applicant: Investors Together.
6. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for a 54 variance to the 30 -ft
building setback requirement. Location is 100 West Oakwood Drive.
Applicant, David Peterson/Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford.
7. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for a 7 -ft variance to the 10 -ft
separation requirement between principal and accessory buildings. Location
is Lot 4, Block 3, The Meadows. Applicant, Ryan Fruth.
8. Public Hearing --Consideration of a request for a 34 variance to the 3 -ft
driveway setback requirement. Location is Lots 13 and 14, River Mill
subdivision. Applicant, Robert Rolf.
9. Public Hearing --Consideration of an amendment to Section 3.2 of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance governing placement of fences within traffic
sight lines. Applicant, City of Monticello/Planning Commission.
10. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on a comprehensive plan
amendment identifying growth areas on the Sherburne County border of the
city.
11. Consideration of calling for a public hearing on ordinance amendments
governing radio/cell phone communication towers.
12. Adjournment.
DRINUTE6
RRGULAR MEETING - MONWICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
L Tuesday, October 1,1996.7 p.m.
Members Present: Dick Frie, Richard Martie, Jon Bogart, Richard Crleon,
Rod Dragsten
Staff Present: Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman, Joe Merchak, Wanda Kraemer
1. Call toorder.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order.
COMMISSIONER CARISON MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSION
BOGART TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 3, 1996 MEETING MINUTES. Motu
passed unanimously.
COMMISSIONER MANHE MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BOGART TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 23,1996
MEETING MINUTES. Motion passed unanimously.
3. ( nnsideration of adding items to thp agenda.
The Commissioners added discussion on two items, to clarify the fence ordinance
and expansion of the 82 zone.
Chairman Frie requested staff Bend a letter to Rufra Auto Parts and the Public
Works Department complimenting them on the improvements to the intersection of
6th and Elm Street.
There were no citizens comments.
Pubbe. 1hPnri=--rnnRirlPratinn of a reQupg for nnimp.InAmont for a ronflitinnal 12se
permit n1lllowinig& a�ritil and reatArant uses in a Pili Zone_ A l� i� "
Hillside ra
Partnehi& --- —
Jeff O'Neill, reported, Rob Hoffman, operator of Jala Peno's restaurant, and the
owners of the Hillside Partnership request permission to allow outdoor seating in a
portion of the parking area adjacent to the rear door of the building. The seating
area will occupy approximately 6 parking spaces and would be used when the
weather allows. According to Hofihnan, the outside area will be closed after the
Pegs 1 O
Planning Commission Minutes - 10-01-96
kitchen closes, which is 10 p.m. Hoffman does not plan to build a deck or other
structure. The area will be designated perhaps by potted plants and a temporary
fence. He expects that 4-6 tables will be situated in the area. There will not be
music or entertainment activities outside of the facility. There will be decorative
lighting but no signage. O'Neill stated that staff is recommending approval of the
CUP request.
Chairman Frie opened the public hearing.
Rod Hoffman, operator of Jala Peno's (JPs), stated Hillside Partnership had already
planted trees on the north side by Cedar Crest Apts. The area cannot be seen from
the front of the building but it will be landscaped and an enhancement to the area.
Hoffman added JP's wants to be a part of the growth by adding a decent restaurant
that offers a variety of seating. It takes a mixture of businesses to keep the people
in the City. Hopefully, outdoor seating will attract another segment of the market
and give people a reason to stay in the business area after work. Hoffman did add
that he does intend to build a deck or permanent structure and fence in the next
year. He plans on using the entire area which could be up to ten tables.
Joe Merchak, Chief Building Official, inquired if the handicapped parking would be
maintained.
Hoffman answered it would be.
The Commissioners asked if music would be played in this area.
Hoflinan stated the outside seating would not have music. The outside seating area
would be closed 14 hour after the kitchen closes or by 10:30, whichever is sooner.
There is a parking plant for 86 more parking stalls which will be added when
needed.
John Bergstad, manger of Cedar Crest Apt., stated he was very sensitive to this
issue. His opinion was if people are eating and drinking they will be noisy and it
will disturb the tenants at Cedar Crest. He added that he has had complaints from
tenants in his Cambridge building when a restaurant and bar was built nearby.
The tenants in the building are older and are usually in bed very early.
Hoffman stated the outdoor seating is sheltered by the main building and the
planting of the evergreen trees should buffer most of the noise. The noise ordinance
does allow for activity until 10:00 p.m. and that is the basis for the 10:00 time.
The Commissioners added that if there are complaints of noise late at night the
CUP could be pulled. The applicants do need to abide by the standards set.
Chairman Frio closed the public hearing.
Page 2
2
Planning Commission Minutes - 10-01-96
COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER CARLSON TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING OUTDOOR SEATING BASED
ON THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
PURPOSE OF THE PZM ZONE; AND DUE TO THE TYPE OF USE AND
CONDITIONS NOTED, THE ACTIVITY WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED
USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY.
THE MOTION IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, INCLUDING PROOF OF PARKING PROVISIONS.
2. OUTSIDE SEATING HOURS END �6 HOUR AFTER THE KITCHEN
CLOSES OR AT 10:30, WHICHEVER IS SOONER.
3. NO MUSIC ALLOWED OUTSIDE.
4. LIGHTING SHALL BE SUBDUED.
B. ADDITIONAL TREE PLANTING MUST BE COMPLETED AS IDENTIFIED
ON THE SITE PLAN.
6. LIQUOR AND BEER MAY BE SERVED, BUT LIQUOR MAY NOT BE
POURED OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.
The Planning Commissioners discussed the need for clarification in the ordinance
on the placement of fences and directed staff to prepare the language to an
amendment.
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY BOGART TO
PREPARE THE LANGUAGE TO AMEND THE FENCE ORDINANCE AND CALL
FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. Motion passed unanimously.
Nrugidpratinn of calling for a rwhlic hearing nn grdinnnoes gavArting gacago Armee
(Rteve Gri man'a re IL
mgmi� ua development-AtonrdingnenguprnintrgaragaaalaL
Steve Grittman, City Planner, reported that some residents in the City are taking
advantage of operating more than three garage sales a year. This number could be
limited to two but it will still be an enlbrcement issue. The City oauld require a
permit The but the people that aro not going by the present ordinance will probably
Page 3 (3
Planning Commission Minutes - 10-01.96
not come in. Is the real issue the amount of sales or the safety issues of the sales in
heavy traffic areas.? Limiting the parking, in designated areas, along Broadway
could help with issues of people running across this busy road.
The Commissioners discussed limiting the parking on Broadway by the Pinewood
Elementary School for safety reasons. The Monticello High School has "No
Parking" signs that are covered with hoods for special school events. This might be
one solution.
Grittman suggested contacting Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Highway
Engineer, and check with his reaction to the "No Parking" signs along West
Broadway by the Pinewood Elementary School.
Chairman Frie asked staff to contact Wright County for the County's reaction.
Chairman Frie also thought the garage sale ordinance should be in the City's
Spring Newsletter.
I indate nn Klein Fa_rmA III prDyect.
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported that according to information from
Dave IGein, Tony Emmerich is redesigning the plat to include the wooded arca in
the park and space for active play areas. The sidewalks and trails will be
addressed in the preliminary plat. All of the trails will be 8 feet so snow can be
removed by machine if needed.
Monticello Community Partners is drafting a letter to the City Council to purchase
equipment necessary to keep the pathway system open in the winter.
Jeff O Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported the City Council budget meeting
went well. The Council did not specify any problems in the draft budget.
�,.
Jeff O Neill, Assistant Administrator, reported the Orrin Thompson property would
need 80 acres of land of which 40 will need to be brought in to the orderly
annexation area. There appears to be more interest in development then there is
available capacity. This topic will be tabled until the Wastewater Treatment Plant
is completed. The Planning Commission should provide comments on the urban
service boundaries. The Comprehensive Plan states to use the land left but not to
annex more in the southeasterly direction.
Page 4 O
Planning Commission Minutes -10-01-96
11. Update on develnnment of a celletar phone shnn in a residential portion of n ]l4
rens_ Appli nt.. . aren a Me( ity,
Jeff O'Neill, Assistant Administrator, informed the Commissioners that he had met
with Clarence McCarty regarding a business use in a residential area of a B4 zone.
McCarty was requesting to create a separate business in an old carriage house on
his property. This would be small office and display area. Should the zoning in
this area be changed to an R-2 instead of a B-4 for a zoning ordinance amendment.
If it was changed to R2 a Home Occupation permit could be issued. It is a
residential area in a B-4 zone. If the Planning Commission decides to call fora
public hearing then ONeiU will work with the City Planner to draw for a zoning
ordinance amendment.
COMMISSION MARTIE MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONS]
CARLSON TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A ZONING MAP
AMENDMENT FOR THE AREA OF 3RD AND LINN STREET. Motion passed
unanimously.
12. MGP netivities.
Jeff ONeill, Assistant Administrator, summarized the MCP Workshop that was
hold September 17,1996. Chairman Frie complimented the entire Commission on
attending the Workshop.
The regular meeting, first Tuesday of the month, is national elections so an
alternative date would need to be selected.
COMMISSIONER MARTIE MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BOGART TO CHANGE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO
NOVEMBER 6TH, AT 7:00 P.M.
14. AdWuMmant._
COMMISSION MARTIE MADE A MOTION SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN FRIE
TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
Respectfully submitted,
Wanda Kraemer
Development Services Technician
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/6/96
Bidet
pit wI
IWLW
(J.O.)
Investors Together requests approval of an amendment to their conditional
use permit which would allow conversion of one manual car wash stall to an
automated stall. The site currently operates under a conditional use permit
granted on April 9, 1990. The proposed expansion calls for replacing the
manual car wash bay that is located west of the small utility room. The
actual physical modifications to the building will be nominal. The manual
bay will need to be extended about 10 ft to match the length of the existing
automated bay. Increasing the size of the building at this location does not
appear to alter the site significantly. There is sufficient room for turning
movements from the new bay to allow exit from the new automated bay
without the need to complete backup maneuvers in the bay exit area.
The changes to the site will not be so much physical enlargement but in more
volume of vehicles that can be washed. Obviously, many more vehicles will
be able to pass through the site with two automated bays versus one bay.
Planning Commission needs to determine whether or not allowing an
increase in volume will result in a change to the site that would create a
problem for the area.
I have reviewed the terms of the conditional use permit that the facility is
currently operating under, and it appears that it is meeting the terms of all
the current requirements. I'm sure you have noted when you visit the site
that it is well maintained, the landscaping is well kept and attractive, and
the site appears to blend well with the neighborhood. Furthermore, we have
not received any complaints from adjoining property owners regarding the
operation of the car wash. It appears to have been a good neighbor to the
area.
Planning Commission may wish to consider requiring closure of the curb cut
allowing access between the Total Mart and the car wash. It appears that
this access between sites is being used inappropriately as a shortcut to the
Total Mart from the f1rontage road.
B_ ALT): R_NATM ACTIONS;
1. Motion to approve an amendment to the conditional use permit which
would allow expansion and conversion of one manual car wash stall to
an automated stall. Motion is based on the finding that the additional
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/6/96
car wash stall and associated volume of traffic will not result in a
negative impact to the neighborhood in which it's located; therefore,
the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The following
additional conditions apply:
Compliance with conditions noted in the existing conditional use
permit.
Closure of the curb cut access between Riverroad Plaza and the
car wash (optional).
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission views the additional
car wash stall as a benign addition to the facility and that it should be
allowed as long as all the conditions under the original conditional use
permit are being met. The additional condition to require the closure
of a curb cut aocess between the Riverroad Plaza/Total Mart site and
the car wash could be required to eliminate some of the cut -through
traffic that occurs when vehicles use the car wash parking lot as a
direct route to the Riverroad Plaza from the service road. Eliminating
the curb cut would force drivers to use the frontage road rather than
the driveway to get directly to and from Total Mart.
Motion to deny an amendment to the conditional use permit.
Planning Commission could select this alternative based on the
finding that the proposed car wash expansion will result in an increase
in traffic volume that will result in a negative impact on the adjoining
properties and, therefore, the current facility is already at its limit in
terms of vehicles that should be washed at that site at any one time;
therefore, the conditional use permit amendment should be denied.
The Planning Commission should select this alternative if it believes
that car wash activity at this site is maxed out in terms of its impact
on the neighborhood. Any additional traffic in the area would result in
a problem.
Planning Commission may want to ask the applicant if it expecte that
the additional volume of traffic will result in congestion in the drying
and vacuuming area of the facility. Is it possible that the added
volume of vehicles that can be washed will result in insufficient space
for individuals that want to manually dry Weir vehicles after
completion of the wash cycle? If there's not enough room on site for
people who want to dry their can, will we And people drying can
while parked near area such as roadways and the Total Mart lot?
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/6/98
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit based on the
findings outlined in alternative #1. The site has operated well. The water
bills are paid, the site is well maintained, and there have been no complaints.
There is some concern, however, regarding the additional volume of traffic
and the potential for insufficient space for car4rying activities. This
potential problem deserves some discussion; however, it would not appear
that a potential problem would be great enough to warrant a basis for denial
of the request.
Copy of site plan; Listing of current conditions of operation.
C
I
M
t 1
f6UrUIL4* - 6&L&W VLAM4T
0
• fYIY VK//YM :' �rM
IOM 6 •1
I
.1 ' .1" 7 •j L�': y 100•
14
• i—•
4J11.111� --h~
wo. loo. o
r
A
Ma•r�
OITIM
UMC 4 &#''J e1TYM•
►•YI
IL
1 �
sAaw1.. ylp
100.0
•1 1.14
• 100.!0 ._
■00.0 Car.
Jr.
11N
Pig
C
• fYIY VK//YM :' �rM
IOM 6 •1
I
.1 ' .1" 7 •j L�': y 100•
14
• i—•
4J11.111� --h~
wo. loo. o
r
A
Ma•r�
OITIM
UMC 4 &#''J e1TYM•
►•YI
IL
1 �
sAaw1.. ylp
100.0
•1 1.14
• 100.!0 ._
■00.0 Car.
Jr.
Council Minutes - 4/9/90
6. Consideration of a conditional use recuest to allow a car wash
in a PZM zone. Aoalicant, Dean Hoglund and Ken Schwartz.
Assistant Administrator O'Neill reviewed the site plan which
calls for development of a four -bay car wash in a PZM zone.
O'Neill reviewed the Planning Commission's recommendation that
the conditional use permit be granted subject to conditions
listed by ordinance and subject to additional conditions.
After discussion, a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by
Shirley Anderson, to grant the conditional use permit as
requested subject to the following conditions:
1. The architectural appearance and functional plan of
the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to
the existing buildings or area as to cause
impairment in property values or constitute a
blighting influence within a reasonable distance of
the lot.
2. Magazining or stacking apace is constructed to
accommodate that number of vehicles which can be
washed during a maximum thirty (30) minute period
and shall be subject to the approval of the City
Engineer.
3. At the boundaries of a residential district, a
strip of not less than five (S) feet shall be
landscaped and screened in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 2 (GJ, of this ordinance.
4. Each light standard island and all islands in the
parking lot landscaped or covered.
9. Parking or car magazine storage apace shall be
screened from view of abutting residential
districts in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (GJ, of this ordinance.
Page 3
0
Council Minutes - 4/9/90
6. The entire area other than occupied by the
buildings or plantings shall be surfaced with
material which will control dust and drainage which
is subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
7. The entire area shall have a drainage system which
is subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
8. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that
the light source is not visible from the public
right-of-way or from an abutting residence and
shall be in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 (Hj, of this ordinance.
9. Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall
create a minimum of conflict with through traffic
movement, and shall be subject to the approval of
the City Engineer.
10. All signing and informational or visual
communication devices shall be in compliance with
Chapter 3, Section 9, of this ordinance.
11. Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
12. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are
considered and satisfactorily met.
13. Car wash facility shall have direct access to major
thoroughfare via driveway or frontage road.
14. Intermittent sounds produced by car wash operation
such as the sound of a vacuum or warning signal
shall not be audible to users of adjoining PZM or
residential properties.
14. Carwash bay doors facing residential areae must be
closed during all car wash phases.
16. Hours of operation shall fall within the hours of
6:00 AM to 10:00 PM.
Page 4
a
Council Minutes - 4/9/90
17. A screening fence and/or landscape plantings shall
be established in the area between the end of the
existing garage and the corner of the property in a
manner that will properly screen the car wash
activity from the residential area. Staff to work
with developer toward finalizing the screening
requirement.
18. A parking island delineator shall be installed in
conjunction with the future commercial development
of the adjoining parcel to the west of the car wash
f site. In the interim, a fence shall be installed
along the property line, thereby eliminating access
to the adjoining parcel.
Motion based on the finding that the development is consistent
with the geography and character of the area, and the
conditions as listed will serve to mitigate a negative impact
on adjoining residential and commercial properties. Motion
carried unanimously.
0
Planning Commission Agenda - I V6%
Dave Peterson of Dave Peterson's Monticello Ford requests a variance which
would allow a corner of a proposed building expansion project to encroach
into the minimum setback area along the lot line that borders Sandberg
Road. This request precedes a future request for a conditional use permit
which would allow a large expansion of his facility at the site. The applicant
desires permission to obtain this variance prior to completion of the detailed
work and associated pursuit of the conditional use permit that will follow.
As you recall, some months ago Dave Peterson submitted some conceptual
drawings and plans outlining expansion to his facility. These plans were
reviewed in conjunction with review of the expansion to the outside sales
area. When the approval for the outside sales expansion conditional use
permit was granted, he noted that he would be coming back to the Planning
Commission to detail his plans for expansion of the building itself
In order to obtain approval for the plans and associated conditional use
permit that have been prepared to date, Peterson will need a variance to
allow a corner of the proposed expansion building to be placed 6 ft inside of
the setback area. As you can see in the proposed site plan, the percentage of
the structure actually encroaching in the setback area is very small. The
total square footage of the setback variance would amount to approximately
66 sq ft. According to Peterson, the need for the variance stems From the
shape of the lot relative to the placement of the existing building. In order to
justif} the expansion, he needs to build sufficient space to create room for 4
repair bays. Without the variance, he will be limited in the number of bays
(2) that can be created, thus impacting the viability of the project.
Approval of the variance will not have a negative impact on adjoining
property owners or use and operation of the city right-of-way.
R_ ALTERNATNE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to approve the variance request based on the finding that the
shape of the lot relative to the placement of the building limits
reasonable expansion of the building without a variance.
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/8!96
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission can take the view
that the variance is necessary for the property owner to obtain
reasonable use of the property and the shape and configuration of the
lot combined with the location of an existing building limits reasonable
use of the property without a variance. Therefore, the applicant has
demonstrated that the hardships associated with this site are unique
and the associated approval will not set an unwanted precedent.
Motion to deny the variance request.
This motion could be based on the finding that a significant and
unique hardship has not been demonstrated. It could be argued that
nominal expansion could occur on site without the granting of the
variance and, therefore, the applicant should be required to work
within the code in achieving goals for expansion. Planning
Commission could take the stance that the situation is not unique,
which means that approving the variance would result in a precedent
that would force approval of future similar requests in the future.
Staff recommends approval of the variance. It is our view that this site is
relatively unique and that there are sufficient special circumstances that we
can point to to justify the variance in this situation.
Copy of site plan.
Crrr of MUNT1cmo 1'Imming
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UEPAIGMENT Case
(`r Jl1J
1
250 E. Broadway, PO Boa 1147
Monticello. MN 5062
(012) DG271
(62) 21
PUBLIC IIEMILINC AIrPLICATION
Check Requested Action: :.ONDITIONAL USE - $125.00 + ail necessary consulting expenses'
ZONING MAP/ TEXT AMENDMENT - $'Z10.00+ necessary consulting expenses'
_ SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - $50
_ SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - $250
_ SUBDIVISION PLAT - $300 + $100/acre up to 10 acres; $21/acre
atter 10 acres + expenses. City will refund excess of per -acre deposit.
VARIANCE REQUEST - $50 for setbackl$125 for others + nee conwlt. expenses'
_ OTHER - Fee $
• NOTE: Necessary consulting fees Include cost to have City Planner analyze varlancc, rezoning, &
conditional use permit requests at lho rate of Mir. Tho need for City Planner assistance is determined
solely by City staff.
Applicant Name: David B. Peterson
Address: P. 0. Box 68, 194 and Rwy 25, Monticello Nn 55362
Phone: Home: 295-8883 Business: 295-2056
Property Address: 100 West Oakwood Drive Current Zoning: 17-�
Legal Description of Property:
Lot • Block- Subdivision:
Other: See Attached
Describe Request: Permission to place corner of nrononed remodeled bullding within rhn
30 feet set back requirement. The corner of buildinx will emend into 30 fent act back
appreximatelyf feet. The square footage within the set bnek nren is apnroxixaItely .!X -4&
,*#W square feet.
Information provided by the applicant on this fonu is true and correct.
September 16, 1996 �•v
Date Property Owner Signature
Date Applicant Sibniaturo (if applienwo
(CONTINUR ON BACK -.I
Data Received/I'aid: rcvr be,
ItoceiptNumber; .Ae J
VCUSSAM.APP: 710N/96 Public lion ring Date: _ILI 11L
0
FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMEW ONLY: ['reposedNSA
Zoning:
{ FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION ONLY: Size of parcel to be divided: NSA
` FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY: Size of Parcel to be Platted: NSA Acres
Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat:
Street Address:
City: Slate: 'Lip: Mom:
FOR VARIANCE ONLY: Please identify the unique property conditions or hardship that exist that justifies
granting a variance. A hardship exists when by reason of property narrowness, shallowness, shape , or exceptional
topographic or water conditions, eumbines with strict application of the terms of the ordinance result im exceptioiml
difficulties when utilizing the parcel in a manner customary and legally permissible within Lite district in which the
lot is located.
1. Not allowing this small intrusion will dramatically affect the enlargement of the entire
service area.
2. The average setback from Sandberg Road is 55' 8".
` 3. The addition does not block views of the intersection of Sandberg Road and Oakwood Drive,
4. The incursion will occupy onlylosquare feet of the net beck wren.
A {d 0
C
•���IN�N�������H��HN���������H�����••*$***s•r4a*r•tt$*$$*$so.* •.....
(For City Use Only)
COMMENTS:
VCUSSAMJIPPI 2W/95
1m•A• IV
�•s• sv
wr•e' N
Air w
VARIMcs rocnriON
so SQ PT
ME .17.
Au a 5099
00 X9005000 MOLu"w- -- -
Q
KNOM s e mat m
"mm
EXHIBIT' 0 • % Wj PROPCH: v1R;ANG!
1
Ier�dt*cb"
toet�ort .
.+� KM
.n,.mmum
0
PPN-
i
O
jS no
®w
i -
a
m
I -
So 4
on no
Planning Conmmission Agenda - 11/6196
.the
(J.0.)
Ryan Fruth requests a variance which would allow a storage building to be
placed directly adjacent to his single car attached garage. The opening of the
storage building faces the street the same way as the single car garage. The
problem with this arrangement is that code requires that there be a 10 -ft
separation between principal buildings (garage) and accessory buildings. In
this case, only a 3 -ft separation can be achieved while maintaining side yard
setbacks. The applicant has a number of reasons why he desires that the
storage structure be located directly adjacent to his single car garage. Please
review the attached letter.
Clearly, this request is in violation of the code, and there is some doubt as to
whether or not there is anything unique about this site that would limit the
property owner from complying with the code and still be able to have his
storage building. The applicant argues that his property has a unique shape.
He also argues that the functionality of the use of the storage building is
improved at this location. Neither argument appears to be a valid hardship.
On the other hand, this location, with the presence of only a single car garage
and ample space between the garage and the adjoining property owner,
might appear reasonable to allow the storage building to be placed at such a
location. If the Planning Commission believes that in this situation there
does not appear to be a significant problem being created, then perhaps a
simple zoning ordinance amendment is appropriate.
A 3 -ft separation between principal and accessory buildings does not violate
the Uniform Building Code.
R ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS;
1. Motion to deny the valance request based on the finding that a bona
fide hardship does not exist and that approval of the variance would
set a precedent.
2. Motion to approve the variance request based on a finding that a
sufficient hardship does exist on this site and that approval of the
variance will not result in a precedent due to a unique circumstance.
Planning Conmmission Agenda - 11/6/96
Planning Commission should select this alternative if it agrees with
the applicant that special conditions exist that eliminate reasonable
use of the property without the variance.
3. Motion to deny the variance request based on the findings outlined in
alternative #1 and call for a public hearing on an ordinance
amendment which would allow placement of accessory buildings in
closer proximity to principal buildings.
Under this alternative, the Planning Commission denies the variance
because of lack of demonstrated hardship but views this particular
situation as acceptable and, therefore, the ordinance should be
modified to allow this type of request in the future. Perhaps in
situations where there's a single car garage and where there is ample
side yard space, it would be reasonable to allow an accessory structure
like this one to be situated as proposed.
Q STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the variance request based on the finding that a
unique hardship has not been demonstrated; however, we do beL'eve that
there is some merit in looking at an amendment to the zoning ordinance
which would allow an accessory structure to be located as proposed.
D_ SUPPORTING DATA:
Application materials; Pictures to be provided at meeting.
/ Consideration of a request for a T variance to the 10'
00, separation requirement between principal and acceswor3
—I-- building. Applicant: Ryan Fruth
0
CITY OF MONTICELLO Plannin
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Case 1 g G 04
260 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147
\ ' Monticello, MN 86362
(612) 296-2711
PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION
Cheek Requested Action: _ CONDITIONAL USE - $126.00 + all necessary consulting expenses*
_ ZONING MAP/ TEXT AMENDMENT - $M.00 + necessary consulting expenses'
_ SIMPLE SUBDMSION . $50
_ SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - $250
_ SUBDMSION PLAT - $300 + $100/acre up to 10 acres; $25/acre
after 10 acres + expenses. City will refund excess of per -acre deposit.
IS: VARIANCE REQUEST - W for setbac"126 for others + nec. consult. expenses*
_ OTHER - Fee $
• NOTE: Necessary consulting fees Include coat to have City Planner analyze variance. rezoning, &
conditions' use permit requests at the rate of S76/hr. The need for City Planner assistance is determined
solely by City staff.
Applicant Name: If— R r, .•�
Address
Phone: Home: jpc_oo-
ProperV Addrem 72? r -M o is --
Legal Deeniption of Property:
Lou- F ; Block -
Other.
Business: 424-7446 EXT_ 205
Current Zoning:
Subdivision: THE MEADOW
Describe Request:y.,g,—t fn. e of the
saw. /�
hu} /A* -C+ SI4Un-%
,4141%A& % n (Jtj!( A e-1 f r 1
Information provided by the applicant on this form is true and correct
Date
Date
VCUSSAM.APP 2/MM5
/0-1/-916
lCtt4.,2Z
Property Owner Signature
Applicant Signature (if applicable)
(CONTINUE ON BACK—)
Date Received/Paid:
Receipt Number:
Public Hearing Data.
(o
FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ONLY: Proposed Zoning:
FOR SDISPIS SUBDMSION ONLY: Size of parcel to be divided:
l
FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY: Sirs of Parcel to be Platted: Acres
Name of Finn Preparing Subdivision Plat -
Street Address
City: State: Zip: Phone:
FOR VARIANCE ONLY: Please identify the unigae property conditions or hardship that exist that justifies
granting a variance. A hni Mip exists when by meson dproperty narrowness, shallowness, shape, or exceptional
topographic or water conditions, combines with strict application of the terms or the ordinance result in exceptional
difBcultles whom the parcel in a moaner watomary and legally permissible within the district in which the
I" is located
See attached letter.
•�Hpf�p�gM�pge��taHeggqNH�H���t����HfaH��H���H�fr���H������ ��I� ��H��H������������� ��� ��I�� � �•
(For Cit) Use Only)
COBBWM'&
VCUSSAN APP: 2W/95
O
Ryan P. Fruth
222 Crocus lane
Monticello. Mn. 55362
City of Monticello
Community Development Department
250 E. Broadway, PO Bos 1147
Monticello, Mo. 55362
Re: Variance Request
On September 24th and 25th, 1996, I built a 10x12 storage shed on my
property at 222 Crocus Rine, in Monticello. I am asking you to please allow
me a variance to keep the shed in its present location for the following
reasons.
My back yard is very narrow, shallow and uneven. It has a fairly
sharp angle to it, (photo's enclosed). If placed in the back yard, it
would be setting right on top of my telephone, cable and N.S.P. lines
coming into my home.
I have a snowmobile, so I connected the shed to my driveway with doors
at both ends for easy access for loading and unloading and storage of the
machine. If the shed were placed anywhere else, I would have difficulty
entering or exiting without crossing onto my neighbors property. I'm also
very concerned about security. Back yards are verydark at night. I do,
however have security lights on the front and sides of my garage.
I am concerned about the appearance of my property. Chats why 1 built
the shed to look like my garage and placed it in line with it. I also have
spoke to my neighbors, ( see attachments) and they feel the location and
appearance beautifies my property. 'I'heysaid that they have no problem with
its location.
I have also driven around Monticello, and found numerous properties
with sheds in the same location as mine. Again I'm asking for a variance
to allow my shed to remain next to my home and garage. 79mnk you for your
time. Sincerly,
12y w.7 `7 C,vk—
Ryan P. Fruth
I.yIaLm U JQI//v DO NOT have a problem
allowing Ryan P. Fruth of 222 Crous Lane to keep his storage shed next to his
home and garage.
Signed _ ��^r`� q
Address L %
Date fl- /11'7
6
I, Y,',17 S AbA1VeX s DO HOT have a problem
allowing Ryan P. Fruth of 222 Crous Lane to keep his storage shed next to his
home and garage.
01
Signed
Address
Date /D //")
a
t
I, -,�NVDO NOT have a problem
J
allowing Ryan P. Fruth of 222 Crous lone to keep his storage shed next to his
home and garage.
Signed �/- 1-\tL&
Address � al ("'YKC4 IA
Date 10' l l -Lilo
0
1
I
DO NOT have a problem
allowing Ryan P. Fruth of 222 Crous Lane to keep his storage shed next to his
home and garage.
Signed
Address 4-2
Date 10 Ig
D
���
o.a...
Arm mgh
ML
. . ...... .........
........ ..
I
Planning Commission Agenda - 1116/96
Robert Rolf requests a variance which would allow elimination of the green
space (setback area) between two driveways leading to the separate garages
at a zero lot line duplex that he owns on Lots 13 and 14, Block 2, River Mill
subdivision. Current code requires that a 3 -ft green space be established
between driveways and adjoining lot lines. In this situation, the garages
supporting the duple: are located on a zero lot line. Rolf owns both duplexes
and requests that the separation requirement be waived via the variance
process. Please note that Rolf has already paved the space in between the
two drive areas and, therefore, enforcement of the code would require that
Rolf remove the paved area and replace it with a landscaped area.
You may recall that some time ago when the River Mill subdivision was
being designed, there was considerable discussion as to whether or not we
would allow the two drive areas to merge into one. It was determined by the
1 Planning Commission at that time that the current ordinance made sense
and that there is a need to maintain this separation between private drives.
The ordinance was maintained with the separation in place for three major
reasons: 1) the 3 -ft setback allows for car door swing and allows people to
leave a vehicle without stepping on adjoining properties; 2► provides space for
snow storage; and 3) provides a green space or landscape area that breaks up
the impact of the large drive area that would otherwise be created by
merging the two driveways. The applicant argues that the need for the
setback does not apply in his case because he owns both properties and,
therefore, there should be no problems associated with driveway/lot line use
conflicts. On the other hand, he may own both parcels now, but they are
identified separately, which means that either one could be sold; therefore, in
the future, it is very likely that this single structure with two duplexes could
come under the ownership of two separate individuals.
In terms of the aesthetic value of the green space, I encourage all Planning
Commission members to visit River Mill for yourself to see the impact of the
trees and green space that results from maintaining the 3 -ft separation 1
think you would agree that there is a significant value of having the green
space in place, It is our hope that the green space will continue to be
maintained over time.
Planning Commission Agenda - 1116/96
Finally, there does not appear to be any significant hardship or valid
justification for the variance in terms of the criteria used for granting a
variance. Therefore, approving a variance in this case would create a
significant precedent that would likely impact the balance of the
development of the River Mill subdivision. In other words, approving a
variance in this case would open the door to future approvals in the balance
of the development.
TERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to deny the 3-R variance to the 3 -ft driveway setback
requirement.
This motion could be based on the finding that the applicant has failed
to demonstrate a unique hardship or situation that warrants
justification of the variance; therefore, the variance should be denied.
Under this alternative, Rolf would continue to have the option of
having the large single driveway by merging his lots. As you may
know, in the planned unit developments throughout the community,
including Prairie West and Dein Farms Estates, the City does allow
the green space between driveways to be eliminated because the
property is all under one ownership and maintained through an
association. In this situation, all maintenance and use of driveways is
under common agreement, which eliminates one of the reasons for
maintaining the separation between driveways. If Rolf supports his
cause by claiming that he should be able to pave the middle because he
owns both sides of this particular lot, then he should be required to
erase the lot line between the properties, thus creating one parcel with
a duplex under one ownership. If he erased the interior lot line, the
property could then be treated like duplexes in planned unit
developments.
2. Motion to approve the 3-R variance request.
This motion could be based on the finding that a unique circumstance
exists that supports a variance.
To grant the variance in this case would impair the intent of the code
and set a negative precedent for this particular development area and
for the rest of the community.
Planning Commission Agenda • 11/8/96
Staff recommends denial of the variance request. It is our view that the
variance request does not identity a valid hardship for justification of the
variance. To approve it would result in similar occurrences throughout the
balance of the River Mill development and in other portions of the
community. Now that we've seen River Mill development begin to unfold, I
think it is dear that the separation requirement between driveways makes
sense for the development. It helps identify private areas for vehicle
parking, provides for snow storage, and serves to break up the severe impact
of large driveways. It would be our hope that the Planning Commission
would take action to preserve the current design plan for the area by
opposing the variance request.
However, the applicant does argue that he owns both properties and,
therefore, one of the reasons for requiring separation is not pertinent. If the
Planning Commission believes that the separation requirement should be
eliminated if both properties are under one owner, then perhaps the
applicant should be encouraged to noerge the two properties into one.
If he merges properties at such time that the property is sold to separate
owners, it would first have to go through the simple subdivision process,
which at that time would require that the site be brought up to code, which
would mean that in order to do the simple subdivision, the 6 -ft green
separation would have to be established.
Application materials.
10
/ '
CITY OF MONTICELLO Planning .
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Case tl 'It.. (�/✓
V
250 E. Broadway, PO Box 1147
Monticello, MN 55362
`l 1
(612) 285.2711
PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION
Check Requested Action: _
CONDITIONAL USE - $125.00 + all necessary consulting expenses*
_
ZONING MAP/ TEXT AMENDMENT - $250.00 + necessary consulting expenses'
_
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - $50
_
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • $250
_
SUBDIVISION PLAT - $300 + 11100/acre up to 10 acres; S25/ocre
after 10 acres + expenses. City will refiusd excess of per -acre deposit.
VARIANCE REQUEST - $50 for setback/$125 for others + nee. consult expenses'
_
OTHER - Fee E
• NOTE: Necessary consulting fees include cost to have City Planner analyze variance. rezoning, &
conditional use permit requests; at the rate of $71i/hr. The need for City Planner assistance is determined
solely by City staff.
Applicant Name: �P+
Address: / / G V 111, ; /I Ru R,J
Phone: Home:. ,291�— — /76f Business:
Property Address: / / 4 fV � 1 • /I /` t• � /C Current Zoning:
Legal Description of Property:
Lok IV : Block: 2- Subdivision: T iy ra M1,11
Other:
Describe Request: .l• 4 • s; tJc�.., �/ , S.' �!'�r• c ( f.'s
C-41;L't 16'a) C /h Me Zt-#c IG -1 /./2C Cd-
Information provided by the applicant on this form Is true and correct.
/, e-
Data Properly Owner Signa
to
Data Applicant Signature (if applicable)
(CONTINUE ON BACK—)/I /c' j � l ,
Date Receivod/l'aid: A' /11-1
Receipt Hearing
Number
VCUSSAM.APP: Z/OO//Dtl Public Henrinp Dnts: AA: 4•
�l
r
FOB ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ONLY: Proposed Zoning:
FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION ONLY: Size of parcel to be divided:
FOR SUBDIVISION PIAT ONLY: Size of Parcel to be Platted: ,4
Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat:
Street Address:
City: State: _ Zip: Phone:
FOR VARIANCE ONLY% Please identify the unique property conditions or hardship that exist that justifies
granting a variance. A hardship exists when by reason of property narrowness, shallowness, shape • or exceptional
topographic or water conditions, combines with strict application of the terms of the ordinance result in exceptional
dif'fuulties when utilizing the parcel in a manner customary and legally permissible within the district in which the
lot is located. I n 1
/r f ca...•
A. -IA on •c4 q-'01
3. /{,(i
i. a1 s44-4 Ar•( C /-Yrw IfI�J pww e,ao arrL+:Jed ;L 6D le../ j ci4-
&I—_
lr a�,. Qt. !q•[ C�. +r•
b!a•wj(c JC `�/'.;r [n A.!/C Iu _1,r.. -n s' I.palay.tl 6) •/A; C./l�.
/1 A"
r
S4ra.rLd 011.;:OVA VA C.'t, TM►w /.u1 erg �la'.w �r... a;yi L.l�et.1A•avr rr.a•,e / "itis
C/C tr/r( ♦ fcr' /a.� a) Ih. [I,Lrf• f•r r; 01.11 •�t4 Inea�r.. 4 Ur•/..a �. ihr NrJ �� �lr l'r✓nr. ..T
d#,ed LJJ a ', /1—:4.1
4./ c..l �� 7ir �••.•;r
Tl:l :l a �/►+' .i �rt.•�l��• P/iyJ�•a iaN 'Pr• (IL.. II CAIN rr. . rr. a ,T7}.•i P.I/.i S
�i �.} �ll.A o" Orr %J.'r.r MCa /IV,/ C'V!c .ri�.0 IF a/� rt'471.�.►- Dlapr.•iS/�.:w./ .r� r'a.�•a%J orlrr a../i b'
00•440000 ►•• N►.0•Ia•o•IHH N••N•a11
(For City Use Only)
co NTS:
VCUSSAIJI.APP: VW105
0
FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ONLY: Proposed Zoning: 1
1
FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION ONLY: Size of parcel to be divided:
FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY: Size of Parcel to be Platted: Acres
Name of Firm Preparing Subdivision Plat:
Street Address:
City: State: Zip: Phone:
FOR VARIANCE ONLY: Please identify the unique property conditions or hardship that exist that justifies
granting a variance. A hardship exists when by reason of property narrowness, shallowness, shape , or exceptional
topographic or water conditions, combines with striet application of the ter -me of the ordinance result in exceptional
difficulties when utilizing the parcel in a manner customary and legally permissible within the district in which the
S''. �fJ Yr•. �IT< //„� /I�.7✓l.r.�I
N.tl I'Se Vvk.v ` OY Mr/ _ %I [. C�Sr!• L� 7 ,... , I a♦Y< J F/1iS in. Ar•i ri[. ✓s• /M •..f'[�Y
(�. Vr SI ••,n I•),� QiAit ("nHI l v N 9p �rwT• �.'/1���.�c � R�Soy�Ihe •���'qvI
!•Illi,,;/.5,.� IY�IIIt r /�.. �J �.AI=4 • I A• 1 ¢
L r' L'.. . C 1. [ L l i� .... _ �}%/A... W �/ 'j. ,
;&. SC4-r f /• /r n�) ti.} /rC (' . T/ Via• l J a (WY .//PJ Ae pt Aa a
r ole[
�. .i �,•I w�..l >Ic �•.�%r1r n/..�/r r•PP /vrrri /7•.A/•.� �/ ;t Sim♦`'IC••.�caYiree..{ %rhhsofxt.
(For City Use Only)
COMMENTS:
VCUSSAM.APP: 2WI05
C
i S 77
:o ; �OS•01 E 97ao11gp Ot
r _
' •' ' - '� ' • 7 1 77.91 I ; -
7 9331
40
9Jre / ,•moi 9337 ; o13 11) 1 3
+ / 33 6 —9),1 A I .32.6 ' n �
936,6 I L L I
36.4
1
O /930' ��. a
(9.N 9)
_ �(((rte e1 web
[1w--aI .9 9W� �� ` / '4 FJ
SMR SUM (9>eP)
.01
4• PVC fi
EUV. -9301
1 tlat� I C ,y /a
tor, Jeo - 6 of
L- eJTt T/a - �/ 940,20
® �A�°' 4? SSS jay ``►�0 / T"' Hb
942 935.4
qG �CD
e. 1 d � 7jo9 a ,TEC EN MQ
4r� 7 acv.. 9329
t1% :199 Lot 13 and 14, Block
-RIVER MILL,
st Pv1u oet.e E'"test
O3 9 ss 9io s 1 -
G ELEVATIONS & SITE GRADES ARE \EUv-t Wright County, Mlnnesl'•
ERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT Vr",: e fo LOCATION & ELEVAT10,
REPARED BY SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC. -3 ` IC L SEWER k WATER SER'
10-10-95. / ARE FROM CITY ENGIV ,
Re •lu,nr.v
I hereby Certify that this plan, speClfk:atlon or report was prepared
under Ty euperrislon and (hot I or" a duly registered Land Surwyo
the toot of the Slate of Minntsoto.
INldweel Lend Surveyors & and
No certification whatsoewhatsoeverIs extended to subsequent owners, mors
C9iVp ED�fteefs. Inc.
title Insurers, unless this surrey has been related for this purpose
surveyor,
199 Coon Rapids Blvd.
Coon Rapids, Mn. 53493 Dated this 6 h day of May
Pb. e13-7ae-e9o9 fes: ata -yes -9208
` By Regletrotlon No. 11
Minnesota Licensed land Surveyor
s, 169-5R Book-PaSe IM -41 Aced PII9 149-59 Asbupt Dated this day of
v
PHONEM 9I0 -Z090
CONTR:NAD>= 7TZEF C
❑ House Footings
❑
Foundation - Formed
❑
CITY OF MONTICELLO
(Celled in
DATE
TIME
INSPECTION NOTICE
Scheduled d
i�
❑ Floor - Basement
1
CALLGD 9/zo/g&
CALLEID 9/?7 I%
PERMIT s: 9to-7-939 MAILED a/3D1q..
ADDRESS: 491 'C' M I +.1 Ri l ROA -h 4j V IA CEA11RED
Z:oo rm
y:zs PIA
VIA Re&UTAR
MAIL-*EI3V•Bry.
Mechanical Rough -in
❑ Floor - 3rd Level
❑
154
OWNER:
Mechanical Final
Other DR%VC--WAY
❑
PHONEM 9I0 -Z090
CONTR:NAD>= 7TZEF C
❑ House Footings
❑
Foundation - Formed
❑
Plumbing Rough -in
❑ Garage Footings
❑
Foundation - Backfill
❑
Plumbing Final
❑ Floor - Basement
❑
Framing
❑
Mechanical Rough -in
❑ Floor - 3rd Level
❑
Insulation
❑
Mechanical Final
Other DR%VC--WAY
❑
Shestrock
❑
Building Final
COMMENTS:
D'R+ucu,ay �x�
1�16f
�EbRM`'r�A�ut=i1
'P�,41aS
INSPECTION RESULTS: REASONS: Inspector: BOE ,MERtN 4r,
❑ Approved.-Proosed ❑ Work Not Ready
❑ Unable to Inspect ❑ No Permit Issued
❑ Stop Work ❑ Corrections Not Done
❑ Correct Work --Proceed ❑ Do Not Occupy
Correct Work -Cell ❑ Unable to Access
for Inspection WiT1rrN
NEAT IS bAys
Call 20541M for the next Inapeatlon 24 hours In advance.
ENCLcf,,%nM5; ZONIV6 0RVA0A1jcG + 3-:5 [6]1
APPftvM P(.ANL� F-dauk r ECEt/4VW
INSPNOTC.WK4: 09/05/98 Whlte/Inspeotor File
S
Yellow/Site Notice
CITY OF MONTICELLO
INSPECTION NOTICE
PERMIT A: 76— 2938
ADDRESS: C I(aiA WILL RUM An
OWNER:
PHONE N: 7/0 -7_040
I
I DATE
TIME I
(Called in
Plumbing Rough4n
p Garage Footings
❑
]Scheduled
❑
Plumbing Final
p Floor - Basement
(Completed
Framing
❑
Mechanical Rough -in
CALLeb
❑
0o P"n
CAI -Lep
9f'rt196
qis pA
111AIL6D
9131&%
VIA Rre&uL.AR
t VIA cEATIFIED M41L
4 71-39,87Y. 1511
❑ House Footings
❑
Foundation - Formed
❑
Plumbing Rough4n
p Garage Footings
❑
Foundation - Saddill
❑
Plumbing Final
p Floor - Basement
❑
Framing
❑
Mechanical Rough -in
❑ Floor - 3rd Level
❑
Insulation
❑
Mechanical Final
Other'DRIVIEctt/AY
❑
ShWrOck
❑
Building Final
COMMENTS:
NEW IS ZAys,
DF21VE WA\I 'DOTES
N
NCYr COFOA_FDAISP- '1�_ Qt.,A1.1S
Ni2
A117] IS DIOLATIGN
r.RDIAIAkiga 2EL.-ULL
n� /}j am OF
-S n79 tyM1cH srAT�
h
)NINf,
W !PARrTH4r
n ••- DRu6 4 AvK SHALL
Ea Ar A 7AINII-AuM
THREE
05) F66T FRcwl
THE -2-1'
L/N6 IN G�17141
tXS1Ahr'lC -0
INSPECTION RESULT'S:
REASONS: ftqwworceR04AK
❑
Approved --Proceed
p
Work Not Ready
❑
Unable to Inspect
p
No Permit Issued
❑
Stop Work
❑
Corrections Not Gone
❑
Correct Work -Proceed
❑
Do Not Oocupy
�(
Correct Work -Call
❑
Uneble to Access
for Inspection Wi T-HIN
NEW IS ZAys,
Call 298.9060 for the next InoWtlon ?A hours In advance.
ENCLOSURES' Z0NIr,160ft1NAUC.:F_:, Fy 3-S [ai
APPROuED PLANS, PP014T C-LEVA-rrON
INSPNOTC,WK4: 09/05/95 Whitellnspector FUe YeUow/I Notloe
1
J
Ao
' •1 r' s
MEll
•� I w
� L7OG .Y1K'•T J!TO 41D � �
a/ 1-------------------i------�----------- -- -- ---� �,
a
lFrON' ELLV4TiOt!j
In
Except in the case of single, two-family, and
townhouse dwellings, parking area design which
requires backing into the public street is
prohibited.
(d)
No cdrb cut access shall be located less than
forty (40) feet from the intersection of two
(2) or more street right-of-ways. This
distance shall be measured from the
intersection of lot lines.
(e)
Except in the case of single family, two-
family, and townhouse dwellings, parking areas
and their aisles shall be developed in
compliance with the following standards:
WALL WALL TO INTERLOCK TO
TO INTERLOCK INTERLOCK
ANGLE MINIMUM MINIMUM MINIMUM
30 48.6' 44.5' 40.3'
45 56.8' 53.4' 50.0'
60 62.0' 59.7' 57.4'
90 64.0' 64.0' 64.0'
Parallel Parking: Twenty-two (22) feet in
length.
(f)
No curb cut access shall exceed twenty-four
(24) feet in width with the following
exception: Curb cut access in industrial and
commercial zoning districts may exceed twenty-
four (24) feet with the approval of the City
Engineer and the Zoning Administrator. Denial
by the City Engineer and Zoning Administrator
of curb cut access in excess of twenty-four
(24) feet may be appealed following the
procedures outlined in Chapter 23 of the
zoning ordinance.
(10/11/93, #242)
(g)
and driveways shall be at a
Cur=InrosidontLal
min3) feet from the side yard
pron residential districts endfivom
the side yard lot line inbusstrial
districts.
(h)
Driveway access curb openings on a public
street except for single, two-family, and
townhouse dwellings shall not be located less
than forty (40) feet from one another.
(i)
The grade elevation of any parking area shall
not exceed five (5) percent.
KONTICELL40 ZONING ORDINANCE
3 3 -
CD�
Planning Commission Agenda -11/6/96
8, PnhNe Hearing-CcQideratien of An amendment to SecNnn 8.9 of the
traffle sight 11— AOWJeanL (�' bt of MnntlCeliO�Plennin�
Commisdon. (S.G.)
Please see the attached report from Planner Steve Grittman.
hDJ-01-1996 09158 NRC 612 595 9837 P. 06/08
N NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
IMC COMMUNITY PLANNING - OCBION - MARKKT RCSCARCM
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Monticello Mayor and City Council
Monticello PUming Commission
FROM:
Stephen GrttWan
DATE:
November 1. '1996
RE:
Monticello - Fence Ordinance Revision
FILE NO:
191.06 96.1 1
A. 13ACKGROUND AND REFMNCE
The city Buildbrg trlspedioro depararleM became aware of a cormam m the fence section
of the Zoning Ordtnom which allowed the construction of opaque fencers at the
intersection of pubUc Streets. The wrrent language In the Ordinance (tom 3, Section
2. Subd. [F) 2.) created a triangular viability area at the irrtersectlon of a street and a
railroad, but not at the Intersection of two streets. This rained a of mn that planting or
fence construction at Street Intersections could cause lhfted vlelb ft for motorists and
pedestrians.
Attached to this memorandum Is a draft Ordinance which would amend the language of
this section to Include visibility triangle areas at street intersections as wen as raltroads.
The exceptions to the pmhibit m remain as o mw* written. These exams Include
plantings and fen098 wlhth are 1981 than three feet in height, or Open chain Ibtt fences of
Wu than four feet In height.
Past dwoussiorts have ego been Wooed whidr+ have reined ooncerm about tag, fully opaque
enclosure fenoes, and their app location on a resi lentlal lot (If any), as well as
other fenetng Issues. The attached draft Ordnarm dose not attSmpt to address these
issues. If the Ptarming Comm iedon wishes to consider other altarstlons to the fence
ordinance, staff will be prepm to discuss these Issues at the upeomUg Plarvdnrp
Commission meeting.
6775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD. SUITE See ST. LOUIS PARK. MINNESOTA 58416
PMON9 6 1 E• SOB•0e36 FAX 6 1 2.896.9837
C
NOU-01-1996 0958 NRC 612 595 9837 P. OWN
A. Approve the Ordinance amanx1ing the visbW area of the Zo"Ordinance as
Proposed•
ThiS :, :, :, should be based upon afin&V that the arnwxkr M is necessary
to Wovlde adequate public am* at Intersections of public streets.
S. Deny the Ordhance arnendtreM as proposed
Although a formai tinding is not necessary for the denial of a City-InIftled
: , , ane posalbie tindlnp world be that adequate Usfflc control is already
in place at street intersections, mW&V the additional roWt t w wwmessary.
Staff ... ., approval of the Ord<nenos =.wwk. ant ANwigh there are areas inMe
oomrnxsdpr where structines andlbr ptantlngs at irttarsedlort may not creais lt—w rls, these
areae are Moly In the mhw ly. In addition, such areas could be jpw varlanoes in
unique circumstances. It is typitwlly much more difficult to oft eldrao<dbwy
requirements above an wk*g g regulation Men to relax starmhrds in spedal eiba;dons.
Ci
KN -01-1996 09:58 NAC 61259S 907 P.08/W
Cky of Mamledlo, blisnesaea
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TME 10, CHAPTER 3 OF THE MONTICEII,0 CITY
CODE, KNOWN AS THE TONING ORDINANCE, BY AMENDING THE PROVISIONS FOR
WSlBUM AT IPMMEMONS OF PUBLIC SC MEM.
The City Catmcil of die City of MoMkd10 baeby acdd=
Sed1om 1.
ChVw 3, Sect1on 2, Subd. M 2. is hereby smcaded to read as follows:
2. Ito fence, structure, placating, trees, or shrubs
shall be permitted within a visibility area defined
as a triangle, two sides of which extend from the
intersection of the outside line of a public street
right of ray and either another public street or a
railroad right of way to points twenty five (25)
feet from the intersection. The third side of the
visibility area shall be formed by a straight line
connecting the points on the rights of way lines.
Sod om L
Thb ameodmem sMg not effect the F.rcodom Mad in Chapter 3, Sectbn 2. (F] 2, (a) - (e).
Sed M11 L
Thh Ordimmc shall take effect sad be In NO force &ma and slier In pattsge and publication.
Bred Pyr. Mom
ATTEST:
Rica N►albteUa. Adminhntot
AYES:
NAYS:
I
TOT;L P.08
Planning Commission Agenda - 11/6%
10.
border of the city. (S.G.)
Please we the attached report from Planner Steve Grittman.
12
NOU-01-1996 0957 NRC. 612 595 9837 P.02/08
NNORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
WNCCOMMUNITY PLANNINO - DESIGN - MYRKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Monticello Mayor and City Courted
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Gritbnan
DATE: October 31,1998
RE: Monticello - Plat Proposal for Big Lake Township
FILE NO: 191.07 -96.11
The Cky has been notified that a large Iraat of land (approximately 200 Saes) just across
fits Mississippi River in Bp Lake Township has been submitted to Sherburne County for
Prelbnhary Plat approval. The County Plannhg Commission will hear the proposal for on
November 21. The area eonsisfS of a threequerter mile stretch of rlvti ftnt and mature
hardwood Ibrest. Although phy,lcatly separated from the City of MontWb by Ute River,
a nonaftless technically border, ft City. shoe boundary lines typkcaUy run to the center
of watercourses. The proposed plat conabf, of approximately 80 large, unsewrered lots
in a Standard subdivision wrwgemafvL No clustering concept has been proposed.
Staff to bringing this devekpn tt to the atention of the City for a number of reasons.
Fust, the MCP. under its direction from the Ckys Mousing and Redevelopment Authority,
has discussed a potential for expansion of the City across ft River in order to take
advantage of both riverbarft and the atte lolant views of MwMmlb dovelopment tram
both dlneclions (among other masons). The second reason Is one of imp ed a, the City
of Monticoft ereated by development outside of. but aomrt to, Its, Munidaries. Third.
these Is two question as to wAtslher or not development of land withn the Mississippi 16AM
sod Scenic River corridor should occur h the pallam proposed for ar>virorm ental reasons.
Finally. the new residents will be a pert of ft Monticello ommunity. IPA wd xxA voice,
once the land is developed and occupied.
15775 WAVIATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 559 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55416
PHONE 61&-505-0030 VAX 6 1 2.505.06 317
�O
PW -01-1996 09.57
This discussion focuses on the second and last reasons. The first reason is being more
thoroughly explored in the MCPs downtown pia VWQ process. The third reason will get
extensive study through the Environmental Assessment Vlforlceheet process which the plat
will require as an unsewered subdivision in a sensitive environmental area
in many ways, new growth in areas such as the abject property Is a part of the Monticello
community. The area Is a part of the MordWo School District. The residents of the area
will rely on Monticello for most of their commercial goods and services. These and others
combine with several municipal service lmpacts to suggest that the City should examine
development in the area and consider whether or not the owners of the land should be
approached regarding potential annexation of the area to the Cay of MonticeAo.
Among the municipal impacts which are often reined by this type of development are the
following:
• Public Library maintenance and operations.
• Public Street use and maUtenanoe.
• Park Facilities use and maintenance.
• Pathway development and use.
• Recreation organizations.
• Economic Development exhales.
• Mousing, especially provision of affordable housbhg `fair share'.
• Fire Protection contrecte and respomi iftles.
• Senior Citizen facilities and programs.
• Public Transportation use and funding.
Moreover, suburban -style development in L. d areas often relies upon other
governmental units to provide basic sendoea For Instance, the County will typically
provide bask sheriff patrol. administrative services. plarhr ft zoning, buUdirhg, and
environmental heath Inspection services, and others. As a result of Cay and County
provided sarvices, development such as the ane proposed often faun to share in the full
cost of the impacts a creates.
VlRhat this mocha for the Cay is that municipal taxpayerss myalyy affedIvely •supe' the
residents ofthe un. r n areas tri many munidpat aw•wo0 In acme dricanstsnoes
Oft -su bsW eBed is mina. M odo however, it can be sWdc& L For thas0 reeeona.
the Statutes were owAbttshed to encourage annexation In areas which are urban or
suburban in character.
The City may respond to tole Issue in several ways. These aro summarized below.
1. Annexation of the subjeet area.
9
POU -01-1996 0958 NK
This option would permit the City to regulate land use in the area. inchnding the
potential extension of muruapai utilities to the area. This option would require at
least the following actions, and possibly others:
a. Preparation of an annexation petition filed wth the Minnesota Munbpal
Board.
b. Call for a public hearing on the amendment of the Cpys Comprehensive
Plan to address growth and land use h the erect of the proposed plat (and
other affected areas).
Active monlum b and review of the protect as a Township development
This option would not anbcpete aruexafim, but would suggest that the City will
particiate In the plat and Envirormental Assessment Worksheet review proses
to ervourage a development of minimal impacts on the City end the environment
Passive monitoring and review of the protea as a Township development.
This option would place the City in the rob of oseuai observer, but with only informal
review (at most) of the pre0c:f a progress.
C, ail AFF R =MMEN20ON
Staff believes that an active role in this project It bnportant to the Ciys bterests. a the
very least the proposed pr*d will have impale on both the private and p Aft services
provided by Mo bxft realdents and buslnesses. In addition, the extent to which the north
bank of the River is mcdlled will Impea the City's ;6 htel" in refoaising its
attention on the Mississippi River asset. A development which falls to take into account
Von Impacts could have a highly unforturu to effed on Monticello.
The greatest degree of Impact management would result from the City's annexation of the
sub)oot area. it Is adwowledged that such a proposal oould be highly oortroverslal and,
possibly, expensive to implement. However, without a solid growth strategy, the costs
which a poor development wefts could for outstrip the costs of Initial annexation.
Moreover, any development of this area will Impact the quality of the River. both
assihetksly and biologically. The City has an Merest in preserving, and enhancing, the
River as it flows through this region.
Short of armeooation, Stell would enoo<uegs adve psfticipstbn In the plat and
emriror manmd review process While the munlOpat service *sats msrtt WW above would
Std Wast Mrs fvelopmeM's negadve impacts on the River land thus on MonNoello's use
and enjoyment of the River) can be minimized.
c
POU -01-1996 09:58 NAC
Wdh any of these optons, (t will be impatent ter the City to ba certain d tt , t r ' , , The
Planning Commission, MCP, and pwftdmty, the City Council, wUl have to be solidly
behind the CWs actiion, due to the tone and cost of pumoV the d*ecdm While the
annwmdm option noted above can, and should, be Inklated with an Intent toward
coop erdo and mutual Interest, ,. :: can be a controversial and adversarial
prooesa.
0
PLANNodG COMMISSION AGENDA
NOVEMBERS, 1996
Consideration to adopt a resolution findinu
Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I a
consistent with the plans of the city. (O.K.)
A. Reference andBacku[ound:
The Miming Commission is requested to consider adopting the enclosed resolution. The
resolution states the Planning Commission finds the modified Redevelopment Plan for the
Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and the enclosed TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-21 to
be consistent with the plans for development of the City.
TIF District No. 1-21 is proposed as an Economic District, eleven -year district, and the
geographic boundary is Lot I, Block I, 01PSecond Addition which is Zoned 1-2 (Heavy
Industry). The proposed district will increase the employment base by creating five new jobs
within two years at a wage range between S40.(X)t1 to $60,(1(11) per job annually. The proposed
9,(1W sq ft trental office/manufacturing building will have an armual Estimated Minimum Value of
5225,0110 with an annual Estimated Captured Tax Capacity of $8,120.
The IIPA will utiiize'rw to assist T.J. Martin, Ltc. with land write-down and site improvements.
T.J. Martin, Inc., a Minnesota corporation with equal ownership between Carl, Eric, and Dennis
Bondhus, will lease to Lake Tool, Inc. Lake Tool is a tool shop which buiMs plastic injection
molds and is currently located at 1248 East Oakwood Drive. It is their intent to sell the existing
facility.
The City Council will hold a public hearing and consider adopting their resolution on Tuesday,
November 12,1996,7:00 p.m
B. Alternative Action:
I . A notion adopting the resolution Wing the modified Redevelopment Plan for Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-21 to be
consistent with the plans of the city.
2. A [motion denying adoption of the resolution.
3. A [notion to table any anion,
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
NOVEMBER 5, 1996
The Planning Commissioners should review the enclosed Plan for TIF District No. 1-21 for
consistency with the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. Although no building or site plans have
been submitted to the Building Department or City Engineer, it is my understanding the proposed
exterior material of the structure is metal. The following quotes were obtained by the developers
for a 8,000 sq It facility: Metal, $245,000; block with steel roof, $275,000; block with panel roof,
$295,000; and tip -up, $385,000. Since a metal structure is allowable within the 1-2 Zone,
recommendation is for Alternative No. I.
D. SuwotnzD=
Resolution for adoption and copy of the Plan for TIF District No. 1-21.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMBUSSION
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION FINDING THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NO.1 AND THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-21 TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANS OF THE CITY
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Monticello has proposed to modify the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Plan fbr Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and establish Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-21 and adopt the Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto (collectively. the
"Plans") and have submitted the Plans to the Monticello Planning Commission putsnmt to Minnesota Statutes,
Section 469.173, Subdivision 3, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their consistency with the
plans for the development of the City.
NOW, THFREPORB, BE IT RESOLVED by tta Planning Commission that the Plants me consistent with
the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City of MonticeUo and the Commission hereby
tscommends their approval to the City Council.
Adopted this day of 1996.
.VE -0-49
C
Chair
t_
Drt* as of October 23. 1996
Draft for HRA & Planning Commission
PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
for
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-21
(an economic development tax increment finaneing dlstrlet)
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Public Hearing: November 12, 1996
Adopted:
Repated by:
EHLERS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
2930 Norwest Building
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis. Minnesota 35402-4100
(612)339.8291
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
/
SECTION II
TAX INCREMENT PIAN FOR THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.21 Page XXI-I
Subsection 21-I. Forward .....................................................
Page XXI-I
Subsection 21.2. Stawtory Authority ............................................
Page =-I
Subsection 21.3. Statement of Objectives .........................................
Page XXI.1
Subsection 21.4. Redevelopment Plan Overview ...................................
Page XXI.I
Subsection 21-5. legal Description of Property in
Tax Increment Fiavtcing District No. 1-21 ..........................
Page XXI.2
Subsection 21.6. Classification of Tu Increment Financing District ....................
Page XXI.2
Subsection 21.7. Property To Be Acquired ........................................
Page XXI.2
Subsection 21.8. Estimate of Project Costs ........................................
Page XXI.3
Subsection 21.9. Bonded Indebtedness ...........................................
Page XXI.3
Subsection 21.10. Sources of Revenue ............................................
Page XXI.3
Subsection 21.11. Original Tax Capacity and Tax Rate ...............................
Page XXI.4
Subsection 21-12. Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity ValucAncrement ................
Page XXI4
Subsection 21-13. Duration of Tan Increment Financing District No. 1-21 ................
Page XXl-S
Subsection 21.14. Estimated Impar on Other Taxing Jurisdictions.....
Page XXI-S
Subsection 21-I3. Modifications to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21 ............
Page XXI.6
Subsection 21-16. Administrative Expenses ........................................
Page XXI.6
Subsection 21.17. limitation ofIrimment.........................................
Page XXI.6
Subsection 21-I8. Use of Tax tncremrnt..........................................
Page XXI.7
Subsection 21-19. Notification of Prior Planned Improvements .........................
Page XXI.8
Subsection 21.20. Excess Tax lncrem rats .........................................
Page XXl-8
Subsection 21.21. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer ....................
Page XXI.8
Subsection 21-22. Assessment Agreements ........................................
Page XXI-R
Subsection 21-23. Administration of District .......................................
Page XXI.9
Subsection 21-24. Financial Reporting Requirements .................................
Page XXI.9
Subsection 21.23. Municipal Approval and Public Purpose ...........................
Page XXI.10
Subsection 21.26. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment .....................
Page XXI-I I
Subsection 21.27. State Tax Incrcnent Financing Aid ...............................
Page XXI-I I
Subsection 21-28. County Road Cao ...........................................
Page XXI.12
Subsection 21.29. Economic Development and Job Creation ..........................
Page XXI.12
Subsection 21.30. Summary ...................................................
PaV XXI.12
APPENDIX A
BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ANDTAX
INCREMENT FINANCING D ........................................................ A-1
APPENDIX B
CASH FLOWS FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.21 .................................... A-2
APPENDIX C
MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM
(MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPME.............. A-3
J
SECTIONII
TAX INCREMENT PLAN FOR THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2I
Subsection 21,LL forword
The City of Monticello ('City"), Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority ("HRA") stab and consultants have
prepared the following information to expedite and create Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 ( "District 1.21
an economic development tax increment financing district, in Central Monticello Redevelopment Project.
Subsectlon 21.2. Statutory AuMority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur.
To this end, the City and the HRA have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.174 to
469.179, inclusive, as amended, (the —1711F Aa") and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047. inclusive, as
amended ("the HRA Act") to assist in financing eligible activities related to these development reeds.
This Section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1.2 t. Other relevant information is contained
in the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project.
Subsection 21.3. Statement of Obkctives
District No. 1.21 currently consists of 1 parcel of land. Present plans on the site include the construction of a 9.000
square foot manufacauing facility for T.1. Martin, Inc., to be built in late 1996 or early 1997. The construction of the
manufacturing facility includes certain public improvements, a land write down and site costs that without the use of tax
increment would mace the project financially infeasible. The activities contemplated in the present Redevelopment Plan
and Tax Increment Financing Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified economic and redevelopment
activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of the tax increment district.
District No. 1.21 is expected to achieve many of the objectives tet forth in the section "Statement of Objectives" in the
Redevelopment Plan. These objectives include, but are not limited to:
1. Enhance the tax base of the City and the State.
2 Promote and secure additional employment opportunities within the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project and for the residents of the City and the surrounding arca, thereby improving
living standards, reducing unemployment, and the loss of stilled and unskilled labor and other
human resources in the City.
3. Encourage the expansion of local businesses.
Subseetinn 21.x. Redevelomment Plan Overvkw
1. Property to be Acquired - The City or HRA may acquire all parcels within the property
located within District No. 1.21.
2. Relocation - Compke relocation services are available pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of the developer's plan relating to the project and conTletion of the
necessary legal requirements, the City or HRA may sell to the developer selected
properties that they may acquire within District No. 1.21 or may lease Land or facilities
to the developer.
4. The City or HRA may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition,
constructior4 relocation. demolition, and required utilities aM public Wteu work within
District No. 1.21.
Tax Imenment Plasacint Plan for Tax Inayemrw ilwnehtd District No. Idl Pa)ie XXI-I
Sehsecdon 21-5. 1ma1 Descrlation of Property in Tax Increment Finarnina Mitrict No. 1.21
District No. 1-21 encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by parcel numberslisted below:
PID tR 155460-001010
Seethe map in Appendix A for further information on the location of the District No. 1.21.
Sobseetfon 21.6. Classification of Tax Incremerat Financing District No. 1.21
The City and the HRA, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes. Section 469.174 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, find that Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21 to be
established is an economic development district pursuant to Minnesota Smtutes. Section 469.174, Subdivision 12 as
defined below:
'Economic Development District' means a type of tat increment financing district which consists of any
project, or portion of a project, not meeting the requiremenis found in the definition of redevelopment district.
renewal and renovation district, mils condition district, mined underground space development district, or
housing district, but which the authorityfinds to be in the public interest because:
(1) it will discourage commerce, industry, or manyfacturing from moving their
operations to another nate or municipality; or
(2) it will result in increased employment in the state; or
(3) it will result in preservation and enhancement of the tax bate of the state.
Revenue derived from tax increment from an economic development district may not be used to provide improvements.
Inns, subsidies, grants, interest rate subsidies, or assistance in any form to developments consisting of buildings and
ancillary facilities, if more than IS percent of the building and facilities (determined on the basis of square footage) are
ural for u purpux other than:
(1) the manufacturing or production of tangible personal property. including processing resulting in the
change in condition of the property;
(2) warehousing, storage, and dmtribtaion of tangible personal progeny, excluding retail sales;
()) research and development related to the activities listed in clause (1) or (2);
(4) telemarketing if that activity is the exclusive use of the properly;
(S) tourism facilities; or
(6) space necessary for tend related to the activities listed in clauses (1) haul (3).
The District qualifies as it will include a nu nufacturinl facility.
Snbrsecilon 21.7. Property Tn fie Acadred
The City or HRA may acquire any parcel within District No. 1.21 including interior and adjacent street rights of any.
Any properties identified for acquisition may be acquired by the City or HRA only in order to accomplish one
or mare of the following: storm sewer Itnproverrsents; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and
facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses
end objectives set forth in this plan.
TTte following aro conditions under which properties not designated to be acquired may be acquired:
The City or HRA may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or dire" purchase ham willing ellen
in order to achieve the objectives of "hit Tax lacremeni Financing Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken
only when there is assurance of fun liag to Iltunce the acquisition and related frosts.
v
Tax Innen eve Flrssrsdtq Plan for Tax tommarm Flsxar4tg District No. 1.21 Paye XXI.2
Subwdlon 21-R, jxstlmale of Proleet Costs
Currently under consideration for the Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 is a proposal to aid in the development
of a manufacturing facility. The City has determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for
certain costs. Estimates of cost within the District are subject to change. No more than 20 percent of the tax increment
paid by property within the District will be spent on activities related to public improvements outside the boundaries of
the District but within the boundaries of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project (including administrative costs,
which are considered to be spent outside of the District), subject to the limitation on assistance to facilities other than
manufacturing and tourism as described in this Plan.
Uses of Funds TOTAL
Land acquisition
30,000
Sewer, water and road improvements
20,000
Site improvements
10,000
Interest
40,000
Administrative
10,000
TOTAL 110,000
In addition to the budget listed above. tax increment may be used to pay for interest and capitalized interest on any for
of indebtedness incurred in connection with activities in the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project Estimated costs
associated with Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-21 are subject to change. The cost of all activities to be
considered for tax increment financing will of exceed SI 10,000.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763, Subdivision 2, no more than 20% of the tax increment will be
expended on activities outside of District No. 1.21 but within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No 1.
The City and HRA reserve the right to incur bonded indebtedness, including internal borrowing, of S 110.000 as a result
of the Tax Increment Financing Plan.
The City and HRA intend to finance the initial activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing Plan
by paying for up to SI 10,000 of project costs from HRA funds, robe reimbursed by Tax Increment over the life of the
project. Additional increments may be used to pay interest expense on any tax increment bonds, pay-as-you-go convect
or note, or internal borrowing.
Subwdon 21.10. Srwrce+of Rever m
Public improvements costs, land write down, ecquisioon, relocation, and site preparation cow and other costs outlined
In the Estimate of Costs will be financed through the annual collection of tax increments, state grants or loans. or other
private equity or financing or other sources of revenue.
Tax 1wremens Flrrsadnr Plan far Tax Inc— Flne ng District No, 1.21 Papp XXI-3
Sources of Funds TOTAL
Taxlarernem
$100.000
Interest
0
Other sources
10,000
TOTAL
Subsection 21.11. Oriseinal Tax Capacity and
f110A00
Tex Rate
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision 7 and Section 469.177, Subdivision I, the Original Net
Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for District No. 1.21 will be baud on the market values placed on the property by
the assessor in 1996 for taxes payable 1997. The original tax capacity of the property will be 5630.
Pursuant to Section 469.177. subd. I(f), the ONTC is to be increased each year by a factor which re:pnaents the average
percentage increase in the estimated market value of all property in the TIF District during the rave year period before
certification of the TIF District (assessment years 1992 through 1996). As District No. 1.21 is located on land which
has been tax-exempt for the previous five years, this requirement does not apply to District No. 1-21.
Pursuant to Section 469.177, Subds. I and 2, of the TIF Act, the County Auditor shall cenify in each year (beginning
in the payrnent year 1998) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of a change in
tax exempt property within the Tax Increment Financing District, reduction or enlargement of the Tax Increment
Financing; District or changes in connection with previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current
Net Tax Capacity of the District declines below the OMC, no value will be captured and no to increment will be
payable to the City.
The County Auditor shall certify in each year aflcr the dam the ONTO was certified (beginning in payment year 1998),
the amount the OMC has increased or decreased as a reach of:
1. change in tax exempt status of property;
2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. change in the use of the property and classification; or
S. change in nate law governing class rates.
The original local tax rate for District No. 1.21 will be On local tax rate for 1997 axes. As the Pay 1997 tax rates were
unavailable it the time this plan was prepared, the Pay 19%rates are being used as an estimate. T1te Pay 1996 tax rate
for District No. 1.21 is 1.10381.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.174 Subdivision 4 and Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.177, Subdivision
1. 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of District No. 1.21, within the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project upon completion of the project. will annually approximate $10,190, or SI 1.269 in tax increment.
The City and HRA request 100 percent of the available Increase in tax capacity for repayment of Its obligations and
current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 1999. The project tax capacity listed is the base tax capacity
when the project starts, which is the original ax capacity of 5630 inflated to the appmpriam tax capacity for when the
project commences.
Estimated Project Tax Capacity 10.920
Original Tax Capacity A
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity 10.190
Tax twmaeat Financlas Roofer Tax Incressm Fband Olatrk1 Na 1.21 Page %%I.4
Subsection 21-1,1L
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 479.175, Subdivision 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of District
No. 1-21 must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, subdivision 1(b), the
duration of District No. 1-21 will be 9 years from the date of receipt of the first increment by the HRA. The City hereby
waives receipt of any partial tax increment to be received in 1998 and therefore anticipates that the date of receipt by
the HRA of the first tax increment will be approximately July 1999. Thus, it is estimated that District No. 1-2 1. including
any modifications of the Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate in November 2007 at the latest.
with the lar full year of increment collected in 2006, or when the goals of the Plan have been met. The City and HRA
do reserve the right to decertify District No. 1.21 prior to the legally required date.
on Other Tasdna Jurhdietioen
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without the creation
of District No. 1-21. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0 to other entities.
Notwithstanding. the fact that the fiscal impact on the other axing jurisdictions; is 50 due to the fact that the construction
would not have occurred without the assistance of the City or HRA. the following estimated impact of District No. 1.21
would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met:
a
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
ENTITY
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
PERCENT
CTC
ENTITY'S 1995196
CAPTURED TAX
PERCENT OF
TAXING
TOTAL NET TAX
CAPACITY
CTC TO ENTITY
JURISDICTION
CAPACITY
(CIC)
TOTAL
Wright County
53,630.869
10.190
0.019%
ISD No. 882
19,237,501
10,190
0.053%
City of Monticello
15.792,922
10.190
0.065%
Hospital District
26.334.087
10,190
0.039%
a
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
ENTITY
1995M
PERCENT
CTC
POTENTIAL
TAX RATE
OFTOTAL
TAXES
Wright County
.29499
26.68%
10,190
3,006
ISD No. 882
.60110
54.36%
10,190
6,125
City of Monticello
.18509
16.74%
10,190
1,896
Hospital District
.02463
LUA
12JA
231
TOTAL
1.10581
100.00%
11,268
The estimates listed above display the captured tai capacity when all conswction is completed. The tax rate used for
calculations is the 1995/Pay 1996 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above am baud on Pay 1996 figures.
The tax rate at which District No. 1-21 will be certified will be the Pay 1997 tax rates which were unavailable at the time
this Plan was prepared.
Tax Interment Flaandap Plan tar Tax Incmaaru Flmacloy Diarkt No. 1.21 Page XXI.5
Subsection 21-I5, Nodifintlons to Tax Increment FfnaneingMst
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175. Subdivision 4, any reduction or enlargement of the geographic
area of the project or Tax Increment Financing District; increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred.
including a detrnninttion to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a pan of the original plan, or to
increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized; increase in the portion of the captured tax
capacity to be retained by the HRA; increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures; or designation of additional
property to be acquired by tic HRA shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and
findings required for approval of the original plan. The geographic area of a tax increment financing district may be
reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the done of certification of the original tax capacity by the
county auditor. Modifications to District No. 1.21 in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the
boundaries will be recorded in the Plan.
If District No. 1-21 is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district
meets the criteria of section 469.174, subdivision 12 must be doieurnented. The requirements of this paragraph do not
apply if( 1) the only modification is elimination of parcels from the project or district and (2) (A) the current tax capacity
of the parcels eliminated from the district equals or exceeds the tau capacity of those parcels in the disuici s original tax
capacity or (B) the authority agrees that, notwithstanding Section 469.177, subdivision 1, the original tax capacity will
be reduced by no more than the current tax capacity of the parcels eliminated from the district. The authority must notify
the county auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic arca of a district or a project arca.
V
In accordance with Minnesom Statutes. Section 469.174, Subdivision 14, and Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176,
Subdivision 3 administrative expenses means all expenditures of an authority other than amounts paid for the purchase
of lard or amounts paid to contractors or others providing mnerirthsrd services, including architectural and engineering
services, directly connected with the physical development of the teal property in the district. relocation benefits paid
to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the district or amounts used to pay interest on, fund
a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to Section 469.178. Administrative expenses also include
amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development
consultants. No tax incretnem shall be used to pay any adminisumfive expenses for the Tax Increment Financing District
which exceed ten percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the Tax Increment Financing Plan or the
total tax increment expenditures for the project, whichever is less.
Pursuant to Minnesaa Statutes. Section 469.176, Subdivision 4h, aux increments may be used to pay for the county's
actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with District No. 1-21. The county tory require payment of those
expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were Incurred.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469. 177, Subdivision 1 1, the county treasurer shall deduct an anno unt equal to
0.1 percent of any increment distributed to an authority or municipality and the county treasurer shall pay the amount
deducted to the ante treasurer for deposit in the state general fwd.
SahseeNon 21.17. Undil din of Inayment
Pursuant to Section 469.176, Subd. 1, of the TIF Act. no fax increment shall be paid to the HRA for the Tax Increment
Financing District after three (3) years from the dam of crnification of the Original Net Tax Cq=iry value of the taxable
propeny in the Tax Incrcmcm Financing District by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) years period:
(a) bonds have been Issued pursuant to Section 469.178, or in aid of a project pursuant to
any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to Section 469.152 to 469.163. or
(b) the City or HRA has acquired properly within the Tat Incremem Financing District, or
(c) the City or HRA has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements
within the Tait Increment Financing District
Tu lacreeaat ilmarlog Ma for Tax lacrnnsm Flnsa calf Ul - — No. 1.21 Pae XX"
The bonds must be issued, or the City or HRA must acquire property or construct or cause public improvements to be
constructed by approximately November 1999.
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the Tax Increment
Financing District may be tmninated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fwd or other
escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption
date.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 6:
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original tax capacity of the tax increment
financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or
renovation of property• or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent
to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systemr, has been
commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the
owner of the parcel in accordance with the rax increment fuancing plan, no additional tax increment
may be taken from that parcel and the original tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the
original tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the
parcel subsequently commences demolition• rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on
that parcel including improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel. in accordance with the tax
increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor in the annual disclosure
report that the activity has commenced The county auditor shall certify the tax capacity thereof as
most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original tax capacity of the
tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision.
For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements are limited to (1) construction or opening
of a new street, (2) relocation af a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an.
existing street.
The City or HRA or a property owner must improve parcels within District No. 1.21 by approximately November 2000.
Subseedon 21.18. Use of Tax Increment
The City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in
District No. 1.21 for the following purposes:
to pay the principal of and interest an bonds used to finance a project;
to finance, or otherwise pay the capital and administration costs of the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project pursuant to the Redevelopment Project Act;
to pay for project costs as identified in the budget;
to finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in Section 469.176, Subd. 4, of the Tax
Increment Act;
To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to the City or for the
benefit of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project by the Developer.
To linartce or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance, credit enhancement. or other
security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal and interest an the Tax Increment Bonds
or bonds issued pursuant to the Tax Increment Financing Plan or pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 462C and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.132 to 469.163, or both; and
To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest
on the Tax Increment Bonds or bonds issued pursuant to Minnesota Statues. Chapter 462C and
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.152 to 469.163, or both.
These revenues shall tint be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes
prohibited by Section 469.176, suhd. 4, of the TIF Act.
Tax Incremem FInane a Plan for Tax Incremeni Flasadno Diaries No. 1.21 Page XXI.7
Tax increments generated in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21 will be paid by Wright County to the City of
Monticello for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. Such ftutds will be spem in accordance w;th this Tac Increment
Financing Plan.
flatiffcation of Prior Planned Imarovementc
The City or HRA shall, after due and diligent search. accompany its request for certification to theCounty Auditor or
its notice of Tax Increment Financing District enlargement with a listing of all properties within the Tax Increment
Finartcing District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen ( 18) months
immediately preceding approval of the Tax Increment Financing Plan by the municipality pursuant to Section 469.175.
Solid. 3, of the TIF Act. The County Audita shall increase the original value of the Tax Insremem Financing District
by the value of improvements for which a building permit was issued.
Ptasum to Minnesota Su suam Section 469.177. Subdivision 4, the City or HRA has reviewed the area to be included
in District No. 1.21 and found no parcels for which building permits have been issued during the Ig months immediately
preceding approval of the Plan by thcCity or HRA. If the building permit had been issued within the 18 month period
preceding approval of the plan by the City or HRA, the county auditor shall increase the original tax capacity of the
district by the valuation of the improvements for which the building permit was issued.
Sabsedton 21.20. Excess Tax gxtcrertaents
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subdivision 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the
amotmt necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any
tax levy as provided in Minnesota Stmutes, Section 475.61, Subdivision 3, the City or HRA shall use the excess amount
to do any of the following:
1. prepay the outstanding bonds:
2. discharge the pledge of sex increment therefor;
3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bond: or
4. return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their tax capacity rate as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.176, Subd. 2.
In adildon, the City or HRA may. subject to the limitation set forth herein, choose to modify the tax incrertteu plan as
described in Section 11, in order to finance additional public costs of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project
The City or HRA will review any proposal for private development to determine its confomsarsee with the
Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effon, the following
documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system
drawings, landscaping plan, grading and stain drainage plan, signage system plan. and any oder drawings or narrative
deemed necessary by the City or HRA to demonstrate the conformance of rho development with city plans and
ordinances. The City or HRA tray also use the Agmemenu to address other issues related to the development.
Pursuant to Section 469.176, Suhd. S, of the TIF Act, no tome than tea percent (10%), by acreage, oldie property to be
acquired in the Tax Increment Financing District as set forth in the Tu Increment Fininswing Plan shall at any time be
owned by the City or HRA as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to Scction 469.178. of
the TIF Act, without the City or HRA having, prior to acquisition in excess of ten percent (10%) of the acreage,
concluded an agreement for the development or of the pmpeny acquired and which provides recourse for the City or
HRA should the development not be completed.
Suhxrtgon 21.22. Attnsment Aamernenn
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.177, Subdivision 8. the City or HRA may enter into an agreement in
recordable form with the developer of properly within the Ta Incrertsent Financing District which euablishes a minimum
Ts: Ina -ma Financial Planter Tas Increment ilarodrq District Ne.1.21 Page XX14
market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of District No. 1.21. The assessment agreement
shall be presented to the assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements constructed, review
the market value previously assigned to the lard upon which the improvements arc to be constructed and, so long as the
minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appear. in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable
estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement.
Administration of District No. 1.21 will be handled by the Executive Director of the HRA of the City of Monticello.
Subsection 21-24. Financial Rettortinit Reaulrements
Puisuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175. Subdivisions 3, 6, and 6(a); the City or HRA must file an annual
disclosure report for all tax increment financing districts with the State Auditor, the county board. county auditor, and
school board.
Pursuant to Section 469.175. Subd. 5, of the TIF Act, the City or HRA roust file an annual disclosure report for the Tax
Increment Financing District. The report shall be filed with the county board, county auditor, school board, and the State
Auditor on or before July I of each year. The report to be filed by the City or HRA shall include the following
information:
the amount and source of revenue in the tax increment account;
the amount and purpose of expenditures from the account-,
the amount of any pledge of revenues, including principal and interest. on any outstanding bond
indebtedness;
the original net tax capacity of the Tax Increment Financing District;
the captured net tax capacity retained by the City;
the capiweJ act lax rapacity ahweJ with other taxing di;rLts;
the tax Increment received;
any additional information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Tax Increment Financing
Plan.
Section 469.175. Sobel. 5, of the TIF Act also provides that an annual statement showing the tax increment received and
expended in that year, the original net tax capacity, captured net tax capacity, amount of outstanding bonded
indebtedness, the amount of the district's increments paid to other governmental bodies, the amount paid for
administrative costs, the sum of increments paid, directly or indirectly, for activities and improvements located outside
of the district, and any additional information the City or HRA deems necessary shall be published in a newspaper of
general circulation in the City.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.175. Subd.6. of the TIF Act. the City or HRA must annually submit to the
State Auditor, on or before July 1, a financial repos which shall:
provide for full disclosure of the sources and uses of the public hinds in the district;
permit comparison and reconciliation with the City's accounts and financial reports;
permit auditing of the funds expended on behalf of the tax increment district, including a single
district that is part of a multi district project or that is funded In part or whole through the use of a
development account funded with tax increments from other diwict& or with other public money;
and
be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.
Tito financial report must also Include the following:
the original net tax capacity of the district;
the captured net tax capacity of the district, including the amount of any captured net tax capacity
shared with other taxing districts;
Tax Incrawat Flwrtclas Pisa for Tax Irtctenwat glmaclail District Na 1.21 Page XXI.9
for the reporting period and for the duration of the district. Ute amount budgeted under the Tax
Increment Financing Plan, and the actual amount expended for, at least, the following categories:
a_ acquisition of land and buildings through condemnation or purchase:
b. site improvements or preparation costs:
C. installation of public utilities. parking facilities, streets, roads, sidewalks, or other
similar public improvements;
d. administrative costs, including the allocated cost of the City or HRA;
C. public park facilities, facilities for social, recreational, or conference purposes, or
other similar public improvements: and
for properties sold to developers, the total cost of the property to the authority and the price paid
by developers:
the amount of increments rebated or paid to developers or property owners for privately financed
improvements or other qualifying costs, other than those reposed under clause (3), that were issued
on behalf of private entities for facilities located in District No. 1-21.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, subdivision 6a, tit City must also annually report to the State Audita
before or on July 1 of each year the following amounts for the entire City:
the total principal amount of nondefeased tax increment financing bonds that are outstanding at the
end of the previous calendar year, and
the total annual amount of principal and interest payments thm are due for the current calendar year
on (1) general obligation tax increment fmanciag bonds and (u) other tax increment financing bonds.
and for each tax increment financing district within the City:
the type of tax increment financing district:
the date on which the district is required to be decertified:
the amount of any payments and the value of in-kind beneftu, such as physical improvements and
the use of building space, that are financed with revenues derived from increments and arc provided
to another governmental unit (other than the municipality) during the preceding calendar year;
the tax increment revenues for taxes payable in the current calendar year;
whether the tax increment financing plan or other governing document permits increment revenues
to be expended outside of the tax incm=nI financing district;
any additional information that the State Auditor may require.
Copus of this report must also be provided to the county and school district boards.
The reasons and facts supporting the finds for the adoption of the Tax Increntea Financing Plan for District No. 1.21
as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.175. Subdivision 3 are as follows:
Finding that District No. 1.21 is an economic development district as debated in Minnesota Statutes, Section
469. 174. Subdivision 12.
The District qualifier as an Economic Development District because the project is s manufacturing facility.
Fmding that the proposed development. in the opinion of the Council, would not occur solely through private
investment within the reasonably foreseeable flnure and that the increased market value of the site that could
reasonably he expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in
the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present values of the
Projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District as pemdtted by the Tau Increment Financing
Plays.
A comparative analysis of estimated market values bosh with and without establishment of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1.21 o d the nue of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such
Tat lacrsaent Flaaaclag Ran for Tax lacreraetu Floandus District Na, 1.21 Page XXI.10
analysis indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (leu the indicated
subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-21 and the use of tax increments (See Appendix BY A report and analysis describing
the rationale for tax increment financing is on file with the City.
Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1.21 conforms to the general plan for the
development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21 is properly zoned and the tax increment financing plan will
generally compliment and serve to implement policies adopted in the City's comprehensive plan.
Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1.21 will afford maximum opportunity.
consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development of the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project by private enterprise.
The City's control of the site and utilities and the ability to provide assistance based upon specific needs of the
developments will increase its ability to promote orderly and high quality construction within the City and stable
employment for the community as a whole.
Additional findings are set forth in the Authorizing Resolution of the City.
General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the tax increment
financing plan. The revenues shall be used to finance or otherwise pay public capital and administration costs
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.124 through 469.134. These revenues shall not be used to
circumvent existing levy limit law. No revenues derived from tax increment shall be used for the construction,
renovation, operation or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the
business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal
government: this provision shall not prohibit the use of revenues derived form tax increments for the
construction or renovation of a parking structure, s commons area used as a public park or a facility used for
social, recreational or conference purposes and not primarily for conducting the business of the municipality.
Pooling Limitation.. At least 80% of tax increments from the Tax Increment Financing District must be
expended on activities in the Tax Increment Financing District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds
of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or more payment of, debt service on
credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 20% of said tax increments may be expended, through a development
fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the Tax Increment Financing District except to pay, or secure
payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative
expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the Tax Increment Financing District.
Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increment.. Tax increments derived from the Tax Increment
Financing District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 80% test ser forth in paragraph (2) above only if the
five year rule set forth in Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.1763, subdivision 3, has been satisfied: and beginning
with the sixth year following ccr ilication of the Tax Increment Financing District. 9D% of said tax increments
that remain alter expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously
commitment expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as niton fully set forth in Minnesota Statutes. Section
469.1763, subdivision 4.
n, t M44UYI717tM I==y: u s
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 273.1399, for tax increment financing districts for which certification was
requested after April 30, 1990, a municipality incurs a reduction in state tax increment financing aid (RISTIFA) applied
to the municipality's Local Government Aids (LGA) first and. Homestead and Agricultural Aid (HACA) second, in an
amount equal to a formula based upon the equalized qualifyinj captured tax capacity (QCPC) of the Tax Increment
Financing District.
Tax tacr"nern Flnanclttg Plan for Tax tneremem F7rrancing District Na 1.31 Pap XXI.1 I
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 273.1399. Subdivision 6, for tax increment financing disuicu certified after June
30, 1994, the City or HRA may choose an option to the LGA-HACA penalty. A tat incremem financing district is
exempt if the City elects at the time of approving the tax increment financing plan to make a qualifying local contribution.
To qualify for the exemption in each year, the City or HRA must make a qualifying local contribution to the project of
a attain percentage of annual to incrernem. The local contribution for a economic development district is 10 percent.
The maximum local contribution for all districts in the City in any year is limited to two percent of the City's net tax
capacity, after which point the City or HRA must make an additional contribution equal to the lesser of (a) 0.25 percent
of the City's net tax capacity or (b) 3 percent of tax increment revenues for that year.
The amount of the local contribution must be made out of unrestricted money of the authority or municipality, such as
the general fund, a property tai levy, or a federal or a state gaud -in -aid which may be spent for general government
purposes. The local contribution may not be made, directly or indirectly, with tax increments or developer payments.
Thi local contribution must be used to pay project costs and canna be used for general government purposes.
The City or HRA elects to make the anmtal local contribution to the project to exempt itself from the LGA-HACA
penalty. The City or HRA will pay for costs of the project described in this Plan, in an amount equal to ten percent
(10'x) of annual tax increment for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1.21, subject to the limitations described above.
in any year in which such amount exceeds 2 percent of the City's net tax capacity. Such contribution may be in form
of either lump sum or annual payments (in addition to tax increment payments) towards costs identified in this Plan or
other costs related to that developmem. The contribution may, also be made in the form of public improvements financed
by the City or other unit of government with unrestricted foods.
Pursuant to Minnesota Smattes, Section 469.175. Subdivision la. the county board may require the authority to pay for
all or part of the frost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will in
the judgement of the county. substantial ly increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvemenu
or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement
plan or oder county plan.
The improvements outlined in the Plan serve as mice to the court' that the development of the project will be assisted
with tax increment. In the opinion of the City and consulunts, the proposed development will have Rule or no impact
upon county roads. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads. it must notify the Authority within
thirty days of receipt of this plan.
SoMeetM 21.29. Econorrde Develoome at nod lob Crmtfon
To the extent applicable, the City or HRA agree to comply with Minnesota Stamen, Section 116J.991, which states that
a business receiving state or local government assiaance for economic development orjob growth purposes. including
tax increment financing, mina create a net Increase in jobs and meet wage level goals is Minnesota, within two years of
receiving assistance (See Appendix C).
Sub%MMn 21.30, aStim !>?HII
The City of Monticello is establishing Ts Increment Finucing District No.1.21 to preserve and enhance the us base
and provide employment opportunities for the residents of the City. Ther Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax
Incrrrrsent Financing District No. 1.21 was prepared by Erten and Associates. Inc., 2950 Norwest Center. 90 South
Seventh Street. Minneapolis, Minnesota 33402.4100, telephone (612) 339-829 1.
J
Tax lacmaant Flnanaiag Plan 6sr Tax lanemsnt maria ial Dbtrfct Mn, 1.21 Payr XX I.12
APPENDIX A
BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.21
A-1
�j
M
No.
94
City of Monticello
County of Wright
State of Minnesota
Proposed Tax Increment
Financing District No. 1-21
+ %
7
%
.zi— P
•
AO U
Obwo.mirl III- du."
so._
:LIS :L
9
LIU 6.0..
AS
X.,
C,
to
Annexation Study
A
City of Monticello Z.4i
r
W
ExIsilng Zoning 0-4.1j"f L L IJ hi �-Fff
V"
City limits City of Monticello
Redevelopment afts Central Monticello County of Wright
Redevelopment Project State of Minnesota
APPENDDCB
CASH FLOWS FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1.21
A•2
ttVJe'04 did LlM b-Tok pEdtiWw-TAMwb1—
T.I.P. CASH FLOW
ASSUMPTIONS
Mahmn Rdw:
o.ODW%
Par4U-You-0o hrawwt Rds
0260%
Tn EdmaWn �:
110.601% Par M '
RASE VALUE INFORMATION
Oro" Pmom
No Phra6le
V.Ma Und
v.Mw r.w
Pmod01554W00t01001i0h SAOUVAM
21AM 10000%
21,000 Parts <-Esthtwa
0 0.00%
0
Tad Odow hea" Vdlw
41.000
^� ,OOD P" pt1
CY" R4a: CA Prep4n7
AMOND
4..", , Pnr YO
4100A00
8.0000%
Odom Tu CapeeRr
070 Par YO
PROJECT VALUE INFORMATION
i MOO:IEoorl4nio
(�'� l)wtlOprrnrtl
Two a C
� Wr1114t1u1�oto
Num. a use:
MA1n10m a 8"" Fm:
a,006
Now Edmeed Me" Vdu On Jam 7. 1007:
470.000 Pq a
Fled MwW VAm of Lw d wd &0*9
2to.000 Pq M
Pmod Clava Rd4: CJI Pmpwry
.4100.=
0.0000%
4100,m0
7.0000%
AddltlaW EdMdW Tax Cape* on Jan. 2. 1007:
10.070 Par 00
Told Pr*cl Tu Cape* at Con *wm
10,070 Pq 00
Pmol Tax" Pm LMYIewers Fa4:
Sim
Aupwh MOM Vd w Per LN*Alq o Fool:
070.00
Prt W Total Tor to EdMan Purpa":
11,006 Pay 00
Amyl Tu Ircrwlt4d E+p4ead w F1/ Valim
10,141 Pay M
S}I�y MARY)NFORMJ710N
Gnmi _ 4'O
d4 No T.I.
h ftm Adnik
POCAM TO I'mosel
FWs Vduu 101,414 (10.141)
10.141
awrr Vdot ao,004 OLOOB)
0,000
BUT FOR ANALYSES
I
1;1rrm4 MD" Vd1w • Ea
01.000
Now ML*M V4Mw - E0.
_Fp,00Q
ORww1n
240.000
pnlra VOMw d Tu 610r4n -
_O-OIW
Doom=
100.070
V" Lid/ to Omw LV811o1/ TIP
0
O110 1
imw..M
/1010607 P.WW A AMMM 110.
107100
Cry d Wako - Tu 4v.rrr4 EmmY4 - TJ. MwM 4c
pap 2
TAX INCREMZNT CASH
RAW
Ong.
Pmpd
CWK ed
Se Amin
AOm Se-Ars.sl
Loral
P.Yrr to
NPV of
PERIOD REGINNM
T-
Tu
Tu
Dross Tu
.tNo
Tw Contni
4ion
HRA
PAYO
PERIOD ENDING
►h
Y- h.
Yr.
C4osd1.
Cao.cOv.
_
CmnrcM
m
hriaw4
1000%
VCI.~
1000%
NOB
6.2516
Yrs IAIh
Yr
0.002-01
1007
530
0.70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.508-01
1007
0.5 06-01
1997
630
630
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.302-01
1006
1.0 02-01
1995
530
630
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5 06-01
1006
1,6 0&01
1995
630
630
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
2.0 02-0/
1009
2.002-01
1999
830
10,620
0
10,107
6,636
(669)
5,011
683
6.831
6.50.1
2.506.01
1908
2.5 08.01
1999
830
10,620
0
10,100
5,634
(60.1)
5,071
667
6,834
9,021
3.0 02-01
2000
3.0 02-01
2000
630
10,620
0
10,190
5.034
(563)
5,071
663
5,634
13,269
3.5 0641
2000
3,5 OB -01
2000
630
10,620
0
10,190
4034
(�)
5,071
563
6,634
17,347
4.002-01
2001
1,0 02-01
2001
630
10,620
0
10,190
6.836
(
5,071
683
6,634
21,263
4.5 06-01
2001
4.5 08-01
2001
630
10,620
0
10,190
6,034
(607)
6,071
663
6,L34
25,023
5.002-01
2002
5,002-01
2002
630
10,820
0
10,190
6,634
(503)
5.071
567
6,534
26,836
5.505-01
2002
5,50641
2002
630
10,820
0
10,100
6,631
(667)
5,071
553
6,614
32,104
0.0101
2003
6.002-01
20!X1
a"
Iu,6N
0
10,100
5,631
(�)
60116834
36,435
6.505-01
2003
6.5 05-01
2003
630
10,020
0
10,100
6,034
(583)
5,071
683
5,634
36,634
7.0 02-01
2001
7.002-01
2004
630
10,820
0
10,190
6,031
(583)
4071
683
6,634
41,701
7.506-01
2004
7.506-01
2004
630
10,620
0
10,190
4634
(563)
5,011
563
6,834 966
5,002-01
2005
8002-01
2005
630
10,020
0
10,190
6,631
1603)
6,011
683
4674
4/ 407
5.6 05-01
2006
0.5 06-01
2006
53D
10,820
0
10,190
6.631
1563)
4011
653
6.834
60,213
9,002-01
2008
9002-0I
2000
630
10,620
0
10,12
6,534
(583)
6,011
653
6,634
62,621
9608-01
2000
0,500.01
2006
630
10,620
0
10.190
4631
(563)
4011
683
4031
55,335
10002-01
2007
10002-01
2007
630
10,620
0
10,100
5,034
1663)
4071
653
5,634
67,746
10.508-01
2007
1050601
2007
630
10020
0
10.100
0631
16631
5011
693
62?4
6o-054
71.002.0
Moll
Total.
101414
1101411
919m
12.141
121.414
Pm.4M v.km
08061
I6 O061
54 cel
6-006
60064
mc loo 02 R4.r.0 %. "M W
APPENDIX C
MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM
(MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)
A•J
Mw amA DEPARTMENT of
TRADE AND Eco omic DEVELOFme4r .,. a�°�
Son Mew Square •�
121 M Plan FAsa ;'6
SMNuLMLinesou SS101-2146 VSA
To all Mimesota government agencies:
Wituseson 1(Aws 1993 Chapter 224, Section SS Outbaed by Represemat ve Kama Clark and Senator Doha
fkainger) requires a business receiving .tate or local government assistance as of July 1. 1995 to nam a nes
locream in jobs in Mmncsota within two years of mceiviag assistance and meet wage level and job creation goals
established by the funding agency. Busloesses am coe ctiat these co»Qitions most repay the essista . at the moms
negotiated by the busixss and the government agency administering the assBmace '
F4cb government agency is mandated to atmsally report wage and job toils and actual progress toward those
toils for each business receiving assi to the Minnesota Depar== of Trade and Economic Development
(D=). The law does not stipulate what those toils should be, but does require goals to be established by the
govemtne a agency for each individual project.
'Business assistance refers to any business activity within a tax increment financing district and any business
Qsm or busioen loan using slam or local dollars in excess of S25.OM. While not def wd in the legislation our
assumption is that this would include Fmtr, loam, interest subsidies, tax Increment financing (fid, or any public
monies directly benefiting a butdoess and given for economic development or job growth ptarposes,
to order to simplify data collection, plt= use the Mlanerao Budaers Assinanca Form (severs side). The form
should be completed by each government entity administering the assistance for each business receiving assistance.
All financial assist.— provided m business afterlily 1. 1995 must be repotted These forms must be submitted to
DM by Match 1 of each year far the previous calendar year. Wage level and job nation goals moat be
documented until project goals ate achieved
SincereJYJ
1.
comminlmer
t611)14T•I1f1
(IMM3131
TrVIM01111324142
a.....a w.�.....i.. r....... FAX 161TI MIM
Minnesota Business Assistance Form*
Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development
Rem qp or print In dads InL
1: Paoft lovanmmt aleacy Dame
2 Agency saes adCw
& ar, 1 e. zip Com S. pbooe comber (area code) 1 a Fax comber (am code)
7. Quo= acme a. Type of coramlot alemy
—city _Coaaty —Wend Smm
_ Other (pleas IFA�t
9. Narm of T w dbmct (d wambio)
10. Name of hnu= teuivltq asimom 11. Dm balms received asrlmate
It lob aeadon lab for bustnm mdviq atdwace 17. Hoag wale lewd Saab for bm h= teedvfoS assimow
Ie. Aaoal jobs aced atace batt a mmived aadmaro 1!. Acmd aaaW batrly wape paid m tOVbyeet NseO stem
bud= meelwed _A_
Id. Lap dam -1 wale and Job andon leweb documented
e Pleas C -W" —f—f- each busixen p t&clyaw gwu7 -tU d wM $4WDoram Inpalw fSO .
Please sand completaA [bem amwWy b7 March l bot or In n" for
Mtaoesm Hannan Asdai m Fam (612) 29&1290
MIwcwA
Square For
dTn& and Ecommie Developmem par latmmmfoa4 eaUt
121 Pau 70 Place (612) 297.1291 or 1.8006!7.7858
SL PUL Minnesm 55101