Planning Commission Agenda 06-06-2006
.
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 6th, 2006
6:00 PM
Commissioners:
Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, Craig Schibonski, William Spartz,
and Sandy Suchy
Council Liaison:
Glen Posusta
Guests:
1.
2.
3.
. 4.
5.
6.
.
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Ollie Koropchak,
and Steve Grittman - NAC
Mayor Clint Herbst, Former Planning Commission Chair Dick Frie
Call to order.
Recognition of the service of Former Planning Commission Chair Richard Frie.
Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, April 18th
and Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
Citizen comments.
Public Hearing - Consideration of for an extension of an Interim Use Permit for the
Alternative Learning Program, located in an I-I (Light Industrial) District.
Applicant: Monticello School District
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat and a Conditional Use
Permit for a Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Elm Street Villas, a 114-unit
residential plat in a PZM (Performance Zone-Mixed) District.
Applicant: UP Development
8. Consideration to adopt a resolution finding that a modification to the TIF Plans for TIF
District Nos. 1-2 (Metcalf/Larson) and 1-24 (St. Bens) conform to the general plans for the
development and redevelopment of the city.
Applicant: Monticello HRA
9. Consideration to review for discussion the standards for Planned Unit Developments.
10. Consideration of an update regarding centralized message board signage.
11.
Adjourn.
.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, April 18th, 2006
6:00 PM
Commissioners Present:
Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, Craig Schibonski, William Spartz,
and Sandy Suchy
Council Liaison Absent:
Wayne Mayer
Staff:
leffO'Neill, Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson,
Steve Grittman - NAC, Kimberly Thompson - NAC
1. Call to Order.
Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order, noting a full quorum of the
Commission.
2. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
As part of the discussion on PUDs, Commissioner Spartz asked O'Neill to
address planned unit development projects in progress that may have worked or
be working better in terms of ordinance requirements.
.
Sandy Suchy indicated that she has received some public comments she would
like to review with staff prior to the meeting's conclusion.
3.
Citizen comments.
NONE.
4. Consideration to review for discussion the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regulating
Planned Unit Developments.
O'Neill introduced the discussion by indicating that the Planning Commission and
City Council had both recently questioned the merits of the City's PUD ordinance
and requirements in relationship to previously approved and newly proposed
projects. As such, staff had put together information related to PUD projects and
standards for Commission discussion.
O'Neill indicated that the goal of the evening's meeting was to review existing
PUDs in order to provide the Commissioners with background information for
determining what types of criteria would be considered for a "superior" PUD as
defined by the code.
.
O'Neill presented a series of slide images of Monticello PUD projects.
1
.
Greater Minnesota Housin!!: Proiect - The Drake
O'Neill commented that in retrospect, staff would have encouraged the
developerlbuilder to provide more variety in the exterior color of the units. The
dimensions of the site did present some constraints, which led to a narrower
distance between garage and curb at 20'.
Dragsten commented that the project did improve the neighborhood. He noted
that the driveway spacing should have been longer to accommodate larger
vehicles.
Schibonski commented that two stories may work better in these types of
situations for visual appeal. Dragsten stated that they had a two-story proposal,
but the two story units ended up being relatively plain.
Suchy indicated that sidewalks would have been a nice addition.
Vine Place
O'Neill commented on the roof pitches, railings, and landscaping features which
seem to provide character to this PUD. He explained that alley width was a
concern at the time.
.
Dragsten stated that in looking at this project overall, it does seem to be tight,
perhaps the alley could have been a little wider.
Grittman confirmed that the center lane is 24'. O'Neill stated that no additional
parking was required due to on-street and driveway parking.
Schibonski noted that there was also space also in front of the garage and that the
driveways were as wide as the building, not just door.
O'Neill stated that the unit square footage and roof pitch were met in terms of
code requirements. He noted that standards were set here for distance in terms of
fire safety.
5th and Elm
O'Neill stated that in this project, the driveway was between the buildings, with
thegarage in the back and each drive aisle serving two units. He noted that the
developer also did additional landscaping.
O'Neill asked the Commissioners how they felt about drives through the front and
then serving back, with no curb and gutter. Schibonski stated that it gives a more
residential feel.
.
2
.
Anderson stated that the sideloaded garages with egress windows become a
maintenance issue.
Morninl! Glorv
O'Neill noted the spartan design on the combined mailboxes. O'Neill stated that
staff had discussed this project in terms of the building to building distances.
Grittman stated that this project led to a 78' face-to-face standard with 25' drives
and a 28' street. Grittrnan stated that the City standard minimum is a 24' street
with 22' driveway, which is what occurred with this project.
Schibonski stated that there seems to be a more positive feel of width here as
compared to other urban areas. Hilgart stated that it seems as though these units
are out of place as you pull up the street.
Grittman commented that the amount of pavement in this development, combined
with the rock landscaping, makes this a very harsh environment.
Prairie West
.
O'Neill referred to the landscaping, combined mailboxes, and benches within this
PUD. He indicated that the drive looks wider, but the developer actually put
space into driveway and less in the drive, which also created a larger front yard.
Dragsten stated that they also set buildings back further.
Schibonski noted that there is some extra parking provided. Grittman noted that
the developer provided proof of parking to allow for more green space.
O'Neill commented that the density is very low. Grittrnan stated that the
dimensions of the property lent itself to a lower density. Grittrnan explained that
the area had been originally planned as single family.
Timber Ridee
Grittman noted that in this development the main street is 30' wide. Dragsten
confirmed that they are private streets. O'Neill commented that the garage
forward look is dominant.
Grittman stated that with garage forward design, the City should consider
requiring garage windows and increasing the amount of landscaping at street
front. In that way, the view goes to landscaping rather than the garage.
.
O'Neill noted that landscaping in this project is minimal and was accepted at that
level. O'Neill stated that the open space between the buildings is a wasteland or
unused at this point. Grittman indicated that those areas provide open space, but
o
~
.
there is no exposure to the street. O'Neill clarified that it wouldn't be considered
an amenity. Grittrnan stated that the areas are essentially storm ponding, but they
are hiding behind units rather than landscaping it and creating an amenity.
Grittman noted that the City requires 1 space per 3 units in additional parking.
Grittman stated that on street parking is not so visually obtrusive as bays.
Schibonski asked about design review. Grittman stated that there are no
architectural minimums specifically for PUD. Schumann explained that the
proposed or existsing zoning district ordinance provides the base minimums.
O'Neill asked ifthe Commission would like some additional design criteria.
Suchy, Spartz and Dragsten agreed that they would.
O'Neill explained that many times, design is a negotiated exchange, a subjective
decision. Grittman stated that some standards that the City considers amenities
are also subjective, referring to Prairie West's visual appeal but low-pitched
roofline.
Cottal!:e Charm
.
O'Neill asked Grittman about other cities' use ofPUD. How do they determine
"superior" development, is it structured or subjective? Grittrnan stated that it
varies based on what the City thinks it wants out of its PUD. Lakeville is very
structured in its requirements. The majority are much more subjective. Some
have specific standards about specific things, most commonly open space, and
then vary other standards.
O'Neill commented on the amenities in this project, including the brick, window
banding, shakes, columns, rooflines, and recessed garages. This development
also uses a lock box mailbox. O'Neill noted that they got closer to the required
setback for the garage, but flexed the house setback. Grittman stated that this
concept is much more reflective oftraditional home design with the house
forward and recessed garages. It is much more of a neighborhood oriented
design.
Riverwalk (Hans Hal!:en)
O'Neill noted the use of brick and landscaping elements to add appeal to this
project. He referenced the tight transition between properties and explained that
the project utilized a one-way drive with parking in front of garages. Again,
design elements include front porches with columns and steep pitched rooflines.
Grittman stated that setbacks were as low as 8 feet.
.
4
.
Sunset Ponds
O'Neill stated that the developer used PUD to allow narrower lots and also some
townhomes. The narrower R-2A lots were intended to create a neighborhood
style district. Instead, what the City got were suburban splits on narrower lots.
O'Neill stated that the R-2A design is supposed to be recessed, side-loaded or
rear-loaded garages and homes with front curb appeal. Anderson noted that these
units are two story slabs.
O'Neill commented that when the basic split-entry home plans came in, the City
forced garage windows in the front and side. O'Neill stated that we were given a
plan set and then at development stage, the developer came back through and
getting political heat, the City acquiesced to a watered-down version.
Schibonski stated that developers should present their designs upfront and if they
have something that doesn't meet their presented styles, they should have to come
back through the Commission.
.
Dragsten noted that in Sunset Ponds, the developer passed the project off to a
builder, resulting in a switch in product. O'Neill noted that has happened in at
least three circumstances. O'Neill stated that in more recent projects, staff had
talked about requiring the developer to putting together a booklet of home
designs, landscaping, maintenance, covenants, so that when they go to building
permit, the building department has everything they need to complete a proper
reVIew.
O'Neill referred to the townhome area, where some ofthe units have no variation
in roofline and no break-up of the wall plane. Hilgart stated that patios would
have helped. O'Neill noted that all of their plans showed walk-outs on these
units, so staff forced that issue on the units remaining to be built.
Grittman noted that many of the single family and townhome units have a lack of
focus on the entry. Essentially, they look like a box with no entrance. O'Neill
stated that the landscaping in R-2A areas of Sunset Ponds is woefully inadequate
at this time, but there is a landscaping bond in place to protect what is expected.
Grittman stated that setting expectations on the front end is crucial. Grittman also
noted there should also be 30 feet of usable rear yard, in most, if not all, cases.
Rivermill Townhomes
.
O'Neill stated that in this project, there is space in between driveways, as the
property line runs between the units. Dragsten noted this project has no
homeowners association. Schibonski asked if the City should consider what can
to be placed outside between certain hours. O'Neill noted that had come up
before the Council, but the Council didn't take any action due to split opinions..
5
.
Spirit Hills Tonwhomes
O'Neill referenced the amount of detail on the buildings, indicating that there are
lots of windows in the units, decks and porches, and extensive landscaping, which
make the units interesting to look at. He also noted the tuck-under garages.
Grittman noted that this development met the 78' building to building standard.
Schibonski stated that he got feedback that the garages were too small. Grittman
stated that since the time these were approved, the City has adopted a larger
standard.
Suchy commented that the development has a real community feel. Grittman and
O'Neill noted that they spent a lot of time with the developer on this project.
There was some concern about the back-to-back units in that all the light in the
units comes in the front. Grittman stated that there is a lot of break up in the wall
and roof plane and a lot of glass in these units.
Suchy asked about the feel inside. Anderson stated that they have an open floor
plan that opens the interior to light.
Schibonski stated that he likes this project better than most shown. Dragsten
asked ifthis project is built out. Anderson stated that it is not.
.
Carlisle Villal!:e
Schumann commented that City staff has worked hard with the builder in the R-
2A areas to meet the landscaping requirements in the code.
Suchy commented that going into the development, the smaller homes are first,
with the larger homes are all in the back. Grittman noted that staff fought very
hard for a lower density and the City conceded to the developer and let them put a
higher density and townhouses in. This is a struggle that staff have had in trying
to enforce standards, which showed in this development. O'Neill stated that the
developer starts out ambitious and then their efforts steadily erode.
Grittman stated that the south was supposed to be R-1A with R-l on the north
portion. However, the City allowed the developer to average a 3 unit per acre
density over the whole site. Suchy asked about the averaging, stating that it
seems to cause a lot of problems. Grittman stated that the averaging oflot areas
and widths allows for more flexibility in setbacks and lot arrangement. He
indicated individual lot averaging wasn't the problem, it was averaging of the
density as a whole.
.
O'Neill noted that many of the R-2A homes in Carlisle do comply with what was
intended for that zoning. The focus is on the house, and features a porch and
includes a recessed garage. Grittman indicated that sometimes, the City focuses
6
.
too much on the size of the house and not the detail or amenities. Anderson stated
that some of the R-2As actually have more square footage than many R-l or even
R-lA. He explained it is because these units go front to back. Some are at 1335
square feet on each level. R-lA homes in Carlisle have maybe 1100 or 1200
square feet.
Schumann commented on the tree preservation plan for the R -I A area, suggesting
that in the future, the City look at clustering and capitalizing on open space to
protect natural amenities.
Grittman noted that lot width isn't necessarily the answer to saving more trees. It
is possible to do, the City just has to ensure the right process which is most often
custom-graded lots. He indicated that the City and developer can't worry about
making all the lots walk-outs. The developer also has to manage where materials
are stored and how access is controlled.
O'Neill commented that there is one remaining area with a lot of tree cover, the
Gallagher property. They are asking for annexation. We want to make sure that
we get whatever ordinances we need in place, as this may be the last chance to
save or incorporate them properly.
Hilgart stated that there is no reason to have a PUD in an R-lA area.
.
Hilgart asked if staff finds more problems with larger developers. O'Neill stated
that it has been mixed, but we have been doing better. He stated that what is
tougher is the locals with connections who are able to apply political pressure.
Eae:le Crest
O'Neill noted that this project has a relatively uninteresting streetscape, limited by
site constraints. Suchy suggested requirements to vary the style of the
townhomes, to make projects more attractive.
5. Planning-Related Comments
Suchy asked staff to respond to some questions she had received regarding the
City's planning process.
O'Neill and Schumann discussed recent strategies developed to improve the flow
of the process, including holding a pre-design meeting with all potential project
developers and a new development guidebook. They also described how a typical
planning application flows through the planning cycle.
.
7
.
6. Adiourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO ADJOURN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION
CARRIED, 5-0.
.
.
8
.
.
.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006
6:00 PM
Commissioners:
Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, Craig Schibonski, William Spartz,
and Sandy Suchy
Council Liaison:
Glen Posusta
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Angela Schumann and Steve Grittman - NAC
I. Call to order.
Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and declared a quorum.
2. Approval of the minutes ofthe regular Planning Commission meeting of Tuesdav, April 4th,
2006.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF TUESDAY, APRIL 4TH, 2006.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
3.
Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
O'Neill clarified that item number 8 actually pertains to an update on the YMCA property in
relationship to the comprehensive plan amendment considered at the previous meeting.
O'Neill added as item 9 consideration to appoint two members to serve on the comprehensive
plan update task force.
Dragsten asked about the informational flyer included in the Commission's packet. Dragsten
indicated interest in attending the comprehensive plan session.
4. Citizen comments.
NONE.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Concept
Stage Planned Unit Development for Rosewood Heights, an 8-unit townhome unit
development in an R-2 (Single and Two-Familv Residential) District.
Applicant: Minnesota Development Agency, LLC
1
.
Kimberly Thompson, NAC, illustrated the site, stating that the concept design is for 8
townhome units. The layout includes two 4-unit structures with a combination of side
and front loaded garages along a 20' drive aisle.
Thompson stated that for a PUD, the ordinance requirements allow for flexibility from
performance standards, under the understanding the site and building design will be held
to a higher standard. The side-load garage has been incorporated for that purpose.
Thompson noted that while a 20' drive aisle design is allowed, it allows for no on-street
parking. The City required 5 parking spaces per unit in a recently proposed concept stage
PUD. Thompson reported that this concept allows for only 4 spaces, about 5 spaces short
ofthe actual requirement for guest parking. Thompson indicated that during a review
meeting with the applicant, they stated that they could provide an off-street parking bay
for more guest parking. Staff also is concerned that the dead-end drive-aisle does not
provide for easy garbage or fire access. The driveway design, especially for the end
units, presents a difficult turning radius. The applicant has indicated that they are willing
to look at widening the drive aisle.
Thompson stated that the density of the site is 7.2 units per acre, while by comparison,
the density for the original plat of the City is approximately 5 units per acre. Thompson
also noted that the concept shown illustrates a limited amount of open space.
.
Thompson explained that another significant issue that will need to be addressed is that
by vacating the Palm Street right of way, the City would be cutting off potential access to
the lot to the west. A private street would eliminate the access, as well as potential access
for properties to the east and west of the site.
Engineering staff is looking at options on storm water issues, as there are some concerns
regarding drainage in the area. Thompson stated that the applicant is interested in
possibly doing a mirror image ofthis concept on the opposite side of the street, which
would limit setbacks for both rear and front yard and on-street parking.
Schibonski inquired who owns the Palm Street right of way. Thompson replied that the
City owns it, and would need to work out an agreement with property owners if vacated.
O'Neill stated that if the City likes the plan, they could work out a deal with the
applicant.
Dragsten asked ifthe street were vacated, would a cross easement be put in place for
access to the adjoining property. O'Neill responded that is an option. Dragsten asked if
this plan has been updated since staff made comments on the site plans. O'Neill stated
that while it hasn't been, the applicants have indicated willingness to respond to staffs
concerns. For example, the applicant has indicated they are willing to put in a dumpster
enclosure to solve the garbage access issue and would work with staff and the fire
department on the fire access.
.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
2
.
Hearing no comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Matt Froelich, Minnesota Development Agency, addressed the Commission. Froelich
stated that most of the issues have been discussed and can be addressed. Froelich stated
that they will need to bring a hydrant into the development, and can provide a 28' street
section to accommodate parking. He stated that as the units will be condos, there will be
an association to take care of garbage removal. Froelich stated that in response to access,
cross-easements are probably the best way to handle access to other properties. Froelich
showed an alternate sketch, noting that if they pave to the lot line, it also accommodates a
turn around.
Dragsten stated that he doesn't see anything that would stop the project; that the concept
gives the applicant direction on whether to move forward.
Suchy referenced the ghost plat, stating that because ofthe area, she has the impression it
might be too dense. Suchy asked if there a chance he would do single family. Froelich
stated he doesn't see the ghost plat happening as they would have had to tighten setbacks.
He indicated that he wants to concentrate on this project. Suchy asked if the concept
would include sidewalks, pathways, or centralized area for gathering. Froelich referred
to a possible ponding area as an open space amenity, stating that they have tried to work
on how to get rid of the water. Froelich stated that in their opinion, it is a City problem.
.
Suchy asked if they will landscape and maintain both the front and back of the units.
Froelich confirmed they would. He stated that the associated would plow the streets,
shovel drives, take car of garbage, maintenance, etc. Suchy stated that she likes the
concept of having economical housing for seniors and likes that the applicant tried to
side-load. She indicated that she does have concerns about the elderly making the turns.
Froelich stated they would work on that, they had included the side-load did it for
aesthetic purposes. Suchy commented on the garage size. She inquired if these are units
for the elderly, would Froelich consider moving the unit back to make them larger.
Froelich stated that they could, although the types of items that fill up a garage may be
ruled out by the association. Suchy stated her concern is for wheelchairs or walkers.
Froelich stated that the rear yard setbacks will need to be confirmed in making the
garages larger.
.
Spartz asked if they have a cost per unit at this time. Froelich stated that they are age-
targeted affordable senior housing. Spartz asked how the applicant plans to keep it
affordable, and still meet the standards of a PUD. Froelich stated that the affordability
comes from the size, as the units are about 1100 square feet. Froelich explained that the
unit size and the City delineating the right of way would help keep the units under
$150,000. Spartz stated that storm water is a concern and is glad that they plan to address
it. Spartz commented that he thinks the road does need to be 28' and agreed that the
garage sizes are small for handicap accessibility. Spartz also noted some concern
regarding density. Dragsten asked Spartz ifhe wanted the garages to be the minimum
code allowed by code. Spartz confirmed.
3
.
Hilgart asked if they make road 28', would they lose some of the front yard setback.
Froelich responded that the road would be moved to the east instead. Right now, it is five
feet offthe property line. Hilgart stated that he also would like to see the garages at 450
square feet. Froelich responded that they can look at that. Hilgart inquired what the
maximum density for this district is. O'Neill responded that the standard is I unit per
6,000 square feet, so the actual allowable density isn't far off what is allowed in the R-2.
Hilgart stated that his concern was that with the recent Ruff Auto PUD, the City indicated
that it would not allow that kind of density. He stated that the City needs to reconcile that
decision with this project.
Hilgart asked what amenities this project has that would allow for a PUD in terms ofthe
quality of the buildings, etc. Froelich stated that the standard seems to be floating and
that he doesn't know how to exceed a standard that doesn't exist. He commented that the
exterior materials will be upgraded. Froelich indicated that the key is to remember that
this is a redevelopment and they need to work with the site. Dragsten asked if Hilgart's
concern is with the density and lack of open space. Hilgart confirmed. Froelich stated
that their green space exceeds the green space standard, although with a 28' road, that
changes. Dragsten stated that the question is the amenities for this number of units.
.
Schibonski commented that he likes what Froelich is trying to do for seniors who want to
be in the downtown area. Schibonski stated that the garage size was a concern and is an
issue for elderly people. Parking was also a concern, which Froelich is starting to
address. Engineering is an issue for him in terms of storm water, which needs to be
addressed at the next level. Schibonski also stated that garbage at the end of street in
dumpster can be a concern for seniors. Joint driveways make more sense. Froelich asked
if28' street accommodates a garbage truck backing up. O'Neill stated that they are
trying to eliminate backing u; that is something we can look and talk about. Schibonski
agreed that the density seems too high for this space. Schibonski indicated that he is still
trying to grasp what kind of open space amenity the City would be getting for the PUD.
Dragsten asked what the front and side yard is in this plan. O'Neill stated that this can be
somewhat confusing to explain. The front yard is the shortest side frotning on a public
street, but the way the buildings are configured, the front of these buildings is the side.
According to the letter of the code, the plan meets our basic perimeter requirements.
Froelich stated that the backyard is 30'. Schibonski asked if 4th Street is the front.
O'Neill confirmed.
.
Dragsten indicated that he also had questions about the garages sizes and thinks they
should meet the code minimum. He referenced the access issue, noting that they had
talked about cross easements. Dragsten stated that the stacking shouldn't be a problem
with the 28' road. Dragsten inquired about the roof pitches, as the plans don't contain
that information. Froelich stated that the overall roofline would be 7:12 with 8:12 gables.
Froelich stated that if we change the garage fronts, they will need to work on architectural
detail. Dragsten asked for the size of the rear patios. Froelich answered that they are 7' x
10'. Drgasten stated it would be nice if they were a bit larger. Dragsten commented that
when this comes back, the Commission will be looking for an intense landscape plan.
4
.
Dragsten asked about building materials. Froelich stated that what is shown in red will
be brick, although the color has not been not determined. The tan will be architectural
vinyl with shakes. Froelich stated that the garage doors are standard raised with windows.
Dragsten commented that the roofline should be broken up.
Dragsten stated that his other concern is density. It is a redevelopment area, but at the
same time, his concern is the number of units and then making them blend into the
neighborhood. He indicated that the project won't blend no matter what, but to be less
obtrusive, 8 units is a concern.
Suchy asked if it would help to move the buildings back. Dragsten stated that perhaps he
can offset the buildings.
Froelich responded that as far as fitting in, the south side is commercial and short of one
house, there are apartments in the area. O'Neill stated that the lot area per unit is close to
standard required.
Posusta noted that the applicant has provided more than the required amount of green
space. Schibonski clarified that widening the road takes most of that out. Posusta stated
that the Commission has to realize where this project is located. Dragsten stated that the
Commission is looking at how this will blend with older single family homes in the area.
.
Spartz stated that he would suggest 6 units to meet PUD standards. Hilgart asked ifthe
applicant increases the garage size and width of road, what the PUD would be for.
O'Neill stated that a PUD would still apply because they don't have access to a public
street and would need an association. Hilgart stated that in the end, the City would get an
association-maintained development, with little variation from the code. Hilgart stated
that he doesn't have a big problem with density, ifit falls in line with the code. He
commented that his issue is consistency with previous reviews. O'Neill clarified that 4-6
units is the direction we gave developers for the Ruff project, as well. Thompson pointed
out that these are also smaller units.
Dragsten summarized that the major issues that the applicant will need to address at
development stage are the unit count, patio size, setbacks, drive aisle width, garage size,
open space and landscaping.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROY AL OF THE
CONCEPT STAGE PUD, BASED ON A FINDING THAT WITH COMMENTS MADE
AT THE HEARING, THE PROJECT WILL MEET THE CITY'S INTENT FOR PUD
DESIGN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
Commissioner Suchy excused herself from the meeting.
.
5
.
.
.
6.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Open and
Outdoor Storage. Open and Outdoor Sales and Displav and Minor Automobile Repair in a B-
4 (Regional Business) District. Applicant: Jeff's Dream. LLC/Moon Motors
Thomspon presented the staff report, illustrating the project's location. Thompson stated
that the guidelines for each of the conditional use permits were outlined within the staff
report. The applicants have met the majority ofthe requirements, so Thompson indicated
that her comments would be limited to the remaining issues outlined within the
conditions of approval.
Thompson reported that staff had met with the applicants to review the conditions. The
applicant is willing to provide fence detail for the outdoor storage area, which staff has
also requested to be paved. The applicants indicated that they are willing to work with
staff on that issue. The site plan meets the minimum parking requirements, but does
require one additional handicap space. Thompson stated that the landscape plans show
two boulder display pads which will be visible from the freeway; the exact design will be
determined later.
Thompson stated that the total area of five product identification signs will be considered
as one sign to meet the code for number of signs allowed. While the entire banner as one
sign exceeds the code limits area area allowed, staff is willing to consider the area of each
sign separately in terms of area in order to conform. Thompson reported that another
issue is access for semis into the truck bay. The applicants have revised their plan to
widen this area and remove a parking space to allow for movements. Staff would
jrequest confirmation of the turning radius. Also, the lighting standards will need to be
landscaping with the parking lot islands. Thompson noted that grading, drainage and
erosion control plans are being reviewed and that the applicant will need to comply with
all building regulations in relationship to fuel.
Dragsten inquired about the test track. Thompson stated that the applicants have
indicated that they do not have an exact design, but it may be covered with a rubber
mulch.
Schibonski asked about a photometric plan for the open and outdoor storage area.
Thompson illustrated where the standard would be and what City standards are.
Schibonski clarified that they would need to convert one spot to a handicap space and
questioned whether it was included in the total parking calculation. Thompson referred
to the service enclosure which had been added and noted that the applicant would be
updating their parking calculations to correspond to that addition. Drgatsen suggested
they add the revised calculations as a part of Exhibit Z.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
George Fantauzza, Nelson Building and Development, addressed the Commission on
behalf ofthe applicant. Fantauzza explained that they have revised the site plan in
response to staff's comments. Fantauzza noted that the each of the trailer parking spaces
6
.
would actually count as two. He stated that they will redo the parking counts, which they
intend to meet. Fantauzza referred to the site plan, indicating that they are trying to
design the site to also accommodate a future building pad. The contours of the site
dictated where the building would be located. The building sits at highest part of
property facing 1-94. Fantauzza noted that they would submit turning radius information
to staff on the truck bay. Landscaping efforts are focused on the building sides, with low
grasses at the front for visibility. The intent is to have some mounts for display purposes.
Fantauzza stated that the test track will not be used by the public, it will be used for the
mechanics. He indicated that the applicants would like to have a discussion about paving
within the fenced area. The fence will be a high grade steel fence with whatever
necessary for screening, but there is concern about black top.
Fantauzza briefly reviewed the elevations and materials of the building with the
Commission. Fantuazza noted that people are not going to see a lot of the back of the
building.
.
Schibonski asked what the test track would be made of as noise is a concern. Joel
Erickson, Moon Motorsports, addressed the Commission. Erickson stated that he had the
test track area in mind for ATV use. As it wouldn't be a dedicated track, it would
possibly just be green grass, or mulch and wood chips. Fantauzza stated that the intent is
to stay as environmentally friendly as possible. Schibonski clarified that employees
would not be using it. Erickson confirmed it would just be a mechanic area. Schibonski
indicated that he has no concern about that use.
Dragsten asked about paving the storage area. Fantauzza stated that it is a completely
fenced-in area on grade with the employee pavement. It is intended for new trailer sales
and machine cartons which are recycled. Fantauzza stated that they can pave it, but it
will be out of public view, and screened with opaque fencing. Fantauzza suggested Class
5 as an alternative.
Schibonski asked about the conditional use permit for minor auto repair. O'Neill stated
that use is what fits their motorcycle repair best by code. Schibonski stated that he
doesn't have a problem with a durable surface material rather than asphalt in the fenced
storage area.
O'Neill asked Fantauzza to describe the band of trees along Chelsea. Fantauzza
responded that the trees are along the employee parking area. They are planning to leave
in the balance of the front area in a natural state, as that is back of building.
Drasgten asked Fantauzza if he had seen Exhibit Z and if there were any issues meeting
the conditions. Fantauzza replied that he only concern was the outdoor storage surface.
.
Dragsten asked ifthe building would be constructed of tip-up concrete. Fantauzza
confirmed. Dragsten asked about the columns material. Fantauzza responded that they
would be made of composite aluminum panel. The building would be white, with
aluminum, metal and glass accents.
7
.
Dragsten asked about the back of building, as it faces Chelsea. Fantauzza responded that
there will be vertical spacing to break the back up. Dragsten inquired about the location
ofthe trash enclosure. Fantauzza illustrated the location, hidden behind loading dock.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Spartz recognized that they have made provisions for extending parking, which shows
forethought and makes sense. He stated that he would still like to add to Exhibit Z the
requirement for revised parking calculations for staff oversight.
Schibonski stated that he did not believe a hard surface would be needed in the fended
storage area, as long as it doesn't create dust.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MOON MOTORSPORTS TO ALLOW FOR
OPEN AND OUTDOOR STORAGE, OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY, AND
LIGHT AUTO REPAIR, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USES
MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE B-4 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE
CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN EXHIBIT Z.
l.
2.
. 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The applicant shall provide design details of proposed fencing.
The applicant shall verify the turning radius for trucks entering and exiting the loading
dock.
The applicant shall provide at least one additional space for handicapped parking.
The outdoor storage area shall be covered with a Class 5 surface - curbing is not
required.
The landscape plan shall be modified to illustrate that each individual lighting standard is
landscaped.
The total area of the five individual product identification signs and one wall business
identification sign shall equal 100 square feet or less.
Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utility Plans are subject to review and comment
by the City Engineer.
Wherever fuel pumps are to be installed, the applicants shall comply with safety
installations in accordance with the City Building Official and Fire Department.
Revised parking calculations are to be provided to illustrate adequate parking as noted.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHIBONSKI. MOTION CARRIED,
4-0.
Dragsten asked what they will do with old building. Erickson stated that they are not
planning on selling the building at this time.
Commissioner Suchy rejoined the meeting.
Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning
Ordinance regulating directional signage or identification signs for institutional uses in
the P-S, Public Semi-Public District. Applicant: Resurrection Lutheran Church
7.
.
8
Dragsten inquired how much further the two signs would need to come back. Thompson
stated that they may be within public ROW. Anderson stated that they are on private
property. Schumann recommended reviewing the site survey to determine location.
.
Thompson presented the staff report, stating that by the current sign regulations, the
applicant is allowed one identification sign. In this case, the applicant is seeking an
amendment to allow two more signs, which creates a conflict with both size and setback.
To allow the signs as proposed by the applicant, the City needs to amend one of two
regulations. Staff would recommend an amendment to the number of institutional and
identification signs rather than directional signage.
Spartz asked how the applicant's current sign fits within the ordinance. Thompson stated
that the current sign fits within the ordinance requirements. The comer sign is 18 square
feet. The two proposed are 36 square feet each.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Anderson commented on behalf of Resurrection Church that the signs proposed are
consistent with what is happening in progressive churches in trying to give a visual image
to those who pass by. The major part of the signs proposed are actually interchangeable
banners.
.
Dragsten asked if these can be put anywhere else and meet the ordinance. O'Neill stated
that they cannot under the PS zoning district. The PS District allows semi-public uses
nearer to residential areas.
Schumann clarified that the signs had already been put up as part of the temporary sign
ordinance and are allowable at this time under that ordinance.
O'Neill noted that this may set a precedent for other districts. The requested total sign
area would be about 90 feet, more than what would be allowed in some commercial
areas. In no commercial area do we allow more than one per property.
Posusta stated that he would like to see this happen as the size of the property is a valid
part of consideration.
Dragsten stated that the question is not whether this request may seem appropriate in this
circumstance, the concern is setting precedent.
Spartz stated his concern is precedent setting for other churches on similarly larger
parcels.
Anderson stated that they would appreciate any consideration. The intent is to follow the
temporary sign ordinance with the hope of an amendment.
.
9
.
.
.
O'Neill stated that the Commission could limit the number of signs to the number ofright
of way, or discuss minimum lot size.
The Commissioners briefly discussed the merits and drawbacks of sign limitations based
on lot size or frontage.
Schibonski stated that he would be in favor of allowing a sign per frontage, but limit the
size of each sign. Dragsten asked if he would be concerned about lot size. Schibonski
referred to fairness to other churches. Dragsten suggested perhaps limiting signage to the
number of access points. Spartz referred to the possibility of subsequent requests for
variance for access points.
O'Neill commented that if the Commission is going to make a determination based on
exposure, they should consider frontage.
Hilgart asked how the sign was measured. Anderson indicated that measuring the metal
frame from the top to the "welcome" area, the sign is 36' in area. The face area of the
banner is only 24'. Hilgart stated that he would agree with signage based on a public
road right of way for a 10 acre site or larger. All the signs would need to meet setback.
Schibonski stated that he would recommend a maximum of 2 signs, no matter what size
of the site.
Hearing no further comment, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN
AMENDMENT, ALLOWING AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF
INSTITUTIONAL IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE TO THE PS ZONING DISTRICT
TO ALLOW 2 SIGNS AT A MAXIMUM OF 75 SQUARE FEET EACH IN
ADDITION TO EXISTING IDENTIFICATION SIGNS.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SCHIBONSKI. MOTION CARRIED,
5-0.
8. Comprehensive Plan Update
O'Neill stated that previously the Commission had considered an amendment that asked
the Planning Commission to redesignate the YMCA area from a combination of open
space and R -I A to a park space designation.
O'Neill explained that some months ago, the YMCA indicated an interest in selling the
open space for development. They contacted City and County in this regard. In terms of
the land use plan, the site was designated as open space, as it was presumed it would stay
that way. The Council established a task force to look at the possibility of purchasing the
property. The City and County have had good discussion with the YMCA. The YMCA
did an appraisal. In the meantime, the task force has been authorized by the Council and
10
.
County to negotiate with the YMCA to purchase the site. Additionally, the City has
increased its park dedication fee, which allows the City to pay for the cost of the property
over time. O'Neill explained that having the site designated as park gives the City the
rationale for increasing the fee.
O'Neill summarized that staff is before the Planning Commission to determine to what
extent they are supportive of this concept and in applying the additional fee. The City
does have the authority to designate the land as parkland and to designate it as open
space, if we have a vision for what it should be. There is a responsibility to pay for it at a
fair price. O'Neill stated that it is a major goal of the Council to work toward finding a
fair price so that the YMCA can feel good about the purchase. O'Neill stated that the
intent is not to diminish the land value. The intent is to identifY it as park land to start
building the purchase fund.
O'Neill noted that the YMCA did have representatives present at the meeting.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
.
Brian Kirk addressed the Commission as a representative for the YMCA of Metro
Minneapolis and Camp Manitou. Kirk stated that he is present to register the YCMA's
concerns regarding recognizing the YMCA area as designated park, before the City and
YCMA have an opportunity to negotiate a fair market value. Kirk stated that he
understands that at some point it will need to be designated, but changing it at this time
could have an adverse affect on the fair market value. lfthe City and County can't fund
the whole parcel, that leaves the YMCA in position to need to change the designation.
Kirk stated that the YMCA would request the Commission postpone action until the
parties can negotiate.
Kirk presented to the Commission a letter stating the YMCA's position from the Larkin
Hoffman, attorneys, for the record.
O'Neill stated that from a City standpoint, we are not obligated to ensure the highest
value for a property owner's land. If it is decided that it should be parkland, the
designation is needed within the comp plan. If the City leaves it open, you are letting the
market plan for you. Designation of appropriate uses is an essential function of City
planning.
Posusta stated it isn't any different than other areas shown as guided. Someone might
not want any kind of designation, ifthey don't feel it fits.
Suchy stated that her position has grown stronger that the YMCA is an amenity that
needs to be preserved for the community. The Commission needs to look out for the
City's best interests.
.
Spartz believes that the YMCA property is real estate and is subject to the markets
perception oflocation. He stated that any designation the City gives it will not change
11
12
.
the value. Spartz stated that he thinks this would be a tremendous asset and would be an
amenity for business and residential relocation, too.
Hilgart inquired why it is guided as open space as it wasn't intended to be developed.
O'Neill responded that it was presumed that the YMCA's commitment was to retain the
property indefinitely. It was never designated specifically as park for that reason.
Posusta commented that the comp plan is a guide that the City strives to meet. It isn't
necessarily that it can never be changed. O'Neill stated that the designation does give the
City the ability to charge the higher park dedication fee today. That is a primary reason
for designating the area as park.
Thompson explained that to designate the area as park land, it would need a comp plan
amendment, which requires a supermajority vote ofthe City Council. O'Neill stated that
Silver Springs is similar situation if Heritage's project is to move forward.
Posusta stated that some parts ofthe YCMA land are not in the annexation area and that
the township would have to agree to that. Posusta stated that they would only agree to
that if 75% of this section is already developed. They would not hesitate to let it become
part of the park system. Posusta noted that the County has stated that for their
participation, they require a large area.
.
Hilgart asked if Heritage would have to go first in order for the YMCA to be annexed.
O'Neill stated that they are umelated. O'Neill stated that to develop, the YMCA would
need City approvals and require annexation. There is the ability for the City to withhold
services. The City could say it is not going to serve the area with utilities. In response,
the YMCA could sell it to an individual who will sit on it until the City position changes.
O'Neill stated that we all have a vested interest in working together. Designating it as
park land, affords the City the opportunity to build a fund for its purchase.
Hilgart stated that he is trying to figure out if the land is really worth as much as they
think it is. Developers are saying they can't afford development and land prices are
going down. Hilgart suggested that perhaps the land isn't worth what people think it is.
O'Neill explained that the task force will be spending 2-8 weeks working on establishing
a fair price. We are looking at development ability, highland areas, shoreline regulations
in relationship to what is a realistic number of buildings. The task force will use that to
develop a value. Posusta stated that in reality there is about 700 acres of developable
land.
O'Neill stated that the Council has been visionary in saying that they think this will be
park in the long run and authorizing staff to work with the YMCA. The comp plan policy
would follow the momentum of the Council.
.
Hilgart commented that it should be noted that any development should be low density
with R-IA standards.
.
Hilgart stated that if the Commission does this, he doesn't want to say value should have
to go down. Whether it is park or open space, it seems like the City has same control, but
the designation is the key to funding the purchase.
O'Neill stated that if the task force comes up with a number and the YMCA isn't
interested, then the County and City can have a clear conscience in allowing development
to occur.
Schibonski stated that the City should thank the YMCA for their consideration for a City
purchase. He indicated that his initial thought was that we should call for a moratorium
to allow the comp plan update catch up. He stated that he thinks there is a good chance
that it will become parkland, but the City can't be sure until we have comp plan process
with whole City involved. A moratorium on development would give the City doesn't
time to finish the comp plan.
Dragsten asked Kirk for a timeframe on a sale. Kirk stated that it is the YMCA's intent
to sell as soon as possible. However, the YCMA is willing to be patient and willing to
negotiate with the City.
.
Dragsten stated that his comment on this is that while it would make a great parkland
area, he has a hard time with this when a property owner asks not to have it designated.
This is especially true because we don't know that we can acquire it. Dragsten noted that
we currently have no mechanism to purchase it. He stated that seems to step on the rights
ofthe property owner. Dragsten stated that in his opinion, the Commission should table
the decision, recommend the moratorium, or leave it as is.
O'Neill stated that the City Council and County are very supportive of it being a park. In
some respect, it is not in doubt, in their minds. The City has the authority to identify it as
such. A moratorium does make sense if there is a debate going on. O'Neill stated that a
moratorium is typically involved when there is more of a grey area.
Schibonski stated that it seems that the funding is the concern. Posuta stated that the City
addressed funding that when we raised park fees. Schibonski clarified that the Council
did raise the fee. Posusta confirmed and stated that the number might be too low.
Posusta stated that YMCA park development couldn't happen without the County's
participation. It can't be developed in pieces.
Dragsten stated that he doesn't know why the City can't enter into an agreement for first
right of refusal. Dragsten stated that he doesn't have anything against the idea, but he
doesn't feel it's right to designate it as a park, as it infringes on the YMCA's rights.
.
Posusta stated that in that case, then perhaps we shouldn't even be doing a comp plan,
because we might be stepping on people's toes.
13
O'Neill stated that the function of a planning effort is to determine appropriate land uses.
Dragsten stated that the change to the comp plan seems more reactionary than visionary.
.
Suchy stated that our job is to protect the City and determine how to plan the City.
Dragsten responded that the comp plan is a needed tool, but the City also needs to look at
property rights.
Kirk stated that the development rights are what they are, the YMCA isn't asking the
Commission to postpone the decision to drive up the value, we just want to get through
negotiations. The concern is that once the land is designated as park, the City can sit on
it, as long as they wish. Until we get to the point for a City purchase, the current
designation allows the YMCA greater flexibility.
Posusta asked if the designation truly matters. O'Neill stated that the City Council has to
grapple with the issue. They need to substantiate the higher fee.
.
Schibonski referred again to a moratorium. He stated that he doesn't know if the
Commission has enough information to make a decision. In the meantime, developers
are coming in, and the City could be losing the revenue stream. Schibonski asked if there
is other land the City intends to purchase for park. O'Neill responded that there is not at
this time. Posusta stated the decision is the City's on whether developers contribute land
or money. He indicated that the City would choose money only based on the YCMA
scenano.
Hilgart asked how far apart the City and YMCA are in purchase price. O'Neill reported
that the City appraisal has been ordered. Kirk stated that the YMCA has been open to
land study and information on the property. O'Neill stated that our next step is for the
City to finish the appraisal and then begin to negotiate price.
Hilgart asked if the City does change the designation, is it feasible that the City would
know if they are going to purchase the land or not. Spartz suggested that the designation
be triggered by a purchase agreement.
Hilgart stated that the City doesn't have anything to loose if it isn't redesignated now.
Posusta stated that we have to be able to tell developers how much park dedication per
unit. Hilgart stated that the City could change it right now, but if a purchase falls
through, they'll have redesignated without justification for the increase. O'Neill stated
that the designation could stay, the City would then need to negotiate with whomever
buys it. O'Neill stated that the City doesn't have as much leverage to collect funds on
something designated as open space.
O'Neill stated that it is a bold step, but it could be the signature park that could drive
many good things for the community. Planning is about having a vision for your town.
.
14
.
Schibonski referred again to the moratorium idea, suggesting an interim designation until
comp plan is done, that way, the YMCA could see a definite end date for a decision.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCHIBONSKI TO RECOMMEND
CLASSIFICATION OF THE MONTICELLO YMCA AREA AS PARK AS AN
INTERIM DESIGNATION, TO ALLOW FOR THE COLLECTION OF PARK
DEDICATION FEES TO BE USED TOWARD PARK PURCHASE. THE
RECOMMENDATION IS SUBJECT TO A FINAL DETERMINATION TO BE MADE
AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE AND IS SUBJECT TO
FURTHER PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AT THAT TIME.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED, 3-2,
WITH COMMISSIONERS SUCHY AND DRAGS TEN IN DISSENT.
9. Consideration to appoint two Commissioner to serve on the Comprehensive Plan Update
Task Force.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO APPOINT COMMISSIONERS
DRAGSTEN AND SCHIBONSKI TO THE TASK FORCE, WITH COMMISSIONER?
SERVING AS AN ALTERNATE.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART, MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
. 10. Adjourn.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO ADJOURN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
.
15
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 6/06/06
6.
Consideration of a request to extend an existinl!: Interim Use Permit for the
Alternative Learninl!: Prol!:ram (ALP). Applicant: Monticello Public School
])istrict. (~AC)
REFERE~CEA~])BACKGRO~])
The Alternative Learning Program of the Monticello School District is seeking
approval for an extension of their existing Interim Use Permit to operate an
alternative learning center at 1248 Oakwood Drive East. The site is zoned I-I, Light
Industrial.
The Monticello Public School District originally applied for an Interim Use Permit
for the 1997-1998 school year. The permit was approved at that time, concurrent
with a Zoning Ordinance amendment to allow for public education institutions in the
I -I District as an interim use, provided that:
I. A short term termination date is established in order to ensure that the
City's industrial development objectives are not affected by the interim
use.
2. The proposed parcel has adequate improved parking to accommodate the
student capacity.
3. The proposed building is constructed, or altered, only to the extent that
convenient re-use by office or industrial users would still be possible.
The City has reconsidered the permit twice since the original application. At that
time, discussion included the potential for a more permanent approval. However, it
was determined that a temporary use was more appropriate, given the nature of the
area and the likelihood that future industrial development would raise concerns for
the current location.
AL TE~ATlVE ACTlO~S
In regards to renewing the Interim Use Permit for the Monticello School District to
operate an alternative school program at 1248 Oakwood Drive E, the City has the
following options:
1. Motion to recommend approval of renewal of the existing Interim Use Permit,
subject to all conditions of the original Interim Use Permit, based on the
finding that the proposed use will not interfere with the City's long range
objectives of encouraging industrial development in the area, due to the
temporary nature of the permit, and the minimal alterations to the property.
2. Motion to deny the renewal of the existing Interim Use Permit, based on a
finding that the use would interfere with the City's long range industrial
development goals.
Planning Commission Agenda 6/06/06
.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the IUP. Conditions of the original permit should
continue to apply. No significant changes to the building or operation have been
made since the previous permit renewal. The applicant has not requested a specific
termination date. However, in the past the City has approved interim use permits in
three-year increments. The requested extension would therefore be valid until June
30, 2009. At that time, the applicant may explore alternate locations or request an
additional extension, provided the City has an adequate supply of industrial land
available at that time.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Aerial Site Image
B. Application Request
C. Site Images
.
.
.
http://156.99 .28.84/servletlcom.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceN ame=CustomParcel&ClientV ersion=3.1 &F... 6/1/2006
1'" 1 _1
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Phone: (763) 295-2711 Fax: (753) 295-4404
;,U:J,'J
.
MOJ\TIC~:LLO
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
APPLICATION SUBMITTALS ARE DUE BY 4:00 PM ON THE DEADLINE DATE.
.
Five complete large plans sets including the following plans:
. Certified Survey and Site Plan . Building Elevations
. Existing Conditions (including . Landscape Plan
topography and tree/ground cover) . Lighting
. Grading & Drainage Plan . Signage
. Utility Plan
Note: Additional information may be requested to evaluate a specific application.
All plans must also be provided in .pdf format via a CD or emailed directly to the
Community Development office at commdev@cLmonticello.mn.us
Twenty (20) complete reduced plan sets no larger than 11" x 17". Plan should include
north arrow, applicable dimensions and road access points.
Narrative description of request.
Completed application form, signed by property fee owner and applicant.
Fee and deposit per current City of Monticello Fee Schedule.
.
PLANNING PROCESS:
1. Application, required information, and payment must be submitted no later than 28 days prior to
the regularly-scheduled Planning Commission meeting.
2. Applications will be reviewed by planning staff. Only complete applications will be considered.
3. Applicants will be notified whether their application can be considered complete. Applicants may
be asked to supply additional information beyond required list above. Items will be scheduled for
Planning Commission public hearing when it has been verified that the application is complete.
4. A complete application will be scheduled for an Application Review meeting between staff and the
developer, which typically occurs one week prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
5. Applicant will receive a final copy of staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission on the
Friday preceding the meeting.
.
6.
7.
Planning Commission meetings are conducted at 6 p.m. on the first Tuesday of each month.
A Planning Commission agenda will be mailed to the address on your application.
8. Planning Commission provides a recommendation to the City Council. Council consideration
usually occurs on the 4th Monday of each month.
CONDUSE.HAN: 1/05/06
PLANNING AND PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES I
505 WALNUT STREET, SUITE 1 PLANNING CASE NO.
MONTICELLO, MN 55362
City Hall: (763) 295-2711 Fax: (763) 295-4404
E-Mail: Commdev(o).ci.monticello.mn.us
.:--1
~ONTiCEiLO
o
o
o
o
.0
o
KJ
$500 for single family/$20G + $500 deposit for all others
VARIANCE REQUEST
CONDITIONAL USE
9(1
o
o
o
$200 per application + review deposit
Conditional Use Permit
Planned Unit Development - Concept Stage
Planned Unit Development - Develop. Stage
Planned Unit Development - Final Stage
Final stage PUD requires no application fee/deposit.
o
SUBDIVISION PLA T
o Sketch Plans
o Preliminary Plat
o Final Plat
o Construction Plans
Sketch Plan: $50 + review deposit
Preliminary Plat: $300 .... review deposit
Final Plat: $50
Construction Plans: 4.5 % dep os it based 0 n constructio n cost.
SIMPLE SUBDIVISION
REZONING IMAP I TEXT AMENDMENT
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
SPECIAL MEETING
$200 - de osit Based on number of result in lots)
$200 ~ deposit
$200 + deposit
$350
VACATIONS/OTHER
$125
DEPOSIT FROM BELOW $
TOTAL FEE TO BE PAID
Deposits are based on expenses involved in reviewing application materials by City Stair and consultants and subject to modificocion. Consultant
services are necessary as determined by City Staff for Planner, Engineer, Attorney and other consultants. Deposits required as follows.
.
$500
0.3 acres
$2,000
1 unit
4~10 acres
$6,000
$10,000
2~10 units
$150 per unit
$100 per unit
11+ acres
11+ units
PROPERTY ADDRESS/ LOCA TION:
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
CURRENT ZONING:
D Agricultural/Open Space
o Residential
o Business
XJ Industrial
Lot 001, Block 002 Oakwood Ind. Park
(CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX & CIRCLE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT)
AO
RIA
Bl
I-IA
Rl
PZM
@
R2
B2
1-2
R2A
B3
R3
B4
R4
CCD
R-PUD
PZR
DESCRIBEREQGEST: Mnntirelln Pllhlir <;rhnnl< Y'PqIlP<t< "n evtpfls.ion nf trE' intE'Y'im
_J:QruJj tin nil 1 IJ Sf' pf' rm i t io.r.....1 he A It ern il t i v p . I P il rn i.n.Q-PLllgnuTI....-(.ALtJ--5.c hnn 1 1 nr il t ed
-Dn n;\ lnrJnnrl nr UlP __
FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT - Proposed Zoning:
.
FOR SIMPLE SUBDIVISION - Size of Parcel to Be Divided:
FOR SUBDIVISION PLAT ONLY - Proposed Name of Plat:
TotaJ Plat Acres:
Name afFirm Pre ann Subdivision Plat:
Address:
Primary Contact Name:
E-Mail Address:
Day Fha ne No.:
FAX No.:
FOR VARIANCE ONLY
Please identify the unique property conditions or hardships tbatjustify granting of a variance.
-, -~-""_._- ---_.,-"'.~._."""-_.."""'-_._".._-_._."'----"_._--_.._-,"'----..'-----.--.- ---_..,-"""'.,-------- .-..-.-.,.'..-..-.-------."- - - -.-------...---------.------..,...---
-...-.''''--...'.'--'"''.------..,.--.-...----..'''-..----..."--'- ,,-. ------ .---"'--.------"'.-----...-,." "----"-."'---'.'--"-"'"
FEE TITLE PROPERTY OWNER NAME:
Wayne Hoglund
Monticello Public Schools
APPLICANT I BUSINESS NAME:
.
Address: 302 Washington Street
Monticello
James Johnson
763 -271-0300
. MN
55362
.im,johnson@monticello.k12.mn.us
763-271-0309
FEE PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE
Date
"MAN: 2r~' #~'i.;
y signing, appU agrees that aU information provided is true md
correct, that the applicant has provided all required checklist
Information provided by the applicant on this form is true informatDn, and that the applicant has read and understands aD
4~sJa.
and correct. applicable Monticello City Codes.
APPLICATIONS W ILL ONLY BE AC CEPTED WITH ALL REQUIRED SUPPORTING DO CUMEN TS.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
DEADLINE FOR AGENCY ACTION
o 60 Days:
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED:
o
120 Days:
FEE RECEIPT NUMBER:
o
Waiver Received:
APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE
BY:
DATE:
.
o
NOTICE SENT:
CASE ASSIGNMENT:
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 6/6/06
7.
Consideration of a request for Preliminarv Plat and a Conditional Use Permit for
Development Stae:e Planned Unit Development for a 113-unit residential
development in a PZM (Performance Zone-Mixed) District. Applicant: UP
Development. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
UP Development is seeking Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD approval
for the Villas on Elm, a 113 unit residential development project on the former Ruff
Auto property. The project is divided into two phases. Phase I is located south of
West 6th Street and east of Elm Street. For this phase, the developer is proposing
attached townhome units in a combination of 3-unit and 4-unit structures. Phase II is
located south of West 6th Street and west of Elm Street. The developer is proposing a
combination of detached and attached townhomes, as well as single family homes for
this phase. Both sites are zoned PZ-M, Performance Zone Mixed Use. Permitted
uses and standards ofthe R-3 Medium Density Residential are generally applied to
the PZM district.
The intent of the PZM/PUD district is to encourage a creative and innovative design
approach to commercial and housing developments. The district provides flexibility
from standard controls to allow the creation of common open space, wetlands and
recreational facilities as well as mix of housing types and styles and commercial uses
where feasible. Due to the flexibility of performance standards, a PUD is required to
be held to higher standards of design and site amenities.
ANALYSIS
Comvrehensive Plan: Monticello's Comprehensive Plan designates this area for
performance zoning of mixed uses.
Zoninf!: The subject site is zoned PZM, Performance Zoned Mixed Use District,
which allows for development flexibility and special design control within sensitive
areas of the city due to environmental or physical limitations.
CUP/PUD: A Planned Unit Development allows for flexibility in performance
standards with the understanding that the development will be held to higher
standards of site and building design than would ordinarily be required. It is the
applicant's responsibility to design the development with significant benefits and
communicate those benefits to the City for allowing a CUP/PUD.
PHASE I
Desif!n Overview
The concept plan for Phase I has been modified to show 43 attached townhome units
on a 6.8 acre site. The number of units has been reduced from 45 in the original plan.
1
Planning Commission Agenda 6/6/06
.
The gross density of the site is 6.6 units/acre. The townhomes are proposed in mix of
seven 4-unit structures and five 3-unit structures.
Lot ReQuirements and Standards
The following table illustrates the applicable performance requirements for the
proposed use in the PZM/R-3 district:
Lot Area Per Unit
Front Setback
Side Setback
Rear Setback
Usable Open Space (500 sq. ft. of usable
open space per dwelling unit)
R-3 Reouirements
5,000 sq. ft./unit
30 feet
20 feet
30 feet
21,500 sq. ft.
ProDosed
5,815 Sq. ft./unit
25 feet
I 7 feet
25 feet
46,174 sq. ft.
The applicant will require a variance from all setback requirements. The applicant is
proposing a front yard setback of 25 feet and a rear yard setback of 25 feet, both 5
feet short of the minimum requirement. A minimum side yard setback of 17 feet is
proposed. The proposed variances may be addressed through PUD.
.
Oven Svace
In the revised plan presented by the developer, only one area of usable open space has
been provided. A second area of open space in the southeast comer of the site has
been removed to accommodate a stormwater pond.
The remaining open space is a 46,175 acre area located on the eastern portion of the
site. The total area of open space has been greatly reduced from the 84,000 square
feet proposed in the previous plan. However, it still satisfies the minimum
requirement of 21 ,500 square feet.
The applicant has surpassed the minimum requirement for usable open space.
However, as proposed, only the eastermnost townhome units border the public open
space. All other units have limited physical and visual access to this amenity. This is
especially a concern for the units south of 6 Yz Street, as this is a public street and will
experience higher traffic volumes than the private streets. In order to create a more
significant benefit to justifY the flexibility for PUD, staff encourages more common
open space accessible by all units. At a minimum, the applicant should provide
pedestrian connections from the units south of 6 Yz Street to the open space.
.
Buildinz Desizn
The site plan proposes 43 attached townhomes, arranged in row house format in 3-
unit and 4-unit structures. The applicant has previously submitted building elevations
for these units, indicating two-story attached units with a straight roof-line. The
applicant shall verify that the illustrations submitted reflect the actual building design.
This information is vital to ensure that the development provides a higher design
standard to justify the flexibility granted through PUD.
2
Planning Commission Agenda 6/6/06
.
Access
The site plan illustrates a central one-way private drive extending off of West 6th
Street and exiting onto Elm Street. This north-south oriented drive is divided into
two sections, labeled Street B and Street C. The drive is shown at a width of28 feet,
measured face to face. West 6 y, Street is a public street, extending west to Phase II
to provide public access to, and through, the development. The majority of the units
will be provided vehicular access via the north-south oriented private drive; 11 units
will be accessed off 6 y, Street.
Parkin!!
The Zoning Ordinance requires each townhome unit to provide two off-street parking
spaces for residents. There is no Ordinance relating to guest parking for residential
developments. However, during concept stage review the City Council required two
guest parking spaces per unit. The applicant has addressed parking concerns by
submitting a detailed parking plan, illustrating guest parking through on-street
parking and off-street parking bays.
Three units have been removed from the east side of Street C to provide a 6-stall
parking bay. A second 6-stall parking bay has been located to the west of this units,
directly off 6 'l2 Street. The applicant has also retained the 5-stall parking bay located
in the southwest comer of the site.
.
A breakdown ofthe total amount of parking spaces provided is illustrated below:
Off-street arking (2 s aces per unit)
Pro osed
86 spaces
Guest Parkin
Driveways
On-street Parking
Parking Bays
Total
Pro osed
86 spaces
30 s aces
17 spaces
133 s aces
Each proposed townhome includes a two-stall garage and an 18-foot wide driveway.
Each garage will provide the two required spaces per unit. Behind a two-stall garage,
it is anticipated that residents will park two cars in the driveway side by side.
.
On the revised concept plan, the applicant indicated locations of potential on-street
guest parking. A total of 30 spaces have been provided for on-street guest parking;
three spaces on 6 'l2 Street, six each on Streets B and C, and nine spaces on the west
side of Elm Street. At 28 feet, Streets B and C are wide enough to support guest
parking on one side. Elm Street and 6 y, Street are both public roads, wide enough to
accommodate parking on one side. In order to prevent complications for Public
Works officials during the winter season, no on-street parking shall be allowed from
November to April. Exact dates may be determined by the City Council. Hours of
3
Planning Commission Agenda 6/6/06
.
on-street parking shall also be limited to prevent overnight parking. Said hours shall
be determined by the City Council.
The applicant has also provided three parking bays for a total of 17 spaces. Bays are
located off Street B and C and 6 'h Street. Staff is concerned with the location of the
parking bay off 6 Y, Street, as it is a public street. Allowing this head-in bay without
sufficient bay depth (as provided for example on Walnut Street) on the north side of
the street may create access issues for those attempting to enter and/or exit the
parking bay. Furthermore, the addition of parking bays has also contributed to the
reduction in open space. Staff recommends removal of this parking bay, as the site is
over-parked according to the standards below.
In the past the City has required one guest parking space for every three units, or 15
units for this phase of development. There is no record of complaints regarding
parking deficiencies when this standard has been applied. The applicant has provided
133 guest parking spaces, 47 of which are located outside of private driveways, the
equivalent of three guest spaces per unit. Overall, five parking spaces have been
provided for each unit. Staff recommends that the City consider a less extensive
guest parking requirement to create a more attractive development and limit the
number of complications for Public Works officials.
.
PHASE II
Desizn Overview
The second phase of development is 14.48 acre site located in the northwest quadrant
of West 7th Street and Elm Street. 26 attached and 28 detached townhome units are
proposed for this phase, as well as 16 single family lots. All single family lots are
located along the northwest perimeter of the site.
The applicant has relocated one of the detached townhome units from the south side
of 6th Street to west side of Street A, in the center of the development. The detached
units have been modified by adding driveways 25 feet long and 16 feet wide to each
unit. These driveways will serve as additional off-street parking and will also provide
each detached unit with a slightly larger amount of private open space.
A significant amount of additional guest parking has been provided on the west side
of Street A, adjacent to central open space.
Lot Requirements and Setbacks
The following table illustrates the applicable performance requirements for the Phase
II townhome units in the PZM/R-3 district. The layout for each unit is slightly
different. Therefore, proposed setbacks reflect the minimum for the site.
.
4
Planning Commission Agenda 6/6/06
.
Lot Area Per Unit
Front Yard Setback
R-3 Requirements
5,000 sq. ft./unit
30 feet
Proposed
5,053 sq. ft.
detached: 25 feet
attached: 25 feet
detached: 5 feet
attached: 8 feet
detached: 20 feet
attached: 25 feet
30 feet
67,518 sq. ft.
Side Yard Setback
20 feet
Rear Yard Setback
30 feet
Perimeter Setback
Usable Open Space (500 sq. ft. of usable
open space per dwelling unit)
30 feet
27,000 sq. ft.
Both the detached and attached townhome units will require variance from all setback
requirements. The proposed variances may be addressed through PUD. The
applicant does meet the 30 foot perimeter setback.
.
During concept review, staff was concerned with the front yard setbacks for the
detached units. This issue has been addressed by adding driveways to these units to
create a more substantial setback. However, by doing so the applicant has created an
issue for the side yard setback of unit 24. By shifting this unit back 20 feet, the
applicant has pushed the northeast corner of the lot into a drainage and utility
easement. The rear corners of all detached units will be set back approximately 17
feet from one another, creating a cramped development with a very limited amount of
private open space.
Staff recommends removing two to three detached townhome units to create a more
significant setback between the rear corners of each unit. Staff also recommends
removing unit 24 to allow for a greater side-yard setback between units and eliminate
crossing into the drainage and utility easement.
Single family homes in the R-3 District are required to have a minimum area of
10,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 80 feet. The average lot size of the
single family lots is 11,083. The average lot width is approximately 69 feet. The
required variance for lot width may be addressed through PUD.
.
Usable Oven 8vace
The concept plan includes two areas of usable open space. The larger of these two
areas is a 1.22 acre space located in the center ofthe development, surrounded by
detached townhome units. This open space has been reduced by over 7,800 square
feet from the previous concept plan. This is due to the relocation of one detached unit
and 9 additional off-street parking stalls. The applicant has also removed a 1.1 acre
area of open space inn the southwest corner of the site, as this area will now be
covered by a drainage and utility easement. This open space area has been replaced
by a .3 3 acre space, located in the center ofthe attached townhomes. Direct access to
this open space is limited to five units.
5
Planning Commission Agenda 6/6/06
.
The total amount of usable open space for Phase II of the development has been
reduced from 108,900 to 67,518 square feet. However, this still satisfies the
minimum requirement of27,000 square feet.
Parkinz
The Ordinance requires two off-street parking spaces for each unit. For single family
homes, all required parking is addressed through two-stall garages and driveways.
For townhome units, a total of 108 parking stalls is required. Each unit contains a
two-stall garage to satisfy this requirement. Guest parking has again been addressed
through a combination of driveway parking, on-street parking, and parking bays.
Each unit contains an 18-foot wide driveway behind a two-stall garage. Thus, the
driveways can be expected to accommodate two guest parking stalls.
The following chart illustrates the total number of parking spaces provided for
townhome units:
Off-street parkin
Pro osed
108 s aces
.
Guest Parkin
Driveways
On-street Parking
Parking Bays
Total
Pro osed
108 spaces
22 s aces
24 spaces
154 s aces
The site plan indicates a total of 22 on-street parking spaces, four on Street A, 14 on
6th Street, and eight on Elm Street. The width of all streets proposed for on-street
parking is 28 feet, wide enough to accommodate guest parking on one side. As stated
above, seasonally and hourly limitations shall be attached to on-street parking.
The applicant has also proposed two parking bays with a combined total of 24 stalls.
One 9-stall bay is proposed near the detached units, on the western edge of the open
space. A second 14-stall parking bay is proposed on the west side ofthe central open
space. Staff is concerned with the size of these head-in parking bays. Parking bays
are typically designed as small, obscure, scattered lots to provide guest parking when
other options are not available. The size of the proposed parking bays is quite
extensive, and reduces the amount of usable open space. A total of 130 guest parking
spaces are available without having to utilize head-in bays.
6
.
Staff again recommends that the City consider lowering the standard for guest
parking to the one space per three units, as was previously required. Under the
previous standard, the applicant would only be required to provide 18 guest parking
stalls, as opposed to the 154 proposed. This number of stalls provides 2.85 guest
parking, and 4.85 total parking spaces per unit. A less extensive requirement would
allow the applicant to provide guest parking through on-street parking and/or a
Planning Commission Agenda 6/6/06
.
combination of on-street parking and one smaller parking bay. From a planning
perspective, replacing open space with parking that is not needed (based on actual
examples/experience) works at cross purpose with the goal of creating a superior
development.
Access
Access to the development will be provided by providing connections to existing 6th
Street and 6 y, Street to the east of the site. A 24-foot north-south private drive is also
proposed, labeled as Street A.
The site plan illustrates a driveway for each townhome unit. The Ordinance limits
driveway width between the public street and the property line to 24 feet. The
applicant is proposing several 34 foot, shared driveways for the attached townhome
units. Staff recommends that an alternate driveway design be submitted to include a
6-foot wide landscaped buffer between driveways.
Buildinf! Desif!n
The proposed PUD requires flexibility to several performance standards for the
PZM/R-3 District. Said flexibility is allowed for PUD, granted the development
provides higher standards of design and site amenities. The applicant has submitted
building elevations for the single family homes and detached townhomes.
.
The provided single-family designs include a variety of split -entry homes with
protruding, front-loaded garages and few aesthetic details. Illustrations of model
detached townhomes indicate all rear loaded units with protruding garages and few
aesthetic details. The street-face ofthese units is a typical rear building design. Thus,
the view from the street will be plain and monotonous.
It should be noted that the illustrations provided by the developer are merely
examples of potential building designs, and not exact plans. The applicant has
indicated that once the application process is complete, the lots will be sold to a third
party for development. Therefore, the applicant cannot guarantee any building
designs.
.
The concept of Planned Unit Development is to provide procedures and standards that
allow development of a variety of residential types, recognizing that traditional
density, bulk, setbacks, use, and subdivision regulations may be inappropriate.
Specifically, it is intended to encourage innovations in residential development that
encourages a greater variety in tenure, type, design, and siting of dwellings. A higher
design standard must be present in order for a development to qualify for PUD. By
not guaranteeing the exact design of his structures, the applicant is not able to
guarantee that a higher quality design will be utilized on the site. Therefore, staff is
not able to accurately determine ifthe development contains any tangible benefits that
would justify the flexibility to performance standards granted through PUD. In order
to be approved as a PUD, the applicant must submit samples of the actual building
designs.
7
Planning Commission Agenda 6/6/06
.
Landscape Plan
During development stage, the applicant is only required to provide a preliminary
sketch of proposed landscaping. Multi-residential sites are required to provide a
minimum of one tree per dwelling unit.
A landscape plan has been provided, proposing a variety of overstory deciduous trees,
ornamental deciduous trees, and evergreens. A total of 153 overstory deciduous
trees, 17 ornamental deciduous trees, and 89 evergreen trees are indicated on the
landscape plan. The site exceeds the one tree per dwelling unit minimum requirement
for the multi-family units. Each single family lot will contain two overstory trees
along the front lot line. The majority of ornamental and deciduous trees are proposed
along Elm Street.
The applicant has submitted an individual unit landscape plan, which is subject to
further review by planning staff.
Stormwater.
Storm water plans have been submitted to the City Engineer for review. The
following comments are based on the preliminary plat, grading, utility and
landscaping plans.
i.
.
The storm water calculations submitted with the plans are incomplete. These
calculations should include detailed hydrology for the 2-year, 10-year and
1 DO-year events. Calculations should also include; runoff from each sub-
watershed, peak discharge rates from each pond, high water levels and normal
water levels.
. The peak discharge rate of storm water off-site will be required to be equal to
or less than the existing discharge rate. This will most likely require a storm
pond in the northeast comer ofthe site (Area P3), which is currently proposed
to discharge directly into the city's storm sewer.
. The proposed pond at the southwest comer of the property near the
intersection of 7th Street and Elm Street appears to be too small to manage the
designed watershed. The applicant will need to demonstrate that this pond is
large enough to manage the 100-year storm event within the high water level.
. The proposed grading plan shows two small swale areas on the north property
line near Lot 1, Block 37 and near Lot 13, Block 37, which will manage off-
site runoff. Calculations will need to be provided detailing the amount of
runoff and the discharge rate.
.
Because these plans propose a catch basin in the open space of Block 47, it is
assumed that there will be some short-term ponding in this low area. To
evaluate the impact this will have on the open space, a separate sub-watershed
.
8
Planning Commission Agenda 6/6/06
.
should be created in this area to determine the amount of runoff directed to the
CB and the time of water detention.
.
The City of Monticello's storm water management plan has identified the
need for a regional pond on the east side of Elm Street within this property
and the property directly south. The ponding responsibility of this parcel has
been calculated to be 4.2 acre-feet of storage below the 930.2 elevation.
Previously, it was determined that the surface area needed to provide this
storage would be I acre ofland graded with 4: I side slopes. Future
development to the south will be responsible for the remaining acreage
needed. Volume calculations of this basin will be needed to see if this
requirement is met.
Grading, Street, and Utility Plans.
Grading, drainage, and utility plans have been submitted to the City Engineer for
review. A memo outlining engineering comments has been attached for reference.
The applicant shall be required to comply with all recommendations of the City
Engineer.
.
Environmental Concerns.
The subject site is on the former Ruff Auto property. Thus, there are concerns with
soil contamination from motor oil and other toxic fluids, particularly on the portion of
the site west of Elm Street. The applicant has stated that a significant amount of
clean-up was conducted on both the east and west portions of the site, and that it has
been determined that both sites are acceptable for development. Staff recommends
that the applicant submit all documentation relevant to environmental concerns and
clean-up.
CONCLUSION
The main issue for consideration is whether or not either Phase would meet the City's
requirements for PUD approval. Planned Unit Development allows for flexibility in
performance standards with the understanding that the development will be held to
higher standards of site and building design than would ordinarily be required.
The applicant has revised the plans from concept stage to provide additional off-street
parking for guests, as directed by the City Council. Modifying the plan to create
additional parking has resulted in a reduced amount of usable open space and
ultimately a less desirable project. In addition, the applicant has only provided
conceptual unit designs, as opposed to actual building designs.
.
It should be noted that planning and engineering staff met with the applicant on May
30 to review the issues outlined in this report. The applicant has indicated that he will
provide the Commission with his position on these issues during the meeting.
9
Planning Commission Agenda 6/6/06
.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Regarding the Development Stage Planned Unit Development for UP Development,
the City has the following options:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Development Stage PUD, with
conditions, based on a finding that the proposed mixed-residential design
establishes a high quality residential project that meets the City's intent for
PUD consideration.
2. Motion to recommend denial ofthe Development Stage PUD, based on a
finding that the project fails to demonstrate tangible amenity-based or other
benefits that justify the flexibility granted by the PUD zoning regulations.
3. Motion to table the Development Stage PUD, based on a finding that the
applicant has failed to submit materials necessary to determine whether or not
the project demonstrates tangible benefits that justify the flexibility granted by
PUD.
RECOMMENDATION
Given past experience with conceptual building designs in other projects in the City,
staff is reluctant to make a recommendation for approval until actual building designs
can be verified. Without being able to guarantee the building design for all units, it is
difficult to determine whether or not the proposed development meets the
requirements for PUD approval. The Planning Commission should make a finding
that the building designs submitted are satisfactory upon any recommendation of
approval.
.
SUPPORTING DATA
.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
1.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
Z.
Aerial Site Image
Applicant Narrative
Preliminary Plat - Dated 2/2/06
Utility Plan - Dated 3/6/06
Street and Storm Sewer Plan - Dated 3/6/06
Grading Plan - Dated 3/6/06
Tree Survey - Dated 3/6/06
Development Landscape Plan - Dated 5/13/06
Individual Unit Landscape Plan - Dated 5/13/06
Conceptual Building Elevations - Single Family Detached
Conceptual Building Elevations - Townhomes
Conceptual Building Elevations - Single Family
City Engineer's report dated 5/24/06
WSB Stormwater memo dated 5/24/06
Conditions of Approval dated 5/31/06
10
Planning Commission Agenda 6/6/06
.
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions of Approval
Villas on Elm Development Stage PUD
I. The parking bay on the north side of 6 \I.z Street shall be removed.
2. Pedestrian connections shall be provided in Phase I for the units south of 6 \I.z Street.
3. The applicant shall verifY actual building designs for single family homes, attached
townhomes, and detached townhomes.
4. An alternate design shall be submitted for the rear of all detached townhomes to
create a more attractive streetscape.
5. The applicant shall consider removing a number of detached townhome units to
create a more significant separation between the rear comers of each building.
6. The applicant shall remove unit 24 in Phase II to allow for more separation between
units and create a more significant setback from the drainage and utility easement.
7. A six foot landscaped buffer shall be installed to separate all shared driveways.
.
8. An alternate parking plan shall be submitted, reducing the size of both head-in
parking bays in Phase II and restoring a portion of the usable open space.
9. On-street parking shall be limited to one side of each road. Signage shall be posted to
communicate where parking is allowed.
10. Hours of on-street parking shall be limited to prevent overnight parking. Hours shall
be determined by the City Council and posted.
II. On-street parking shall be prohibited during snow-plowing season. Dates of said
season shall be established by the City Council.
12. The applicant shall submit all documentation relating to environmental concerns of
the site.
13. The applicant shall comply with all recommendations outlined in the City Engineer's
report, dated May 24, 2006, and the stormwater review memo, dated May 24, 2006.
14. Other conditions as recommended by the City Council.
.
11
.
http://156.99 .28.84/serv1et/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=CustomParce1&C1ientV ersion=3.1 &F ... 6/1/2006
71?
.
The Villas on Elm is our vision for the old Ruff auto yard. We would like to bring this
nice mix of new housing into your community. This high quality community will be
association maintained and have a good variety of housing choices. It will have 16 single
family lots that will act as a nice buffer for the neighborhood to the west. These will be a
minimum of7500 square feet, and many much larger. We would ask you to allow
minimum side yard setbacks of nine and six feet with a minimum of fifteen feet between
structures. This will allow for some design possibilities that will benefit the quality of the
homes. These single family homes should sell in the $265,000.00 to $300,000.00 range.
As you move closer to Elm Street on the west side there will be 28 single family town
homes that will look nice by the single family homes. Also there will be 26 attached
houses that will be in two three, and four, unit buildings. As you move across elm to the
East side we are proposing three and four unit Row homes. This will make for a great
neighborhood and a good transition to the town homes next to the property. As I
mentioned, this will be association maintained with all the exterior maintenance and
snow plowing. The association will also restrict parking and have very specific rules that
will help keep this a great community for a long time.
We will be doing all the street and utility improvements this year. The home
construction will begin this fall as well. This project doesn't require an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet or an Environmental Impact Statement The town homes will
range from $195,000.00 to $250,000.00. The quality and design standards will be
something we will all be proud of.
.
.
\4~i
, \ ,I~ ~
'-'~~~
r- ~~~ ~
al:::l"> ~
lii ~ I!;g~
is . ~ ~"'~l.)
~-;::. '1'0, lSl!:!a:-
ffl...... h!J.. ~~5 S
~in" "l:lJl ~!E :!
"'~~" 0 'I
';;e~ I~::i: e::ss
~~~~~ 2 E
~~~1ij~
i
)j
b
..
(;'c,jf
~~e
~"'~
~ ~S;
15~11
,,~
15]~
...
~ ~~:i
~ ~O::j::;
~ ~~~
~ Q..(ojl::i
~ ~~&i
' ~~::.
~ 'o~
j ~~~~
~~ -l/}~O
~-' ~~tl:8:
"
~
~
,
~
.3
'"
.3
tV"-
...:.. ~
~ ~
~. ~ ~.~
3,
~
..
0 n .~
' > ~ ~ ~
.
h ~'
9 .L
.
~
i
.
.
~
i:q
.\l.~
~~ J!
~15 ~
~"t ~
~:S.15 t
~~ & c
~i! ~
&(t) Q ~
..~ ~
· i~ ~ "
"~t ~ ~!
is .. ~ ~ :o! ~
VI:SLij.... ~ ~
:s 'Q ~ :s..., !5 J:>
~il: ~~ li~
~t~ ~~ ......
.... oS <:> ~'K 0:5
~l~ "" ~:
~:S~ ~~ <>~.
li: ~ ~ <:> ... ~ ~
i!:;l'i", .....11> 05
~ "<:: i'i:S "'l g
~~~ ~: 8{
~ l(5f" 'c~ fu '" t
-.I a.il " - is <.l .tl ~
~~~~ 3~ ~.5:,,;
'Uti
/f
11
,,~~ 1
:1/ '"
i
!
,!
~i
h
Ii
/ Ftf!!) ~~ - ---;1
/------1 .~'" ! /
// '''.', i: ~
'>___J ~'
" '1~, ~ /
:'~ ':,"-J ;;
, f'- :~"' ~
" ;.,:'-1,,.""'......
~* j><:;" "",'; ~~~
! / .......... j\;...
..... ;,'i"
'"
.
.
!
~.
I
~ :
~ /:j-:
~ I
~ I
'L I
~- - -~
· I r l
~ . I
g I
I
I
"
"i!;~
~~I
~.
~~
h!
g~.
hi~
~Ih
. ~
~
~
~
15"
~
!
Lt:\
~
o
"
~
r
.
!
~
"
"
!
"
">,...
-,
" "
~~!
!
K
~
,
~
.
~
~
-"'2
~!
...{
o ""
" 'I
" -.
Cl .le..
> . <
, ~-
:q
l'5
"
~
!:i
~
.
~.
,
~/;,./
"
<
,""
~.'
I'. I~' '~D":,,
I,';'l.j<t .
P;"Ci:; IS
,-
::."
~
q <$
t !!
I
I
I'.l' !
. ,
eLl!,
<(iJj
::;: ~~
i: O!A
~ :::~
o <\j~ f
s:: Q ~ ,;-, ..s.
~
"
~ ,~
I~, "''''''1
"
,"
~,oI> -
~~
,.
;f
"
.
~
~
<
<;)
"
- ,.:.r,
~
"
i?
~
~
~ '1-"'" __1_
- - 1- .. <Il
\j 11'-11'1-,.,<011 II
<t: '-1:-1.... ~ ~ II -.I
l1s l:-J1'S~"(<.l:l(')~ i::!=
1<0 "~~"~~~~ ~
~ l:j~:S~~I!:;~~
l< 1!:<c<o[jjUj"l ~
~fijo:.; Q::
o.:~~ ~
~~
"
"'"L'f''lT-' ~
,-':-.,-,
li-
';~
OJ I'h
l!l~
1~~t1
:I",,,,
1'1
Ii
1/
-"I
)
A..
I '"
I I
,
/ i
I
I
~
-<<to'",
'Iv"
~
'"
~ 0
u ""
0;"':
~ S "'~ ]~~~~ ~~ 5ll " ~~~;~ - <- "~~~ ;:~ ~. ~- ~~
~~l , "' ~~~~
'" "- NO :;~
~ '?~~O\~ ~~ e~ "- "" "~ ~" "" ;;..,
'~ ~'i?~ ~'i?~l~ ~'i?~ ~Oi&l ~"'&l ~':O\ o~
~ ~O lI:! $IIOlH GlIo; B':Y B'HU '! "! ~k!!.
~\Il .j~l~~ ...$1 "J;l ~~j .j~!i5~ ~~! ,j~S ~~~~~ ,j~.s ,j~S ",.sl ~..
i2 c.. "'Cl:.s \olQ:S ."
'" , , I I I I I I I I I I
'-' ,
~ - ~ ~ ~ '" ~ ~ '" '" ~ ~ ~ :1
'"
B
00
"
::l~ a
. <% olll
tii~::3 ma :s
III VlO}-~ If)lr C <(
N5~ZOI-WID55 ==
N .0 llli7io~I-GOj2e~ ~
I/') N eiZWZ~lLJ~Ula::W 1ii
t:1 ~i d ~~ ~~ F ~i::b Q
~ ~ ~a:: O-~g~:I;F~~O~ ~
U ..J >jt C~z~r:2;:i:F I=!F~ w
w <t. .O-a.. . cr::t::lF >-<<~1- m
~ ~@~8 lD5?([J2~z[~ ==UJw a
-' Ow' ~:I:lIl=>Z~1J fi~c ':j
~ ;zm~ ..J~~a::~O~<<~ <(
c:iw~:iti:l <j!<;:l;lLlu....l a::~< \ii
~~1Il~~...J Ui ~3:S;!!;:;;!12 ~8ti :!;;;
~~it:ffill):;;! lIl~::::! [3 ~~ ~~:g; .zr:
ft:. <i!'lIliJi o::jwFO::z% >- wm
~bo:!::ow <t<J:3i'w0< a:::g;wO:';:l
-<( z ol1l w:I;3' OFf-..: ...J::l<
3=~<1Il5~ -'1Il>-I-1iioIllI-O...JUr
.f5l1lf:]ffi5 I- a::~05 ::).11) Z~:2a::lIl
a.,IO...HI)a:: ~o 2uf!:;odiolllo(l1
-;1'-=>% W 0:: I- Z 1fI..J Cl l-
ooo..=>i't:1Il 'ClO~OWZ~~Zf:]~z
'lIl'u')<( a..>-<(uomooz<(u<<
tCllIlCO.....!::~15:J:~wo::lOI= F~5==~
Vi::l~::IO::~<u::l 52:0<::15 ~...d'5~ >-
~<5<~~~~<u~~~<~ww~~~
~".; c-i ,.).,f L<i <D r..: wen;::'
"'.,.
7';;"""
;;"\
%. I iF./
"':,,,,,, jilo /
"''''1''' \. '
.r~ lib' '. '." ..'
~oo/ ...,;: ,'-~
i'l' .....-.....,.... -.
'/If . ~
~Rt;"'~'" L,
"
f':~.., '" .~.
1''''').,t_O :-
~. h/~ ".
" ""0 '"
'If! 1 it
'"
'"
.. >.
~
~~
i't
..:1&
I
,
i
!
~~
'.
ag ~q
o-
j
~
O;~"'B....,
4'oS~6~0-
""'.It>-.;,.
~~~ .,
~'1Ii ~~~
~~.si"'<;;
) .:i~!g
, I
. I
/.
"
i
i
.1
.
t
....!
91
(
" I!
~ I
I~~I!
/)/
II
I
II ,~~
"
f: .:ls
U Ii' ,<>"
,
"
,
i~-
'I'~~
if!:
~<>:s
.
"
> "
~ 0
c
< z
ij ,
> ~
. "
- . N
"
m " c
m 0 ~
:l c
0 z ~
. ~ m
0 . .
"
" C ~
. 0 "
~
oj " "
<
< 0 ,;
iii eg~
! ~~~
~ "'alX
" ;~~
~
m <"z
~ oj :;:;t:~
0 < ;s:;<c
z " N .;
---
~
, >,
.... "c's:r.~
'-~:;6',",:::'"
.............o!b.'l'
'--- ....... ,'>,
....... ~ ,....
'"
"
~".
,
-~-
~
~
"
~
Ii 0
."
!Ii"":
~ s.~~ j~~~~ ~:::{ ~18 ~ ~~~~~ , ::l~~~
~~i .~ ,- ~. ~~ ~- ~;
iJj ~.s" ~~~~&I ~~ 1~~:il~ f ~;~~ N"! ;;~
., :lR ~- ~ ~ ~-
~':~ ., ~'rI:;j .. ~1~
~ ~I<l>H ~~a ~~i ~II"" s.vaH eld!!.l ~O>&I Q:l"":;J .~
lli~V1 >i.!ilt.sSi ~.,! ~..! '! ", ....11 a ~II !l.
1Ur:l::-S...;ti ~~.s ll:\i:i:s .. ~~.s;j~ .. ~~.s ~~~~~ .:i&.s: ...fl ~t,. d~.$
~ li.ia:S
'^
" I , I I I I I I I I I I I
~ - '" .., " '" <0 "- '" '" 2 ~ ::>
\Q ~
I;j
~
~;;;
w
:i~
I" N ~
W t;~~
"", ONN
"w z~~
z~
o~ eog
"" w~z
"
~o i:i66
~ "'z 5wl1l z
~ ~<
Zoo u~< 0
~ 5~ ",,,00 ~
<01"
"" ~~~ ()
, w
J. ~~w (/)
"<,,,
~ 0000 .....
'" ~ ~!g~ w
~gll) w
, Cl::
J. iii5E~ .....
~ . <2< (/)
Swd 5
_Nro
,
0:
~
"
~
~
~
if!
>,
"
((
(
~
~ ~" "~a~ ~:g ~~ ~;:;; ~:;:
Ii S~~~ ~~ ~~ ~, t::;;; ""o;ifl:igj ~~ ~~ ~~
~ S'" ~;:t; . ;;~ ~ -~~~~ ;;'3 ~Si ~~~O\ ~~ ~'iri ~r~ ~,.
<n~~", ~~ ~~ ;g ~ ~"'''' ~t~ a~~ ~IIH! ~n 1li's~
bj ~~~! ~:;~lJl~ M ~1I't et'~ Sllo,!!.l ~U ~~~~i1 Gln::J: ~~.s: ~'l:;.s .-
~~ :J: o,o,! ~ ll:l110\ .! .j~t~~ ~~...
~ ~~t~~ ~~j ~~S ~~s I I
~ii:; ...., W':l<Sl.J I :2
I I ~
I " "
"' I I " '" '"
.., ~ ~ ~
" '"
1;
"'
Gj
'"
, W
!~ I
l' ~
,I,
ill "
m!1 ~
~
"'
z
o
'"
5
"'
'"
"
i
I Wi
,d~ ~
;ql ffi
l!1~1~ ~
m~ ~ :Jw
::><!l-
~~
"'w
~5
~
~~
~o
~
.
~~;d
;~.It
;IUI
~~U;
U~h
'~~~.
t~~~~
.~~B~!
; i,.m.
~i'~~1
~dm
~
,
~ . "
<l.
rl-NI~ ~. ~
~ ~i 0
UI ~ ~
~ t ~ "
II I
~r 0
t
,ro, "
N1I/I~ I -
.
"
~
/
.---- ---'~~---~_._------_._--_... ._-~---._---- _..__.~--~. -~-----~._..-
I r IIi:l ~
_ b ~ ""
H'~~
~ ~.. <;"i ~ I e/oSfJUu/w 'OllfJ:J!luoW . ~~~~~ I "'-J
0 bl~" ~ I
~ z ]'~~f .u.~~
~ >
~ ~ ,~ . ~ I NI77c13c1I7:JSONI77 g~~1 .
. 0 ~ l~jl ~ ~.~~~
~ L:J ~ ~ ,,~
...,,~ 13 ~ "q;~fI;l""'~
. n]~ . ~ ~~
1!~ " .1, L
-' ~
~ 'II ~
Ii .woa~~J~
Tm
~ I
~, I
iJ
1m
1, 1'.1
fJtl
1ll ~'
~ .
~ g *
9 Q z
~ ~ t:l
~Iq
H
_0.1
,0 .,'~i
~~
---
~-.
'~'"'
'-., ----......~
',,-
"',
"-
>I
II
0-)
"'
~
o
=
Q~
~~ j
~~ .
g~ ~
wg:
:;::'~ ""
~e 'J)
o~ ~
~~ :3
;/;- ~,,;
8~ .:::
0::0 ;;
Or 0 ..
~~ ~~
~~ ~~
16~
6< VI
;'~ ~[5
r=~ ~~
,,"0 ~
8~ ~'~
i';j~ ~g
wr ~~
me z,:::
0",-,0.....
>-8 ~S
8~ ~~
CD""' ;3:::-
'-'''' o~
~~ ~t<:
:38 ;l~
~~ ~~
<t~ .:':2
~
,,"-0 ~
~~~ ':
z,::="-. ::::
s:;:sE::!S C<!
~~2~ i
2",,~~ ~
:?5"-'CL", 0
g:~~~ ~
~~':?~ <
-~ e=
~~~~ ff
i7iS:i;;-;:~
~E'=~,.!>
~~g5
Q:;U::'~cr;
"''Z'8''",
tJl!;",-~
Q ~<
g=~S
:iffi~,,-,
~e:;5:i
.....r:... ::;,
~!:1g6
'<<""""-
In!
~:;q&~
~~Bilg
""klD
~~~,~
w
~
~
ill
x
~
Q
i~ ::
~8 o~
~:::l i3et:
~~ ~~
~5 --
0"- ""LS
~~ e~
~5 ~~
~w' ~~ ~~
~ ~~
:- o::V1 ~I::-':'
lL. wo:::-;;~
5 ~~ ~2'S
Z..J ~~
~~ ~~ ~~
""f':, :I:"",,""
z< "'.... ~;,[
<:=<~ '-i<'cw~- _~
8,~ ~_ ~.~.
0< ~ .~~~
z2: ~~ y,~
~~ "" E:
~~ ~o4J; ni~;;-;:
~~.=; ~G:rs"
::<;: <f€ 3~:i
~~ ""~ n:~-'-'
OlS l>:!~ ;);:3gs
B;." ~~ ~gj~
"'="? \:,~ :5~ii
. ^
~
OL
""
U .
~I
, :S I
1___
~
~z
8;l
=,"
<"
~-<C;
~Q-
<~
",,'-"
z,
:~
~'5
~;;-;:
!i52
~~
i=!~
<<
Big g:t;
ol:!('?; fi~
~~ ~~
-'f-- gs~
;in< ""-w
>-6 9;;
""6 ::::<'-'-~
1:::'::5 et:o;!'
~: ~~g;j
0-0; ""'<Set:
C5ii': <<:w::>
~~ 0i:7>~
--.J::ii -,'.'-'0
S1~ g:3i5
~~ ~Lw~
5"" ::;;Fu
~~ ~~~
~
~
!i1
o
~
~
"
8
~
."
~
"
~
~
~
~
we>
~0
~B?8
~~i]i
~~~
~~~
.~<
3""'ti
~~
"I;Ig~
~ ~
G:1~~
'!;;:::l~
~~~~
i:::i~~t;
S::i=g
q~~8
~g~~
:::>,,-,, '-'
i'i53:i:3:g
i5~g,s
2"#OIw
.:5F:;ii:5 0
"- ,
0"'" .OJ "'"
~~~t! ~
5~?5~ =
o..J"'cw co
1i5~:2~ 0
:::!~a<D !:'J
1t;F~ ~
~gg~
0",05,-"
~8"",S1 :
~
~
~
.
<
~
.
.n
~
~
if
"
Q
3
i'!
Q
"
~
<
~
~
<
Q
~
,
~
~
~
z
~
~
z
~
,
~
E
Q
8
~
~ ~
i I
.~ ~
~~ ~
8;3 --
r>::LoJ ""
~o "
:;;:!;:;;; ~
a;;~
oo::t: 1="
~3i ""
~~ ~~ iP
tJ'" ~t-i g
~t;; e=~ ~
~~ ~~ <(
I I
,I I
dL f
till j
,IL,
ilq i
illl I
!ll!
; lll:
z
~
~
~
~
u
7
<
~
Cl
~~
~~
:C15
:~
;l"
~o
<z
~~
:i~
::J~
<8
d
~
-_'__'_'_~---,__.__....J
)0
.~
· I
....
~f
~
~I
~Ij
j,!
+-
IHl
IPI
l!! I
plj
Jill
11 "
,d
III
I
I
,
.
[jj ,
I"
"'
S! ,.
~ ~o
,~
~ ~~ ~
t . ~
\ ". r,'.
~ ,"'l(;
\r
(<.1'
,-
HI
1
I I'" i.
~~-1J ) j
, /1 //rI0~__
S{/~'... i /
e '...... II!
~ ~ - ~
-~-- "
w hJ ,
.
w ~ "
"'0. <:' ~... I I I .!l
W::J i Wj B/oSeuufW 'Ol/eOfluoW ~Iv ~
Sgllll [1 ~~ i
I "':;: -l!ii~i I
'<:)Wl iii' I~I ,i
.....z ij .II! NtT7c13c1tT:JSONtT7 ~~ih i i ~ !
..... C) ;; Ii ih, '0: ~~~5
LlJ Vi ~"- <l.
::.:: L&.I ~ FJj I ~. ,
"'0 11& . d II') I I
<( I
::; i ,
.1\Q./r3C_.ltJ#rDW .
l
I Ii
~~
~a
~,
I
~ . . . .
~ ~ ~ ; .
.
~ H ~
. ! H
I ~ B
i ' , , I
i ~ ~ ~
! . i . w
~ ~ I
:Sl ~ , ,
"0 . .
"
~6zt;
--.-
"
~ Gl
Lf:
"
"
p-"
II; j
III'
If 1
rr
~;
i
v;
W
F
o
Z
w
~
~
u
~
o
z
<<
~
cU ~ ~b a< ~ ~; ~~
:~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~z ~~ g i:E b ~~! S ~
1.5!:i is ~~:.-g ffi :;;~ ~ii '" 8!,1 ~ cQ:.- 3 b .
""~ ~ a:",~< i 1t8 ~3 ~ ~E:'l '" ~8~ < c "'"
~"";:!i e ~~ 0 "" b ~ ilI~ e 80::; 2: ~ Ig
>; ~ ,~'o' 2'~ ~~ ~ "Ii ~ ,". . ~ g
~ ;f a:o~~ ~ ~ ~ ~"': ~ :it;; ~ d~t;; ~ __ ~
~~ 8 ~!5~2 ~ ~~ <~ ~ ~Ir ~ .I!:I~~ ~ ~ ~
~F>; ~ 8~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ g ~~ ~ 8~g ;;;?i ~
""~ ~ ~~I~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ i
~~ ~ , igo:5~ g ~~ ~~ ~ g~ ~ b~;;;~ S c ~
5. .~ 5~~~ ~ ;;H~ 2 ~ii ~ ~~~i ~ ; i
~~ i~ !S~-; i Ii ~~ io::; ~~ ; ~~~~ ! ~ ~
~j S~ ~~~~ ~~ ~: ~i ~~!~ ~ ~i~E ~ ; ~
:~ .~ ~~~~ ~~ ~:;; ~~ "~~; ~ ^.~~ ~~ ~ ~
~c ~~ ~~~~ ~~ iJl~ ~~ _~ c~ , i ' ~~ ~~ ,~__; :
""~ qj--' ~~~ - ~~ ~~ qj"- <15 ~~~ ~ "',< Ie ~ ~~!ai g
~8 :55 :g~;Qi !!lS ~'" ~~ ~;j lij~~ i~ ~~~8 ~ 0;: ~ ~
il ~~ i~~~ I~ ~~ ~~~ i~ j~i ~i5 ~~~i : ~~ ~ . ~
"'2: ~3 ~t:l.i!e "'ii; <I ~b;:!i --'~ <l!~~ ~~ ltjll~", e ~!;;! o;~ ~
~. .~ ~~.~ ." :::~ .~~ ~~ m'~ .' ,m=~ ~ f ~il E
~~ ~~ ~~;~ ~~ ~i ~~!li ~~ ~~~ :i~ ~~~iJj ~ ::i: ~~ !S
~~ ~~ ~:5~< ~"'~:i :5~~ ~~ ~i::! ~a ::~<~ ~ :~ :!'5 ""
-"''''' ...."'...,;....<<1 _ ____
I I
I 1
1'- :
'I .
II" I
"I' I
1111 i
.all .a
"'1
q ~ i
! Il' I
1111
t1
I'
~
iJ
I
III J
11'1
ill f, I
HII .
Ii Ii !
l!l 1
I
I
.
.
w
w
~
.
~
.
"'.
(\
!l:.
~
<:) "
'l: ~
~
~
!:::~
:l!!
Q;:
.~
~
- ,
I .
W '.1 ~
W ejoseUUfW 'Ol/e9fjUOW " ~
"'0- .n~ I .!il
w::l PU ~'~~"ij
s g i l~j ~l~p I i I ......
I '" !I~' ~ ~ Os ! SNI1'7c1 tJNLLNI1'7c1 U~i1t
....2 giill H~l 1 ~~*"~ I I ~ ,
...I l:J z:i" ~ l~~! , !Il;ie-- ,
I w - ! '. NO/.1I1'ONflOd 711'~/clA.1 ~~Ii5'-S .
"VI . lfll ". ~ Ill" I
"'w - ~ !
l\ ~Cl ]~t I r II I I I ~
~""'--./~ I ,
II
, " ..... ~
~
,! 'i Ii i ~
II !IHI
I
. Q. ..
~
, .'.., ~
I II ~.
I 1111 ~
~I !I' ~
Ii 'H' :t
2, .".. ~
~
'tl
ill
~
~
.~
"
"
~ ~
, ....' ~ , .. . .. ~
Iii II
, <Il II' <Il
~I 11111 ~ II I' ~
'I'
" !I/ ~ II , ' ~
"
j. . . ~ -. . ~
";:: ~~
~l
~! ""~
~l ~~
.~~ .!,! ~
" "
~~
i::::
~
~
~
In rrm
II~
In rrm
II..
U
UP Development - Examples of Single-Family Detached Product
.
.
.
,
/'-
....
...
=
'C
Q
-
.~
-=
...
..s
....
~
~
>.
-
..
S
..s
1'0.
I
~
"Sb
=
..
rrJ
....
Q
'"
~
-
c.
S
..s
i><
~
I
....
=
~
s
C.
Q
-
~
~
.
ll.
;l
.
, 4
\
U,
r.
,
1
i
'\\'
7'(..
fit
.'
e
_.c1.~'f
-.-.,
......1
r::.,..~'
-1~~+,.
r~-
-..}-;
,:,""
r ~:)::~..:
r~
,1.:
"
,.
"'
..~
'<:>
e
ili<-..
f;
I
I
I
I
-,
-
e
e
"":"":f.'
~""
~-'-l
A;.
~'
"
~.
/~"^'
',..:...-1
u.
I;'.~'
..I.f
L.~'
,~~f;
1'-;'
( :~.-
I
- ,--
'.,.'
7L--
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i
B
.
B
E3 0
I!
~ B
.
I
,
!
I
.
I!
I.
i~
z .
!
.
I
>
I. ~~
~o To
d. all!
I' ; ~-~~
, ;5. I ~~
II~ ..{. ~ ~
I 0 ,.~
.It -:- lL
.0
z
. 8
B l
B ,
f,
0
B I
.
.
May 24, 2006
Stephen W. Grittman
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202
Golden Valley, MN 55422
Re: Villas on Elm Plan Review Comments
City Planning Project #2005.070
Dear Mr. Grittman:
.
The City of Monticello's Engineering Department has completed a review ofthe
preliminary plans for the Villas on Elm PUD residential development received by the
City on May 5, 2006. This plan set contained four (4) plan sheets including the
preliminary plat, dated February 2,2006, and the preliminary utility, street and storm
sewer, and grading plans, all dated March 6, 2006. Our review comments are as follows:
.
General Comments
I. Provide title sheet with required information and notes per City of Monticello
Plan Requirements and Design Guidelines.
2. Manholes shall not be located in wheel tracks.
3. Mainline utilities shall not be located under curbs.
4. Hydrants on curves shall be located on the inside of the curve.
5. Backyard drains shall be a minimum of 4-feet in depth to prevent freezing.
6. Provide for overland drainage in case back yard drains freeze.
7. All drainage shall be contained within existing or proposed drainage easements.
8. All drainage entering the development from off-site shall be picked up in drainage
easements.
9. All ponds shall include a 10-foot wide by I-foot deep safety bench beginning at
the normal water level.
10. All ponds shall be designed to be accessible by maintenance vehicles within a
drainage and utility easement.
11. Storm sewer pipe for all public systems and connection to all public systems shall
be RCP.
12. Include all applicable City of Monticello design plates in plan set.
Page 1 on
7M
.
Plan Sheet No.1 of 4; Preliminary Plat
I. The right-of-way for 6 Yz Street should tie into the existing right-of-way to east.
.
Plan Sheet No.2 of 4; Preliminary Utility Plan
I. Provide all street names.
2. Provide stationing for all streets.
3. Revise note 4 to read "...1" COPPER TYPE K WITH I" CORP."
4. Revise note 8 to read "ALL UNUSED EXISTING SANITARY...SHALL BE
ABANDONED OR REMOVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH..."
5. Revise note 10 to read "...BE INSTALLED PER CITY OF MONTICELLO
SPECIFICATIONS. SEE PLATE NO. 2001."
6. Provide appropriate line types for all existing utilities.
7. Show all existing utilities impacted by development.
8. Connections to existing sanitary manholes shall be core drilled and fitted with a
water tight boot.
9. Locate all sanitary sewer manholes in the centerline of streets.
10. Provide directional flow arrows in plan view for each sanitary sewer line.
II. Provide structure numbers for all sanitary manholes.
12. Provide profiles for all sanitary sewer and watermain.
13. Provide plan view locations of all service lines (sanitary sewer and watermain).
14. Provide a minimum of two valves at three-leg watermain intersections, and three
valves at four-leg intersections. Locate gate valves in-line with right-of-way.
15. Locate hydrants at intersections and property lines.
16. Revise line type for proposed watermain on north end of first private street west
of Elm Street (currently shown as solid line).
Page 2 of 3
.
Plan Sheet No.3 of 4; Preliminary Street & Storm Sewer Plan
I. Provide all street names.
2. Provide stationing for all streets.
3. Provide corner radii for all streets.
4. Provide profiles for all streets.
5. Remove parking stalls on 6 Yz street (parking stalls not allowed on public streets).
6. Revise typical street section per City of Monticello Plates No. 5000 and 5001.
7. Include sidewalk in typical section as applicable.
8. Revise note 2 to read "INSTALL TWO ROLLS (3') OF SOD..."
9. Add note 4 reading "PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS TO BE CONSTRUCTED
PER CITY OF MONTICELLO STANDARD PLATE NO. 5009." and place (4)
next to all "PED RAMP" leaders.
I O. Add "PED RAMP" leaders for proposed pedestrian curb ramps at the 6 Yz street
connection and at connection to Elm Street at south end of project.
II. Provide directional flow arrows in plan view for each storm sewer line.
12. Provide structure numbers for all storm manholes and flared end sections.
13. Provide profiles for all storm sewer (flared end sections, pipes and structures).
14. Provide grouted riprap at all flared end section outlets.
IS. Provide sheet piling at all flared end sections 24" in diameter and greater.
16. Provide all missing topography east of development.
.
Plan Sheet No.4 of 4; Preliminary Grading Plan
1. Provide all street names.
2. Provide stationing for all streets.
3. Add another rock construction entrance at 6 'is street connection.
4. Clearly label existing contours between 6 and 6 'is streets east of development.
The developer also submitted drainage calculations to the City on May 5, 2006. WSB
and Associates, the City's consulting engineer, is reviewing the drainage calculations and
will be submitting their review comments to you directly. In addition, the developer
submitted a landscape plan which City staffis assuming will be reviewed by NAC for
completeness and content.
Should you have any questions or concerns regarding any of the enclosed comments,
please contact me at 763-271-3236.
Sincerely,
Bruce Westby, P.E.
City Engineer, Monticello
.
cc: Jeff O'Neill, City of Monticello
John Simola, City of Monticello
Bret Weiss, WSB and Associates
Phil Elkin, WSB and Associates
Shibani Bisson, WSB and Associates
.
Page 3 on
.
.
.
Memorandum
To:
Bruce Westby, P.E.,
Monticello City Engineer
From:
Phillip A. Elkin, P.E.
Date:
May 24, 2006
Re:
Villas on Elm Storm Water Management Review
City Project No. 2005-073
WSB Project No. 1488-55
The following report is a review of the storm water management plan associated with the
proposed Villas on Elm development. This review is based on the preliminary plat, grading,
utility and landscaping plans prepared by Otto and Associates dated 3/6/06.
.
The storm water calculations submitted with the plans are incomplete. These
calculations should include detailed hydrology for the 2-year, 10-year and I DO-year
events. Calculations should also include; runoff from each sub-watershed, peak
discharge rates from each pond, high water levels and normal water levels.
· The peak discharge rate of storm water off-site will be required to be equal to or less
than the existing discharge rate. This will most likely require a storm pond in the
northeast comer of the site (Area P3), which is currently proposed to discharge
directly into the city's storm sewer.
· The proposed pond at the southwest comer of the property near the intersection of 7'h
Street and Elm Street appears to be too small to manage the designed watershed. The
applicant will need to demonstrate that this pond is large enough to manage the 100-
year storm event within the high water level.
· The proposed grading plan shows two small swale areas on the north property line
near Lot 7, Block 37 and near Lot 13, Block 37, which will manage off-site runoff.
Calculations will need to be provided detailing the amount of runoff and the
discharge rate.
.
Because these plans propose a catch basin in the open space of Block 47, it is
assumed that there will be some short-term ponding in this low area. To evaluate the
impact this will have on the open space, a separate sub-watershed should be created
c: ilJoL'/(me/lls and SelliIlR.<\m/?,ela..I'chllma/JII.CI'Local Si!/IinRs'.TempurGry III/erne' flle"YJLK6)/"SlOrmwaler reWell' .Herno.doc
7N
in this area to determine the amount of runoff directed to the CB and the time of
water detention.
.
Mr. Bret Weiss, P.E.
February 14,2005
Page 2
· The City of Monticello's storm water management plan has identified the need for a
regional pond on the east side of Elm Street within this property and the property
directly south. The ponding responsibility of this parcel has been calculated to be 4.2
acre-feet of storage below the 930.2 elevation. Previously, it was determined that the
surface area needed to provide this storage would be I acre of land graded with 4: I
side slopes. Future development to the south will be responsible for the remaining
acreage needed. Volume calculations ofthis basin will be needed to see if this
requirement is met.
In summary, the proposed storm water management cannot completely be evaluated at this time
because of the lack of information about the system. It does appear that the ponding can be
provided in the designated low areas however, these designated areas may need to be expanded
to manage both the runoff from this site and the existing storm water, which runs through the
site.
Attachments
.
Cc:
Jeff O'Neill, City of Monticello
Bret Weiss, WSB & Associates, Inc.
Shibani Bisson, WSB & Associates, Inc.
Steve Grittman, Northwest Associated Consultants
C:J)ocumeni,,- alld Senillf!WlllKela.schurnmm,(,J',Lucul SellirlRsll'empfJrary llllernel Files,olK68IS/ormwalcr rniew Memo.doc
.
-
..
~.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/06/06
8.
Consideration to adopt a resolution findinl! that a modification to the TIF Plans for
TIF District Nos. 1-2 (MetcaIflLarson) and 1-24 (St. Bens) conform to the l!eneral
plans for the development and redevelopment of the city. Applicant: Monticello
HRA (O.K.)
A. Reference and backl!:round:
The Planning Commission is asked to adopt the attached resolution stating it finds the
modification to the TlF Plans for TlF District Nos. 1-2 and 1-24 conform with the general
plans for development and redevelopment ofthe city as described in the comprehensive
plan.
TIF District No. 1-2, a Redevelopment District, was certified in 1983 and the TlF Plan
was modified five times previously to either enlarge the district boundaries and increase
the budget. TIF assistance was used for building and land acquisition, demolition,
relocation, site preparation and public improvements associated with the construction of
an office building, Broadway Square Apartments, and post office egress.
The proposed No. 1-2 modification is to increase the budget only and does not include
enlarging the district boundaries. The budget revenues and expenditures will be increased
from $1,323,421 to $1,705,134. Based on the projected cashflow using the current
obligation and projecting tax increment to the district's statutory limits which is year
2010, the projected amount of uncommitted revenues available for use is approximately
$175,000. Because this is a pre-1990 district, the tax increment is available for budgeted
expenditures in the district or within the project area.
TIF District No. 1-24, a Housing District, was certified in 1998. TlF assistance was used
for site improvements and land acquisition associated with the construction ofthe
independent senior rental housing facility called St. Benedicts. A certain percentage of
the rental units are subject to rental rate and income requirements established through the
National Housing Act. St. Benedict's annually submits a rental and income report to the
HRA Director.
The proposed No. 1-24 modification is to increase the budget only and does not include
enlarging the district boundaries. The budget revenues and expenditures will be increased
from $1,340,000 to $1,940,000. Based on the projected cashflow using the current
obligation and projecting tax increment to the district's statutory limits which is year
2026, the project amount of uncommitted revenues available for use is approximately
$600,000. The tax increment is available for use within the project area, but must be used
for affordable housing.
I
e
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/06/06
The HRA is modifying the Plans for TIF District Nos. 1-2 and 1-24 because: Due to
a recent change in the Minnesota Statutes, the HRA must annually determine the
amount of excess increment for a district based on its Plan in effect December 30 of
the year and the increment and revenues received of that year. The HRA must
spend or return the excess increment under the Statute within nine months after the
end of the year. In addition, the HRA may, subject to the limitations set forth
herein, choose to modify the Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the
Development District (project area) or TIF District.
Therefore, the HRA prefers to modifY the Plans (budgets) for District Nos. 1-2 and 1-24
in order to maximize the use of tax increment for future redevelopment and housing
projects within the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 boundaries.
Any formal modification to a T1F Plan follows the same process as establishment of a
new district. The modification reserves the HRA's right to incur bonded indebtedness,
the modification does not obligate the HRA to incur debt, future action is necessary to
incur debt (such as approval of a Contract for Private Development.)
..
The HRA will adopt their resolution on June 7, 2006, and the City Council will hold a
public hearing and consider approving the modifications on June 12,2006. For your
information, the HRA is holding a workshop following their regular meeting on June 7 to
identifY areas for potential redevelopment or housing projects. The HRA is looking at a
pro-active approach for potential acquisition of parcels which may come on the market
for sale. The county and school district received a copy of the proposed modifications on
May 10, 2006, satisfYing the 3D-day notification period for comments.
Again, the Planning Commission is stating that the modifications to the T1F Plan for
District Nos. 1-2 and 1-24 conform with the Comprehensive. District No. 1-2, a
Redevelopment T1F District, is located within the CCD and is identified in the Monticello
Downtown and Riverfront Revitalization Plan of the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Alternative Action:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution finding that a modification to the TIF Plans for T1F
District Nos. 1-2 and 1-24 conform to the general plans for the development and
redevelopment ofthe city.
2. A motion to deny adoption of a resolution finding ..............................................
3. A motion to table any action.
.
c.
Recommendation:
2
-
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/06/06
The City Administrator, Deputy City Administrator/Community Development Director,
and HRA Executive Director recommend Alternative No.1. The modification ofthe TIF
Plans preserve the tax increment for future redevelopment and affordable housing
projects within the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I boundaries.
The use of TIF for this purpose supports the goals identified in the Downtown
Redevelopment Plan completed in 1997 and reflects the continuing effort to implement
the plan. It is recommended that the Plarming Commission recommend approval if it
believes that the proposed modification supports the redevelopment goals identified in the
comprehensive plan.
D. SUDDortinl!: Data:
Resolution for adoption, map, and TIF Plan.
3
..
.
.
..
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLANS FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NOS. 1-2 AND 1-24
CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Monticello, Minnesota, (the "City") has proposed to
adopt a Modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for Tax Increment Financing District Nos. 1-2
and 1-24 (the "Modifications") therefor and has submitted the Modifications to the City Planning
Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Modifications to determine their conformity with the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan
for the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Modifications conform to the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Dated: June 6, 2006
Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
.
0,...; 0<
~. ~~ ~'1 'j
~ 0 ...:l0 IiI II -j
~Z ~CJ'l
u~ I I
u~ ~f
.....u """Z I
~~ ~z >-
\o!
z~ ~~I.~
00
~~
~~ ~~
<z o~
c:z::~ ~~
~~ ~o
z~ """u
~o u~
u~ ==
~ ~
;;.. .....
~ "
.. ~ ~
~
c:z::
.
,:-~~---._-,
,~ n
N~cl
o
~
1
I
!
\
.
..
~.
-
As of May 10, 2006
Draft for Fiscal Implications
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
for the modification of
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-2
(a redevelopment district)
within
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
It
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Adopted: September 13,1983
Modification #1 Adopted: December 9,1985
Modification #2 Adopted: August 24,1987
Modification #3 Adopted: September 26, 1988
Modification #4 Adopted: January 22, 1996
Modification #5 Adopted: June 24, 1996
Modification #6 Public Hearing: June 12,2006
Modification #6 Adopted:
Prepared by:
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, me.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
Phone: (651) 697-8500
Fax: (651) 697-8555
E-mail: info@ehlers-inc.com
Web Site: www.ehlers-inc.com
.
..
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1.............................................................................1
Foreword.. ........... .... ......... ..... .... ..... ......... ......... ..... ......... ....... ....... ....... ......... ...... ..........1
TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT FINANCE PLAN ...............................................2
A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY.. ....... ........... ..... ......... ..... ......... ....... ..... .............. ...........2
B. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES. ..... ...... ..... ... ........... ..... ......... ....... .................. ........2
C. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM .... ..... ......... ..... ......... .......... ............. ..... ............ ...... ....3
D. PROPERTY ACQUIS ITION '" ........... .... ...... .... ..... ..... .......... ... ..... ......... ..... ........ ......5
E. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES COVERED BY AGREEMENT .................................6
F. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY IN THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT .. ................. ...... ... ....... ........... ..... ... ... ... ......... ..... ......... .............. ..... ..............6
G. CLASSIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT ................7
H. ESTIMATE OF COSTS ...........................................................................................7
I. ESTIMATE OF INDEBTEDNESS ...........................................................................11
J. SOURCE OF REVENUE........................................................................................11
K. ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE ............................................................................12
L. ESTIMATED CAPTURED ASSESSED VALUE.....................................................14
M. DURATION OF THE DISTRICT............................................................................14
N. IMPACT ON OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS ..................................................14
O. MODIFICATION TO TAX INCREMENT PLAN......................................................17
P. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.................................................18
Q. LIMITATION ON DURATION OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS ...18
R. LIMITATION ON QUALIFICATION OF PROPERTY IN TAX INCREMENT
DISTRICT NOT SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENT .......................................................18
S. LIMITATION ON THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT................................................19
T. NOTIFICATION OF PRIOR PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS ...................................19
U. EXCESS TAX INCREMENTS ...............................................................................19
V. REQUIREMENT FOR AGREEMENTS WITH THE DEVELOPER.........................20
W. ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS ... ......... ....... .... ......... ..... .... ........ ..... ................ .....20
X. ADMIINISTRATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TAX INCREMENT ACCOUNT
...................................................................................................................................20
Y. ANNUAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS ..........................................................20
Z. ASSUMPTIONS........ .... ......... ..... ... ...... ..... .... ......... ......... ... ......... ..... .......... ............21
-
..
.
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project No.1. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set
forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I. Generally, the
substantive changes include the modification of Tax lncrement Financing District No. 1-2.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment
Project No. 1 is recommended. It is available from the City Administrator at the City of Monticello.
Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax lncrement
Financing Districts located within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1.
1
.
.
.
TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT FINANCE PLAN
A. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
(As Originally Adopted)
The City of Monticello is authorized to establish a tax increment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
273.71 - 273.78.
(As Modified September 26, 1988)
The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Authority") and the City of Monticello are
authorized to modify the tax increment finance plan for Redevelopment District #2 pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 4
(As Modified June 13, 2006)
Within the City, there exists areas where public improvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the City and HRA have certain statutory powers pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes Sectious 469.001 through 469.047, inclusive as ameuded, and Minnesota
Statutes Sections 469.174 through 469.1792, inclusive as amended, to assist in financing public costs
related to this project.
B. STA TEMENT OF OBJECTIVES
(As Originally Adopted)
I) Provide incentive for the expansion of Met caW Larson Law Offices in the City of Monticello.
2) Provide expanded tax base.
3) Create a use for currently under-utilized land.
4) Eliminate a blighted, non-conforming structure.
(As Modified-August 24, 1987)
I) Provide opportunities for development and expansion of new business
2) Provide opportunities for growth of the tax base
3) Eliminate blight or deterioration within an area
4) Create a use for currently under-utilized land.
(As Modified September 26,1988)
I) Provide opportunities for development and expansion of new business
2) Provide opportunities for growth of the tax base
3) Eliminate blight or deterioration with an area
4) Create a use for currently under-utilized land
5) Provide needed subsidized elderly housing
2
.
.
.
C. DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
(As Originally Adopted)
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes 273.74, a description of the redevelopment program for the tax
increment financing district is provided.
I) The City of Monticello will acquire the northerly 50 feet of Lots 8, 9, & 10 in Block 50,
original plat and raze the existing blighted, non-conforming structure.
2) The City will convey to Metcalf and Larson, the developers, the above described parcel in a
condition suitable for construction.
3) Metcalf and Larson will construct a 2800 sq. ft. per floor split foyer office building (with
parking facilities) on the above parcel and on land adjoining said parcel.
(As Modified December 9, 1985)
I) Pursuant to Resolution 1985 #31, the District was enlarged to include a residence directly
north of Metcalf & Larson building in Block 50 and three vacant lots owned by the HRA in
Block 51, along with Stelton' s Laundromat property and the Marie Gustafson property all in
Block 51.
2) The district was modified to capture increment generated by the construction of the elderly
apartment house project proposed for portions of Block 51. The enlarged Tax Increment
District is expected to be a benefit to the HRA once development occurs on the HassIK&H
Auto property.
(As Modified August 24,1987)
I) Modification #1 included the addition of Hollenback, Stelton, Gustafson, and the City of
Monticello parcels to the original Redevelopment District #2
2) Metcalf & Larson, developers, constructed a 3 I-unit elderly home on the City of Monticello
parcel (155-101-051130)
3) Modification #2, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will acquire the Monticello Ford
property, parcels 155-010-051010 and 155-010-051020, and will raze the existing blighted
structure.
(As Modified September 26, 1988)
I) Modification #3, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will acquire the Jones
Manufacturing Company property, parcel 155-010-051011, and will raze the existing
blighted structure and;
2) Modification #3, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will acquire the Monti Truck
Repair property (raw land), parcel 155-0 I 0-051040 and;
3) Modification #3, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will acquire the Stelton
Laundromat property, parcel 155-010-051050,and will raze the existing blighted structure
and;
3
.
4) Modification #3, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority will convey the three above said
parcels plus parcels 155-010-051010 and155-010-051020 (Modification #2) to the developer,
Broadway Square Limited Partnership, for construction of a 28-unitsubsidized elderly
housing project.
(As Modified August 24, 1987)
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
(As Originally Adopted)
The HRA and Monticello Ford, Inc., Lawrence Flake, President, have executed a purchase agreement for
$75,000.00 for the acquisition of said property located at 249 West Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota.
The HRA paid $500.00 earnest money and will pay $24,500.00 on the closing date. The remaining
balance of $50,000.00 will be on a Contract for Deed at 10% interest rate for 4.5 years. The HRA has the
right of prepayment privileges, without penalty, on the contract for deed payment schedule.
4
(As Modified September 26, 1988)
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
.
A purchase agreement has been executed between Alvin and Shirley Jones, Jones Manufacturing
Company, (the "Seller") and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Buyer") for $57,000,
inclusive of moving and relocation expenses ($5,000) for the property located 11 0 North Locust,
Monticello, Minnesota. The HRA released earnest money of $ 1 0,000 with the remaining balance of
$47,000 due at closing date, on or before March I, 1989. Earnest money was a debit to the HRA General
Fund.
A purchase agreement has been executed between Joseph and Clarice O'Connor, Monti Truck Repair,
(the "Seller") and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Buyer") for $55,000, inclusive of
moving and relocation expenses ($5,000) for raw land located at 247 East Broadway, Monticello,
Minnesota. The HRA released earnest money of $10,000 with $40,000 due at closing date, on or before
March 1, 1989 and the remaining balance of $5,000 due upon completion of demolition no later than
April I, 1989. Earnest money was a debit to the HRA General Fund.
A purchase agreement has been executed between Ervin and Donna Stelton, Stelton Laundromat, (the
"Seller") and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "Buyer") for $65,000, inclusive of moving
and relocation expenses ($5,000) for the property located at 237 West Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota.
The HRA released earnest money of $10,000 with the remaining balance of $55,000 due at closing date,
on or before March I, 1989. Earnest money was a debit to the HRA General Fund.
The HRA proposes to demolish and remove the blighted structures at 110 North Locust and 237 West
Broadway, Monticello, Minnesota, in the spring of 1989, thereafter, the HRA will convey the above
properties plus the Old Ford Garage property to developer, Broadway Square Limited Partnership, for
construction of a 28-unit subsidized elderly housing
.
.
.
.
(As Modified August 24, 1987)
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
AMOUNT PRINCIPAL INTEREST PAYMENT DATE
50,000 5,556 2,500 8,056 June 30, 1988
44,444 5,556 2,222 7,778 December 31,2988
38,888 5,556 1,994 7,550 June 30, 1989
33,332 5,556 1,667 7,223 December 31, 1989
27,776 5,556 1,389 6,945 June 30, 1990
22,220 5,556 l,lll 6,667 December 31, 1990
16,664 5,556 833 6,389 June 30,1991
11,108 5,556 555 6,111 December 31, 1991
5,552 5,552 278 5,830 June 30, 1992
(As Originally Adopted)
The HRA proposes to demolition and remove the blighted structure prior to the end of year 1987; thereby,
provide opportunity for development of a new business.
D. PROPERTY ACQUISITION
(As Originally Adopted)
The City shall acquire all of the northerly 50 feet of Lots 8, 9, & 10 in Block 50, O.P.
Property identified for acquisition will be acquired by the Monticello Authority in order to accomplish
one of the following: (a) remove, prevent or reduce blight, blighting factors, causes of blight or the spread
of blight and deterioration; (b) eliminate unhealthful, unsafe, and unsanitary structures and conditions; (c)
provide impetus for commercial development and rehabilitation; (d) remove incompatible land use and
eliminate obsolete or detrimental uses; (e) assemble land for redevelopment; and (f) carry out clearance
and/or redevelopment to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan.
(As Modified June 13,2006)
The City or HRA may acquire any parcel within the District, including interior and adjacent street
rights of way. Properties will be acquired by the City or HRA in order to accomplish oue or more
of the following: storm sewer improvements, provide land for needed public streets, utilities and
facilities, transfer to private developers in order to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in
this TIF Plan. The City or HRA may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct
purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives in this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions
will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related
costs. The City or HRA may also reimburse the developers for costs of land acquisition in lieu of
direction by the HRA or City.
5
.
.
.
E. DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES COVERED BY AGREEMENT
(As Originally Adopted)
All activities planned are delineated in the development agreement which is attached as Appendix A. To
date, a purchase agreement has been executed between Metcalf and Larson and Capps, the present owner,
and said agreement has been assigned to the HRA.
F. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY IN THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(As Originally Adopted)
Lots 1,2,3, the northerly. 50 feet and the easterly 3 feet of the southerly 115 feet of Lot 8, Lot 9, and Lot
10, all in Block 50; Lots I, 2, 3,4, the westerly 5.5 feet of Lot 5 and the southerly 15 feet of Lot 15, all in
B]ock 51, City of Monticello.
(As Modified August 24, 1987)
155-010-050010
155-010-050011
155-010-050081
N V,Lots 1,2, & 3, Block 50
S V, Lots 1,2, & 3, Block 50
Th p r t of Lots 8 & 9 Iyg Sly of fol desc Ine, Beg at SEly cor of
Lot 10,the NEly 102.84 ft to a Ine par/w &dist 62 ft SW]y as
meas at R/ang to NEly Ine of Lots 8, 9 & 10, the NWly39.21 ft
to POB oflne to desc,thc cont sd Ine as ext to a pt 3 ft Wly of
E]y ]ne of Lot 8 & th term. Block 50.
155-010-050082
155-010-050100
N 50 f t of Lots 8,9, & 10, Block 50
Th prt ofLts 9 & 10 des: Beg SEly cor ofLt 10; the NEly alg
SEly In 102.84 ft to In par/w & 62 ft SWlyofNE]y In; the NWly
alg sd par In 39.21 f t to ]n par/w & 6 f t NWlyof SEly In of Lot
9; the SWly 102.86ft to SW]y In of Lot 9. Block 50.
]55-010-051010
155-010-051011
Lot 1 exc Nly 30 ft Block 51
Nly 30 ft ofLts 1 & 2 & Nly 30ft ofW 24 ft ofLt 3. A]so S 15 f
t of Lt 15. B]ock 51
155-010-051020 Lt 2 exc Nly 30 ft & Lt 3 exc Nly 30 ft ofW 24 ft & W 7V,ft
ofLt4. Block 51
155-010-051040 E 25 V, ft ofLt 4& W 5 V, ft Lt 5, Block 51
155-010-050111 Sv, of Lots II & 12, Block 50, Original Plat
155-010-051050 Lot 5, Block 51, exc W 5V, ft (50Mis-92) Original Plat
155-010-051111 Lots II & 12, Block 51, exc S 65 ft and exc tr
sese in Bk 266-795 Origina] Plat
155-010-051130 Lots 13, 14, & Nly 150 ft of Lot 15, Block 51, Original Plat
(As Modified September 26, 1988)
155-010-050101
NEly 12 ft ofBlk 50 Lot 10 & E 6 ft ofLot 9 ex N 50 ft of Lots
10 & 9 also the portion of Lots 8 & 9 lying Nly offO I des In Beg
6
.
.
.
at SEly cor of Lot 10 th NEly 102.84 ft to In par/w & dist 62 ft
SWly of as meas at r/ang to NEly In of Lots 8, 9 & 10th
G. CLASSIFICA nON OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(As Originally Adopted)
The tax increment financing district to be established within the area designated as the Central Monticello
Redevelopment Areas is classified as Redevelopment District.
The property to be included in the district is as follows: (by PIN)
a. 155-010-050010 (Hass)
b. 155-010-050011 (Teslow)
c. 155-010-050081 (Metcalf & arson)
d. 155-010-050082 (Capps, CD from Lindberg)
e. 155-010-050100 (Metcalf & arson)
f. 155-010-051010 (Monticello Ford)
g. 155-010-051011 (Jones)
h. 155-010-051020 (Monticello Ford)
i. 155-010-051040 (O'Conner)
j 155-010-050101 (City of Monticello)
Of the ten parcels, all but parcel e. are occupied by structures. Five of the eight structures (parcels a, d, f,
h and i) are considered to be structurally substandard, while parcels band g have structures that are both
non-conforming uses and on lots that are too small for their use.
(As Modified September 26, 1988)
k. 155-010-050111 (Hollenbeck)
1. 155-010-051050 (Stelton)
m. 155-010-051111 (Gustafson)
n. 155-010-051130 (River Park View)
(As Originally Adopted)
This proposal has been found to be in the public interest because it will eliminate blight and non-
conforming use, create use for a vacant lot, provide temporary construction employment, and generate
other improvements within the district. Because this district meets the requirements of MS 273.73,
Subdivision 10, it shall be classified as a Redevelopment District.
H. ESTIMA TE OF COSTS
The estimate of public costs associated with this project, and to be recovered by tax increment financing
are as follows:
7
. (As Originally Adopted)
Land Acquisition
$33,000.00
Assessments '84 & beyond 535.00
Site PreparatIOn 5,000.00
$38,535.00
Legal, Contingency,
Administration (8%) 3,082.80
Subtotal $41,617.80
Less up fro n t payment (10,000.00)
Total HRA Cost '$31 617.80
'Rounded off to $32,000.00
(As Modified August 24, 1987)
BUDGET
Property Acquisition $75,000
Demolition Cost 13,000
Administration Cost 2,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $90,000
Less payment on purchase agreement 25,000
Less Demolition cost 13,000
Less Administration cost 2,000
. HRA General Fund 40.000
Contract for deed $50,000
(As Modified September 26, 1988)
BUDGET
Jones Acquisition
Property $52,000
Moving and relocation expo 5,000
demolition 5,000
O'Connor Acquisition
Property (raw land) $50,000
Moving and relocation expo 5,000
Stelton Acquisition
Property $60,000
Moving and relocation exp 5,000
demolition 5,000
Old Ford Garage (recover costs)
Contract for deed (payoff) $50,000
Interest paid (6/88, 12/88,6/89) 6,716
Demolition 6,500
. Administrative 2,000
Assessments 980
Down payment 25,000
8
.
Modification #3 Administrative
Bond Discount
Plan modification
Bond issuance
Capitalized interest (24 mos)
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Less FmHA
Less Bond issuance
REMAINING BALANCE
10,954
11,250
2,500
12,000
48,100
$363,000
58,000
260,000
45,000
(As Modified January 22, 1996)
The budgets for the estimated public costs for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos 1-1,1-2,1-3,1-4,1-
5,1-6,1-7,1-8,1-9,1-10,1-11 ,1-12, 1-13,1-14,1-15,1-16, 1-17,1-18 and 1-19 are hereby modified as follows:
For various land acquisition activities and redevelopment and revitalization studies in the Redevelopment
Project the current expected costs include:
Land Acquisition
DemolitionlRelocation
Contingency
Subtotal
Administration
Total
$500,000000
200,000000
200,000000
900,000000
90.000000
$990,000000
9
.
Subject to restrictions as applicable to each individual tax increment financing district pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174 to 4690176 (including limitations as to the type of development that
may be assisted and geographic boundaries within which increment may be spent), tax increment from
any existing and future tax increment financing district may be used to pay public costso This budget is in
addition to existing public cost budgets for each tax increment financing district Interest on any bonds or
other obligations incurred are also to be paid from increment in addition to the line items listed in the
budget aboveo
(As Modified June 24, 1996)
The budgets for the estimated public costs for Tax Increment Financing Districts Nos 1-1,1-2,1-3,1-4,1-
5,1-6,1-7,1-8,1-9,1-10,1-11,1-12,1-13,1-14,1-15,1-16,1-17,1-18 and 1-19 are hereby modified as follows:
For various land acquisition activities and redevelopment and revitalization studies in the Redevelopment
Project the current expected costs include:
Land Acquisition
Site Preparation
DemolitionlRelocation
Public Improvements
Subtotal
Administration
Total
$ 900,000000
400,000000
300,000.00
900.000000
2,500,000000
250.000000
$2,750,000.00
.
Subject to restrictions as applicable to each individual tax increment financing district pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Section 4690174 to 469.176 (including limitations as to the type of development that
may be assisted and geographic boundaries within which increment may be spent), tax increment from
.
.
.
any existing and future tax increment financing district may be used to pay public costs. This budget is in
addition to existing public cost budgets for each tax increment financing district. Interest on any bonds or
other obligations incurred are also to be paid from increment in addition to the line items listed in the
budget above.
(As Modified June 13, 2006)
The City and HRA has determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for
certain costs. To facilitate the development or redevelopment or property in and around District
No. 1-2, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible
expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with District No. 1-2 is outlined
in the following table.
USES OF FUNDS
LandlBuildin s
Site 1m rovements
Administrative
Bond Interest
Loan Interest
Other Pro' ect Area 1m rovements
346,515
120,000
50,000
350,531
201,088
175,000
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS
Bond Princi al
Loan Princi aI
Transfers Out
1,243,134
260,000
72,000
130,000
The budget above is organized according the Office of the State Auditor reporting forms. Pursuant
to MN Statute 469.175 Sub 1 (5), it is estimated that the cost of improvements, including
administrative expenses which will be paid or financed with tax increments, will equal $1,243,134.
It is estimated that the cost of improvements, including financing which will be paid for with tax
increment will equal $1,705,134 as is presented in the budget on the previous page.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories by modification
to the Plan through City Council and HRA resolution. The cost of all activities to be considered for
tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to
applicable statutory requirements.
The City or HRA reserves the right to use other sources of revenne legally applicable to the City or
HRA and to the Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes,
state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other
contributions from developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs.
The City or HRA reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result
of the Plan. As presently proposed, the projects will be financed through bonded debt. Additional
indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of
bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not
exceed $260,000 without a modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutes.
This provision does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt. The City or HRA will issue bonds
or incur other debt ouly upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City or
HRA. The City or HRA may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan
10
.
.
.
through loans from funds of the City or HRA or to reimhurse the developer on a "pay-as-you-go"
basis for eligible costs paid for by a developer.
f. ESTfMA TE OF INDEBTEDNESS
(As Originally Adopted)
The HRA, by action taken at a special meeting held on September 13, 1983, authorized a private
placement of tax exempt securities in the amount of $32,000.00. The HRA intends to retire this debt over
a period of 12 years. The interest rate on this issue is estimated to be 9.5%.
(As Modified August 24, 1987)
An estimate of the maximum amount of bonded indebtedness is expected to be $90,000.00. The estimated
annual tax increment generated from the elderly home ($17,300.00) will be applied to the contract for
deed payments (estimated average annual debt service is $14,000.00). Upon full payment of the contract
for deed, the tax increment from the elderly home will replenish the HRA General Fund for expenses
incurred. Debt retirement to be completed before the duration of Redevelopment District #2. Bonded
indebtedness of $90,000 is an addition to the original budget.
(As Modified September 26, 1988
An estimate of the maximum amount of bonded indebtedness is expected to be $260,000, estimated
annual debt service of $30,193.80. The maximum term of the issue is 18 years, and the interest rate is
expected to be 9.25 percent. The capitalized interest amount for approximately 24 months is estimated to
be $48,100. The difference between the project cost ($363,000), the bond indebtedness ($260,000), and
the Fanners Home Administration Funding ($58,000) is $45,000. Bond sale Spring of 1989.
J. SOURCE OF REVENUE
(As Originally Adopted)
The primary source of revenue to be used to retire the bond issue will be tax increments generated as a
result of the development. The other source of income will be the proceeds for the conveyance of the land
from the HRA t 0 the developers. In any given year that the tax increment is not sufficient to retire the
debt, the developers will issue directly to the HRA an amount equal to the shortfall.
(As Modified August 24, 1987)
The primary source ofrevenue to be used to retire the bond indebtedness (contract for deed) will be tax
increments generated from the River Park View Elderly Project, a development completed in 1986 within
Tax Increment District #2. The other initial source of revenue will be from HRA General Funds.
(As Modified September 26, 1988)
The three sources of revenue used to finance public costs associated with the public development projects
in the redevelopment project are $58,000 Fanners Home Administration Funding, $45,000 Monticello
Housing and Redevelopment Authority 1989 Tax Levy, and the tax increment generated as a result ofthe
taxation of the land and building expansion in the tax increment financing redevelopment district. Tax
II
12
.
increment financing refers to a funding technique that utilizes increases in assessed valuation and the
property taxes attributed to new development to finance, or assist in the financing of public development
costs.
The improvements to the land acquired by the Broadway Square Limited Partnership and the previous
improvements of Redevelopment District #2 are expected to generate an average annual tax increment of
$36,084.81 payable in year 1991. The estimated annual tax increment is sufficient to retire the annual
bond debt service of $30,193.80 plus Metcalf and Larson Securities annual debt service of $4,285.00.
Duration of the District Life is 2010.
As Modified June 13, 2006
SOURCES OF FU1'iDS
Tax Increment
Interest
Market Value Credit
Sales/lease roceeds
Develo er a ment
990,000
132,134
10,000
130 000
11,000
PROJECT REVENUES
Bond Proceeds
Loan Proceeds
Transfers In
1,273,134
260,000
72,000
100,000
. K. ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE
(As Originally Adopted)
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 273.74, Subdivision 1, and 273.76, Subdivision 1, the Original Assessed
Value (OA V) for the Monticello District #2 is based on the sum of all ten parcels, Original Assessed
Values, provided by the County Assessor in 1983. This value is $80,863.00. Individual parcel assessed
values are as follows:
(As Originally Adopted)
155-010-050010
155-010-050011
155-010-050081
155-010-050082
155-010-050100
155-010-051010
155-010-051011
155-010-051020
155-010-051040
155-010-050101
3,077
9,860
13,574
7,616
2,920
3,760
12,070
17,974
6,630
~
77,481
.
155-010-050010
155-010-050011
155-010-050081
155-010-050082
155-010-050100
155-010-051010
155-010-051011
155-010-051020
155-010-051040
155-010-050111
155-010-051050
155-010-051111
155-010-051130
o
9,860
13,574
7,616
2,920
3,760
12,070
17,974
6,630
8,960
10,276
6,277
exempt
.
(As Modified August 24, 1987)
(As Modified September 26, 1988)
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subdivision 1, and 469.177, Subdivision 1, the Original Assessed
Value as modified for the Redevelopment District #2 and certified by the County Auditor of Wright
County on the 2nd day of January, 1988. This value is a total of $87,783.00. Individua] parcel assessed
values are as follows:
.
PARCEL
155-010-050010
155-010-0500] I
155-010-050081
155-010-050100
155-010-050101
155-010-050111
155-010-051010
155-010-051011
155-010-051020
155-010-051040
155-010-051050
155-010-051111
155-010-051130
ASSESSED VALUE
EXEMPT
$9,680
$13,574
$10,536
EXEMPT
$8,960
EXEMPT
$12,070
EXEMPT
$6,630
$10,276
$6,277
$9,600
(As Originally Adopted)
.
Each year the Office of the County Auditor will measure the amount of increase or decrease in the total
assessed value of the tax increment Redeve]opment District to calculate the tax increment payable to the
Monticello HRA. Each year the County Auditor shall also add to the original assessed value of the
Redevelopment District an amount equal t 0 the original assessed value for the preceding year multiplied
by the average increase in the assessed valuation of all property included in the redevelopment District
during the five years prior to district certification . In any year in which there is an increase in total
assessed valuation in the tax increment Redevelopment District above the annual percentage increase, a
tax increment will be payable. In any year in which the total assessed valuation in the tax increment
Redevelopment District is less than the original assessed value, no assessed valuation will be captured and
no tax increment will be payable. The County Auditor shall certify in each year after the date the original
assessed value was certified, the amount the OA V has increased or decreased as a result of any of the
following:
13
.
.
.
I) Change in tax exempt status of property;
2) Alteration of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3) Change due to stipulations, adjustments, negotiated or court ordered abatements.
L. ESTlMA TED CAPTURED ASSESSED VALUE
(As Originally Adopted)
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 273.74, Subdivision I and 273.76, Subdivision 2, the estimated Captured
Assessed Value (CA V) of the tax increment Redevelopment District will be $50,480.00. Changes in
assessed values are shown in Exhibit A. The City of Monticello requests 100% of the available increase in
assessed value commencing in 1984 for taxes payable in 1985 be captured for repayment of debt and
current expenditures.
(As Modified September 26, 1988)
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.175, Subdivision I, and 469.177, Subdivision 2, the estimated
Captured Assessed Value (CAV) of the tax increment Redevelopment District will be $369,138.00.
Changes in assessed values are shown in Exhibit A. The City of Monticello requests 100% of the
available increase in assessed value commencing in 1990 for taxes payable in 1991 be captured for
repayment of debt and current expenditures.
M. DURATION OF THE DISTRICT
(As Originally Adopted)
The City of Monticello expects to terminate the Monticello Tax Increment Redevelopment District #2 on
January 2, 2010. The 25 year duration of the district is based on the ability of the City to collect tax
increments for 25 years commencing in 1985 and ending in 2010.
(As Modified June 13, 2006)
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 1, and Section 469.176 Subdivision I,
the duration of Tax Increment Financing District 1-2 must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, section 469.176 Subdivision 1 (b), the duration of Tax Increment Financing
District #1-2 will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment by the city. The date of
receipt by the City of Monticello of the first tax increment was July, 1985. Thus it is estimated that
the Tax Increment Financing District, including any modifications of the Plan for subsequent
phases or other changes, would terminate after 2010, or when the Plan is satisfied. The City
reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date.
N. IMPACT ON OTHER TAXING JURISDICTIONS
(As Originally Adopted)
It is anticipated that $4,269 in tax increment will be captured annually as a result of the proposed
improvement during the first 12 years of the District's 25 years.
14
.
.
.
For taxes payable in 1983, the City of Monticello comprised 24.8% of the mill rate (21.0), School District
#882 comprised 42.8% of the mill rate (36.2), and Wright County comprised 28.3% of the mill levy
(23.9). The Monticello-Big Lake Hospital District made up the final 4.1% with a mill rate of (3.4). A mill
rate of 84.5 mills has been used throughout the debt retirement schedule used in this tax increment
financing plan. Applying the appropriate percentage of the total mill rate levied by each taxing
jurisdiction to the projected mill rate and the annual tax increment of $4,269 reveals the annual forfeit of
tax dollars by each taxing jurisdiction.
The amount of tax dollars foregone by each taxing jurisdiction is listed on the table below:
TABLE I
Percent of tax increment attributable to taxing jurisdictions
Annual Tax Inc.
1,059
1,827
1,208
175
4,269
Estimated Mills
21.0
36.2
23.9
3.4
84.5
Percent
24.8
42.8
28.3
4.1
100.0
The following table represents the additional mills that would have to be levied by each taxing
jurisdiction to compensate for the tax dollars captured as tax increments. The tax increments derived from
the project alluded to in the tax increment economic development district would not be available to any of
the taxing jurisdictions were it not for the public intervention by the City of Monticello. Although the
increases in assessed value due to the economic development plan will not be available to the other
jurisdictions for the application of their mill levy for the duration of the tax increment financing district
this new assessed value will eventually be applied to all jurisdictions assessed valuation and could
conceivably permit a mill levy decrease. If it is assumed that the captured assessed value would be
available for each taxing jurisdiction the amount of tax dollars, represented as tax increments, which
would not be received by the other jurisdictions can be computed. This computation is facilitated
by estimating how much the mill levy for property outside of the tax increment financing district would
have to be increased to raise the same amount of tax dollars in each jurisdiction had the project occurred
without the assistance of the City of Monticello.
TABLE II
Impact on taxing jurisdictions if development occurred without public assistance
Payable 83 Assessed Value
Required Mills
Annual
Increment
1,059
1,827
1,208
175
4,269
Tax
58,492,537
79,049,159
340,696,792
92,564,703
.0177
.0226
.0347
.00185
All assessed values exclude the amount of assessed valuation already found in tax increment financing
districts in other municipalities in Wright County.
15
.
.
.
(As Modified September 26, 1988)
The impact of the loss of tax dollars represented as tax increments is estimated below for each taxing
jurisdiction. This estimate is based on the existing redevelopment proposals and does not include the
possible tax increments derived from other future developments, mill changes, or inflation factors.
Tax Increment Finance District 1/2/88 Total
Total Assessed Value
$87,022
LATEST ASSESSED VALUE OF EACH GOVERNMENT BODY:
% of District
to Total
Wright County
School District #882
City of Monticello
Other
$407,743,709
$140,784,433
$114,339,670
$190,334,664
.021
.061
.076
.045
Considering all the districts, it can be seen from the above that the school, city, and county districts will
have over 99% of each respective district available for normal growth of tax base or valuation. Applying
the percentage of the total mill rate in 1988 levied by each taxing jurisdiction to the projected mill rate
and the estimated tax increment received reveals the annual loss of tax dollars by each taxing jurisdiction
as listed in the table below assuming development would occur without public assistance.
The modified finance plan indicates we anticipate a tax increment at build out as follows:
Captured Assessed Valuation
Estimated Tax Increment
Received
$36,084
Tax Increment Finance District
$369,138
Based on the current mill rate, the estimated taxes received would be as follows for the taxing bodies:
Mills Percent Tax Increment
City 15.932 16.28 5,874
Wright County 22.728 23.22 8,379
School District #882 55.069 56.26 20,301
Hospital District 4.147 4.24 1,530
Total 97.876 100.00 36,084
The following table represents the additional mills that would have to be levied to compensate for the loss
of tax dollars in estimated tax increments for each taxing jurisdiction. The tax increments derived from
the total Redevelopment District #2 improvements alluded to in the tax increment district would not be
available to any of the taxing jurisdictions were it not for public intervention by the City. Although the
increases in assessed value due to development will not be available for the application of the mill levy
for the duration of the tax increment financing district, this new assessed value could eventually permit a
mill levy decrease. If it could be assumed that the captured assessed value was available for each taxing
jurisdiction, the non-receipt of tax dollars represented as tax increments may be determined. This
determination is facilitated by estimating how much the mill levy for property outside of the tax
increment financing district would have to be increased to raise the same amount of tax dollars in each
taxing jurisdiction that would be available if the projects occurred without the assistance of the City.
16
.
.
.
Wright County
School District #882
City of Monticello
Hospital District
Adjusted' Assessed Value
$407,656,687
$140,687,411
$114,252,648
$190,247,642
Required Mills
.02
.14
.05
.00
Tax Increment
8,379
20,301
5,874
1,530
, Tax Increment District assessed valuation subtracted
(As Modified June 13,2006)
The City or HRA does not propose to add any land to District No. 1-2 nor does it anticipate
additional development at this time which will resnlt in additional tax capacity being captnred
within District No. 1-2. Since no new land is being added to District No. 1-2 and there is no
additional development expected at this time which will resnlt in additional captured tax capacity,
the City and HRA do not believe this modification will have any fiscal impact on any other taxing
jurisdictions The following table shows the comparison of captured tax capacity from the original
plan estimate as stated above to the captured tax capacity for taxes payable 2006.
Imvact on Tax Base
200512006 Total Net Captured Tax Percent of CTC to
Tax Cavacity Cavacity (CTe) Entity Total
Wril!ht Countv 106,178,099 39,415 .0372%
I.S.D No. 882 20,630,250 39,415 .1911 %
City of Monticello 13,228,292 39,415 .2980%
Imnact on Tax Rates
2005/2006 Potential
Extension Rates Percent of Total (CTC) Taxes
Wrij!ht County 0.325670 29.53% 39,415 12,836
I.S.D No. 882 0.243720 22.10% 39,415 9,606
City of Monticello 0.510280 46.26% 39,415 20,113
Other 0.023300 2.11% 39,415 918
Total 1.1 02970 100.00% 43,473
O. MOD/FICA TION TO TAX INCREMENT PLAN
(As Originally Adopted)
In accordance with Section 273.74, Subdivision 4 of the Tax Increment Financing Act, the geographic
area of the project or tax increment financing district, increase in the amount of bonded indebtedness to be
inclUTed, including a determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not part 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 assessed value to be retained by the City, increase in total estimated tax
increment expenditures or designation of additional property to be acquired by the authority shall be
approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval upon
the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original plan.
The geographic area of the Monticello Tax Increment Financing District #2 may be reduced, but shall not
be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of original assessed value by the office of
the County Auditor. The Monticello Tax Increment Financing District #2 may therefore be expanded until
1988.
17
18
.
P. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRA TlVE EXPENSES
(As Originally Adopted)
In accordance with M.S. 273.73, Subd. 13 and 273.75, Subd. 3, the administrative expenses means all
expenditures of an authority other than amounts paid for the purchase of land or amounts paid to
contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services,
directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the 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 M.S. 237.77.
Administrative expenses include amounts paid for services provided by bond council, fiscal consultants
and planning, economic, or legal consultants. No tax increment shall be used to pay any administrative
expenses for a project which exceeds 10% 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.
Q. LIMITATION ON DURA TlON OF TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS
(As Originally Adopted)
.
Pursuant to M.S. 273.75, Subd. 1, "No tax increment shall be paid to an authority three years from the
date of certification by the County Auditor unless within the three year period (1 )bonds have been issued
pursuant to Section 273.77 or in aid of a project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued
pursuant to Chapter 474, prior to the effective date of the act: or (2) the authority has acquired property
within the district: (3) the authority has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements
within the district ..." The City of Monticello must therefore acquire the property so stipulated in this plan
by October I, 1986, or the office of the County Auditor may dissolve the tax increment district.
R. LIMITATION ON QUALlFICA TlON OF PROPERTY IN TAX INCREMENT DISTRICT
NOT SUBJECT TO IMPROVEMENT
(As Originally Adopted)
Subd. 6. Limitation on increment.
.
If, after four years from the date of certification of the original assessed value of the tax increment
financing district pursuant to Section 273.76, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or
other site preparation, including improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility
service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment
financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment
financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original assessed value
of that parcel shall be excluded from the original assessed value of the tax increment financing district. If
the authority of 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 that the
activity has commenced, and the county auditor shall certify the assessed value thereof as most recently
certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original assessed value of the tax increment
financing district. For purposes of this subdivision "parcel" means a tract or plat of land established prior
to the certification of the district as a single unit for purposes of assessment.
.
.
.
S. LIMITATION ON THE USE OF TAX INCREMENT
(As Originally Adopted)
All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the tax increment financing plan.
The revenue shall be used to finance or otherwise pay the capital and administrative cost of a
development district pursuant to tl.S. 472A. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent existing levy
limit law. No revenue derived from tax increment shall be used for the construction or renovation of a
municipally owned building used primarily and regularly for conducting. the business of the municipality;
this provision shall not prohibit the use of revenue derived from tax increments for the construction or
renovation of a parking structure, a 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.
T. NOTIFICA TION OF PRIOR PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS
(As Originally Adopted)
Pursuant to M.S. 273.76, Subd. 4, the City has reviewed and searched the property to be included in the
tax increment economic development district and found that no building permit has been issued during
the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the tax increment financing plan by the County. If the
building permit had been issued within the 18 month period preceding approval of the tax increment
financing plan by the City, the County Auditor shall increase the original assessed value of the district by
the assessed valuation of the improvements for which the building permit was issued, excluding the
assessed valuation of improvements for which a building permit was issued during the 3 month period
immediately preceding said approval of the tax increment financing plan, as certified by the assessor.
U. EXCESS TAX INCREMENTS
(As Originally Adopted)
Pursuant to M.S. 273.75, Subd. 2 of the Tax Increment Financing Act, in any year in which the tax
increment exceeds the amount necessary to pay the costs authorized by the tax increment plan, including
the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as provided in M.S. 475.61, Subd. 3, the City shall use the
excess amount in order selected by the Authority to:
I. Prepay outstanding Bonds;
2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment, Jherefore;
3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such Bond;
4. Repay any loans including interest on these loans; or
5. Return the excess amount to the County for pro rata distribution to the affected taxing
jurisdictions.
(As Modified June 13,2006)
Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used ouly to do one or more
of the following:
1. Prepay any outstauding bonds;
2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds;
3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or
19
.
.
.
4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing
jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates.
The City or HRA must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine
months after the end of the year. In addition, the City may, subject to the limitations set forth
herein, choose to modify the Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the District
V. REQUIREMENT FOR AGREEMENTS WITH THE DEVELOPER
(As Originally Adopted)
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.75, Subdivision 5, no more than twenty-five percent (25%)
by acreage of the property (25%) to be acquired by the authority in the redevelopment district shall be
owned by the Authority as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to Section
273.77 without the Authority having prior to acquisition in excess of twenty-five percent (25%) of the
acreage, concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and which provides
recourse for the Authority.
W. ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS
(As Originally Adopted)
Pursuant to M.S. 273.76, Subd. 8, the City may, upon entering into a development agreement, enter into
an agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the tax increment financing district
which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of
the tax increment Redevelopment District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County
Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements constructed, review the
market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed, and so
long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears in the judgrnent of the
assessor to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement.
X. ADMIINISTRA TION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TAX INCREMENT ACCOUNT
(As Originally Adopted)
Administration of the tax increment financing economic development district will be handled by the City
of Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the office of the City Administrator. The tax
increment received as a result of increases in the assessed value of the tax increment economic
development district will be maintained in a special account separate from all other municipal accounts
and expended only upon sanctioned municipal activities identified in the finance plan as amended.
Y. ANNUAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
(As Originally Adopted)
Pursuant to M.S. 273.74, Subd. 5, an authority must file an annual disclosure report for all tax increment
financing districts. The report shall be filed with the school board, county board, and the Minnesota
Department of Energy, Planning and Development. The report shall include the following information:
20
.
1. The amount and source of revenue in the account;
2. The amount and purposes of expenditures from the account;
3. The amount of any pledge of revenues, including principal and interest on any
outstanding indebtedness;
4. The original assessed value of the districts;
5. The captured assessed value retained by the authority;
6. The captured assessed value shared with other taxing districts;
7. The tax increment received.
21
The annual disclosure report is designed to be a two-way medium of information dissemination for both
the office of the County Auditor and the City Council. Should the auditor request additional information
from the City regarding the tax increment financing activities, such information should be requested prior
to submission of the annual disclosure report by the City. Similarly, the City Council may utilize the
annual disclosure report as a means for requesting information from the office of the County Auditor.
Additionally, the authority must annually publish a statement in a newspaper of general circulation in the
municipality showing the tax increment received and expended in that year, the original assessed value,
the captured assessed value, amount of outstanding indebtedness, and any additional information the
authority may deem necessary.
(As Modified June 13, 2006)
.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5, 6, and 6b the HRA must undertake financial reporting
for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board, County
Auditor and School Board on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also
provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the
City on or before August 15.
If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by
M.S., Section 469.175 SuM. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the
distribution of tax iucrement from the District.
Z. ASSUMPTIONS
(As Originally Adopted)
It was necessary in the preparation of this plan to make certain assumptions regarding income, costs, and
timing of the economic development district. These assumptions are listed below:
1. INCOME
a. Original Market and Assessed Valuation of Tax Increment District #2 (provided by office of
County Assessor).
Market Value
Assessed Value
230,300
77,481
.
b. New Market and Assessed Valuation of Tax Increment District #2 (provided by office of City
Assessor) .
Market Value
Assessed Value
Less OA V
Total CA V
Mill Rate
333,364
127,961
77,481
50,480
x.084566
22
.
Annual Tax Increment 4,269
(As ModIfied September 26, 1988)
It was necessary in the preparation of this plan to make certain assumptions regarding income, costs, and
timing of the redevelopment district. These assumptions are listed below:
1. Income
a. Original Market and Assessed Valuation of Tax Increment District #2 (provided by office of
County Assessor).
Market Value (1988) $1,464,600
Assessed Value (1988) $346,474
b. New Market and Assessed Valuation of Tax Increment District #2 (provided by office of the
City and County Assessor).
Market Value
Assessed Value
Less OA V
Total CA V
Less Credits
1988 Mill Rate
Annual Tax Increment $
$1,967,247.00'
$ 456,160.00
$ 87,022.00"
$ 369,138.00
$ 456.13
.097876
36,084.81
.
Redevelopment District #22 Annual Debt Service
Metcalf and Larson Securities
1989 Bond Issuance
Total Annual Debt Service
$ 4,285.00
$30.193.80
$34,478.80
* Market Value decrease for subsidized apartment units from $27,500 to $24,500.
** 28,215 sq ft considered vacant land at time of land conveyance from HRA to developer. (after
demolition)
(As Modified June 13, 2006)
The City of Monticello is modifying District No. 1-2 to provide for development and redevelopment
to occur in the City. The modification to Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1-2 was
prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105,
telephone (651) 697-8500.
.
.
.
.
e
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
for the modification of
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-24
(a qualified housing district)
within
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Public Hearing: August 24, 1998
Adopted: August 24, 1998
Modification #1 Public Hearing: June 12,2006
Modification #1 Adopted:
Prepared by:
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, me.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Rosevil1e, Minnesota 55113-1105
Phone: (651) 697-8500
Fax: (651) 697-8555
E-mail: info@ehlers-inc.com
Web Site: www.ehlers-inc.com
.
.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(for reference purposes only)
SECTION I - MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-1
Foreword ..................................................................... I-I
SECTION II - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-24 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
Subsection 2-l.Foreword ......................................................... 2-1
Subsection 2-2.Statutory Authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
Subsection 2-3.Statement of Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
Subsection 2-4.Redevelopment Plan Overview ........................................2-1
Subsection 2-5.Legal Description of Property in Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-24 ..... 2-2
Subsection 2-6.Classification of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-2
Subsection 2-7.0riginal Tax Capacity and Tax Rate .................................... 2-3
Subsection 2-8.Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity ValuelIncrement ..................... 2-4
Subsection 2-9.Property To Be Acquired. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-4
Subsection 2-1 O.Uses of Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-4
Subsection 2-ll.Sources of RevenueIBonded Indebtedness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-5
Subsection 2-12.Definition of Tax Increment Revenues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. 2-6
Subsection 2-13.Duration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-24. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-7
Subsection 2-14.Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions .......................... 2-7
Subsection 2-15.Modifications to Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-8
Subsection 2-16.Administrative Expenses ............................................ 2-9
Subsection 2-17.Limitation ofIncrement .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-10
Subsection2-18.UseofTaxlncrement.............................................. 2-11
Subsection 2-19.Notification of Prior Planned Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. 2-11
Subsection 2-20.Excess Tax Increments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-12
Subsection 2-21.Requirements for Agreements with the Developer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-12
Subsection 2-22.Assessment Agreements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-12
Subsection 2-23.Administration of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-13
Subsection 2-24.Financial Reporting Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. 2-13
Subsection 2-25.Municipal Approval and Public Purpose ............................... 2-15
Subsection 2-26.0ther Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment. . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. 2-16
Subsection 2-27.Income Requirements.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-16
Subsection 2-28.County Road Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-16
Subsection 2-29.Economic Development and Job Creation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-16
Subsection 2-30.Summary ....................................................... 2-17
APPENDIX A
BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I AND
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-24 ................................. A-I
APPENDIX B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
.
.
.
APPENDIX C
ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-24 . . . . . C-l
.
.
.
SECTION / - MOD/FICA T/ON TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
Foreword
The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project No. I. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set
forth in the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I. Generally, the
substantive changes include the modification of Tax Increment Financing District 1-24.
For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project
No. I is recommended. It is available from the City Administrator at the City of Monticello. Otherrelevant
information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts
located within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I.
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1
I-I
.
.
.
SECTION 11- TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-24
Subsection 2-1.
Foreword
The City of Monticello ("City"), the Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), staff and
consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-24 ("District No. 1-24"), a qualified housing tax increment financing district, located in Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the City and HRA have certain statutory powers pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes ("MS. "), Sections 469.001 through 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S.,
Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF
Act"), to assist in financing public costs related to this project.
This Section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "Plan") for District No. 1-24. Other relevant
information is contained in the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project
No.1.
Subsection 2-3, Statement of Obiectives
District No. 1-24 currently consists of a portion of one parcel ofland and adjacent and internal rights-of-way.
District No. 1-24 is created to facilitate constructionof60 unit independent living senior housing building in
the City of Monticello. Concurrent with the construction of the independent living units will be the
construction of60 units of assisted living units, which will not be included in DistrictNo. 1-24. Both facilities
are to be owned by St. Benedict's Center. This plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined
in the Modified Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I.
The activities contemplated in the present Modified Redevelopment Plan and the Tax Increment Financing
Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These
activities are anticipated to occur over the life of District No. 1-24 and Central Monticello Redevelopment
Project No.1.
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview
I. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within District No. 1-24
may be acquired by the City or HRA and is further described in this Plan.
2. Relocation - Complete relocation services are available pursuant to M.S.,
Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3.
Upon approval ofadeveloper's plan relating to the project and completion
of the necessary legal requirements, the City or HRA may sell to a
developer selected properties that they may acquire within District No. 1-24
or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I
2-1
.
4.
The City or HRA may perform or provide for some or all necessary
acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and
public streets work within District No. 1-24.
Subsection 2-5. Lel!al Description of PropertY in Tax Increment Financinl! District No. 1-24
District No. 1-24 encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by the legal description found
in appendix B. Please see the map in Appendix A for further information on the location of District No. 1-24.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of Tax Increment Financinl! District No. 1-24
The City and HRA, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
MS., Sections 469.174 to 469.179, as amended, inclusive, find that District No. 1-24, to be established, is
a qualified housing district pursuant to MS., Section 469.174, Subd. 11 and MS., Section 273.1399,
Subd. 1 (c) as defined below:
Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, Subdivision II:
.
"Housing district" means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of a project,
or a portion of a project, intended for occupancy, in part, by persons or families of low and
moderate income, as defined in chapter 462A. Title II of the National Housing Act of 1934, the
National Housing Act of 1959, the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Title Vof
the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, any other similar present or future federal, state, or
municipal legislation, or the regulations promulgated under any of those acts. A project does
not qualify under this subdivision if the fair market value of the improvements which are
constructed for commercial uses or for uses other than low and moderate income housing
consists of more than 20 percent of the total fair market value of the planned improvements
in the development plan or agreement. The fair market value of the improvements may be
determined using the cost of construction, capitalized income, or other appropriate method of
estimating market value.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, subd. ICe):
"Qualified Housing District" means a housing district for a residential rental project or
projects in which the only properties receiving assistance from revenues derived form tax
increments from the district meet all of the requirements for a low-income housing credit under
section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1992,
regardless of whether the project actually receives a low-income housing credit.
In meeting the statutory criteria described above, the City and HRA rely on the following facts and findings:
.
District No. 1-24 consists of a portion of one parcel.
The development will consist of 60 units of senior housing.
The market value of non-assisted housing or commercial property will be less than 20% ofthe total
fair market value of the planned improvements.
The development in District No. 1-24 will consist entirely of housing facilities which meet all of the
requirements for a low-income housing credit under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
.
.
.
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I
2-2
.
Generally, the requirements of Section 42 include rent restrictions and income restrictions, adjusted
for family size for at least 20% or 40% of the tenants. For 1998, the restrictions are as follows
Maximum Rent by Number of Bedrooms
Percentae:e of Units
I Bedroom
2 Bedrooms
20%
$570
$684
$683
$820
40%
Maximum Income by Family Size
Percentae:e of Units
I Person
2 PeoDle
3 PeoDle
20%
$21,300
$25,560
$24,300
$29,160
$27,350
$32,820
40%
Subsection 2-7. Ori!!inal Tax CaDacity and Tax Rate
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and MS., Section 469.177. Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax
Capacity (ONTC) as certified for District No. 1-24 is based on the market values placed on the property by
. the assessor in 1998 for taxes payable 1999.
Pursuantto MS., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 1999) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1
2-3
I. change in tax exempt status of property;
2. reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. change in the use of the property and classification;
5. change in state law governing class rates; or
6. change in connection with previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity value of District No. 1-24 declines below the ONTC, no
value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the City or HRA.
The original local tax rate for District No. 1-24 will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 1999. The Original
Tax Capacity and the Original Local Tax Rate for District No. 1-24 appear in the following table.
.
.
.
.
$2,500 (Estimate only)
Original Tax Capacity Value
1.18645 (Estimate Only)
Percent Retained by HRA
100%
Original Local Tax Rate
Subsection 2-8. Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment
Pursuant to M.s., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S, Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of District No. 1-24, within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project
No. I, upon completion of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table
below. The City and HRA request 100 percent ofthe available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its
obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 200 I. The project tax capacity listed
is an estimate of values when the project is completed.
Project Estimated Tax Capacity
upon Completion of Project (PTC)
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC)
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC)
Estimated Annual Tax Increment
(CTC x Local Tax Rate)
47,500
2,500
45,000
$53,390
Subsection 2-9, Property To Be Acauired
The City or HRA may acquire any parcel within District No. 1-24 including interior and adjacent street rights
of way.
As Modified June 13. 2006
The City or HRA may acquire any parcel within the District, including interior and adjacent street
rights of way. Properties will be acquired by the City or HRA in order to accomplish one or more
of the following: storm sewer improvements, provide land for needed public streets, utilities and
facilities, transfer to private developers in order to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth
in this TIF Plan. The City or HRA may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct
purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives in this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions
will be undertaken only when there is assurance of fnnding to finance the acquisition and related
costs. The City or HRA may also reimburse the developers for costs of land acquisition in lieu of
direct acquisition by the HRA or City.
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds
Currently under consideration for District No. 1-24 is a proposal to facilitate construction of60 unit senior
housing building. The City and HRA has determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1
2.4
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I
2-5
.
project for certain costs. The HRA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of
property in and around DistrictNo. 1-24. To facilitate the establishment and development orredevelopment
of District No. 1-24, this Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain
eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses offunds associated with District No. 1-24 is outlined
in the following table.
Uses of Funds
Total
Land Acquisition
Site Improvements
Utilities
Interest
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)
$140,000
220,000
170,000
676,500
133,500
TOTAL
$1,340,000
Estimated costs associated with District No. 1-24 are subject to change among categories without
modification of this plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not
exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. The
HRA may expend funds outside of District No. 1-24 boundaries for housing developments that receive or are
eligible to receive low income tax credits under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code.
.
As Modified June 13. 2006
USES OF FUNDS
LandIBuilding
$ 140,000
Site Improvements
220,000
Loan Interest
615,000
Other Housing Improvements
75,000
890,000
$1,940,000
Administration
PROJECT COST TOTAL
The above budget is organized according to the Office of the State Auditor reporting forms.
Pursuant to MN Statute 469.175 Sub 1 (5), it is estimated that the cost of improvements, including
administrative expenses which will be paid or financed with tax increments, will equal $1,940,000.
Subsection 2-11.
Sources of RevenueIBonded Indebtedness
Land acquisition, site improvement costs. public utilities costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds
will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The City or HRA reserves the right
to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the Modified Redevelopment Plan and the Plan, including,
but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and
.
.
.
.
construction, proceeds from the sale ofland, other contributions from the developer and investment income,
to pay for the estimated public costs.
The City or HRA reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the
Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by a pay-as-you-go note. Additional indebtedness
may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness or
other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $880,000 without a
modification to the Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements.
This provision does not obligate the City or HRA to incur debt. The City or HRA will issue bonds or incur
other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The City or HRA
may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the Plan through loans from funds of the City or
HRA.
The estimated sources of funds for District No. 1-24 are contained in the table below.
Sources of Funds
Total
Tax Increment
Interest
$1,335,000
5,000
TOTAL
$1,340,000
As Modified June 13. 2006
SOURCES OF FUNDS
Tax Increment
$1,900,000
20,000
20,000
Interest
Down payment/reimbursements/other
TOTAL
$1,940,000
Subsection 2-12.
Definition of Tax Increment Revenues
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment
financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources:
1.
taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed
under M.s., Section 469.177;
the proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, purchased by the
authority with tax increments;
repayments ofloans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments; and
interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments.
2.
3.
4.
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I
2-6
.
Subsection 2-13.
Duration of Tax Increment Financin!! District No. 1-24
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of District No.
1-24 must be indicated within the Plan. Pursuant to MS., Section 469.176. Subd. 1 (b), the duration of
District No. I -24 will be 25 years from the date of receipt of the first increment by the HRA. The date of
receipt by the HRA of the first tax increment will be approximately 2001. Thus, it is estimated that District
No. 1-24, including any modifications ofthe Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate
after 2025, or when the Plan is satisfied. The City or HRA does reserve the right to decertify District No.
1-24 prior to the legally required date.
As Modified June 13. 2006
The date of the first tax increment received by the City of Monticello was July 2001. Thus it is
estimated that the Tax Increment Financing District, including any modifications of the Plan for
subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2026, or when the Plan is satisfied.
The City or HRA reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date.
Subsection 2-14.
Estimated Impact on Other Taxin!! Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on othertaxingjurisdictions assumes construction which would have occurred without
the creation of District No. 1-24. If the construction is a result of tax increment financing, the impact is $0
to other entities. Notwithstanding, the fact thatthe fiscal impact on the other taxingjurisdictions is $0 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. 1-24 would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met:
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
Wright County
J.S.D. No. 882
City of Monticello
1997/1998
Total Net
Tax Capacity
57,211,935
18,427,306
14,381,226
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Proiect Comoletion
45,000
45,000
45,000
Percent of CTC
to Entity Total
0.0787%
0.2442%
0.3129%
.
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
1997/1998 Percent Potential
Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes
Wright County 0.308320 25.99% 45,000 13,874
J.S.D. No. 882 0.584600 49.27% 45,000 26,307
City of Monticello 0.270010 22.76% 45,000 12,150
Other 0.023520 1.98% 45.000 1.058
Total 1.186450 100.00% 53,390
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I
2-7
.
.
.
used for calculations is the 1997/Pay 1998 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based
on Pay 1998 figures. District No. 1-24 will be certified under the actual 1998/1999 rates, which were
unavailable at the time this Plan was prepared.
As Modified June 13, 2006
The City or ORA does not propose to add any land to District No. 1-24 nor does it anticipate
additional development at this time which will result in additional tax capacity being captured within
District No. 1-24. Since no new land is being added to District No. 1-24 and there is no additional
development expected at this time which will result in additional captured tax capacity, the City
and ORA do not believe this modification will have any fiscal impact on any other taxing
jurisdictions. The following table shows the comparison of captured tax capacity from the original
plan estimate as stated above to the captured tax capacity for taxes payable 2006
Impact on Tax Base
200512006 Total Net Captured Tax Percent of CTC
Tax Capacity Capacity (CTC) to Entity Total
Wright County 106,178,099 43,652 ,0412%
I.S.D, No. 882 20,630,250 43,652 .2116%
Ci of Monticello 13,228,292 43,652 .3300%
Impact on Tax Rates
2005/2006
Extension Percent of Potential
Rates Total (CTC) Taxes
Wright County 0.325670 29,53% 43,652 $14,216
I.S.D. No. 882 0.243720 22.10% 43,652 $10,639
City of Monticello 0.510280 46.26% 43,652 $22,275
Other 0,023300 2.11% 43,652 $1,017
Total 1.1 02970 $48,147
Subsection 2-15,
Modifications to Tax Increment Financinl! District No. 1-24
In accordance with MS., Section 469.175. Subd. 4, any:
I. reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of Central Monticello Redevelopment
Project No. I or District No. 1-24;
2. increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred, including a determination to
capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original plan, or to
increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized;
3. increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the City or HRA;
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1
2-8
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1
2-9
.
40
50
increase in total estimated tax increment expenditures; or
designation of additional property to be acquired by the City or HRA,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original piano
The geographic area of District Noo 1-24 may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following
the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditoL If a qualified housing district
is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district meets the
criteria of MS, Section 4690179, Subd 11 andMS, Section 27301399. Subd l(c) must be documentedo
The requirements ofthis paragraph do not apply if(1) the only modification is elimination of parcel( s) from
Central Monticello RedevelopmentProjectNoo lor DistrictNoo 1-24 and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity
of the parcel( s) eliminated from District Noo 1-24 equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel( s)
in District Noo I-24's original net tax capacity or (B) the HRA agrees that, notwithstanding MoSo, Section
4690177, Subd 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity
of the parcel(s) eliminated from DistrictNoo 1-240
The City or HRA must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic
area of District Noo 1-24 or Central Monticello Redevelopment Project Noo L Modifications to Tax
Increment Financing DistrictNoo 1-24 in the form ofa budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries
will be recorded in the Piano
Subsection 2-16.
Administrative EXDenses
.
In accordance with MS, Section 4690174, Subd 14, and MS, Section 4690176. Subdo 3, administrative
expenses means all expenditures of the City or HRA, other than:
10 amounts paid for the purchase ofland or amounts paid to contractors or others providing
materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected
with the physical development of the real property in the district;
20 relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in
the district; or
30 amounts used to pay interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to MS, Section 46901780
Administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants,
and planning or economic development consultants 0 Tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and
documented administrative expenses for District Noo 1-24 up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total tax
increment expenditures authorized by the tax increment financing plan or the total tax increment expenditures
for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project Noo I, whichever is lesso
Pursuant to MoS, Section 4690176. Subd 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the county's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with District Noo 1-240 The county may require payment of
those expenses by February IS of the year following the year the expenses were incurredo
.
Pursuant to MS, Section 4690 177, Subdo 11, the county treasurer shall deduct an amount equal to 0025
percent of any increment distributed to the City or HRA and the county treasurer shall pay the amount
.
deducted to the state treasurer for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor
for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and
auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing.
Snbsection 2-17.
Limitation of Increment
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.176, Subd. I(a), no tax increment shall be paid to the City or HRA for
District No. 1-24 after three (3) years from the date of certification ofthe Original Net Tax Capacity value
of the taxable property in District No. 1-24 by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) year period:
(a) bonds have been issued pursuantto MS., Section 469.178, or in aid ofa
project pursuant to any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to
MS., Sections 469.152 to 469.165, or
(b) the City or HRA has acquired property within District No. 1-24, or
(c) the City or HRA has constructed or caused to be constructed public
improvements within District No. 1-24.
The bonds must be issued, or the City or HRA must acquire property or construct or cause public
improvements to be constructed by approximately August, 2001.
.
The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and may be
terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow
account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or
redemption date.
PursuanttoMS., Section 469.176, Subd. 6:
.
if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the
tax increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition,
rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified
improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service
including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a
tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in
accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be
taken from that parcel and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be
excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If
the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition,
rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including
qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax
increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the
activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof
as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net
tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce
the provisions of this subdivision... For purposes of this subdivision, qualified
improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2)
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1
2.10
.
relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstnlction or rebuilding of an existing
street.
The City or HRA or a property owner must improve parcels within District No. 1-24 by approximately
August, 2002.
Subsection 2-18.
Use of Tax Increment
The City or HRA hereby determines that it will use 100 percent ofthe captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in District No. 1-24 for the following purposes:
.
1.
2.
to pay the principal of and interest on bonds used to finance a project;
to finance, or otherwise pay the capital and administration costs ofthe Central Monticello
Redevelopment Project No. I pursuant to the MS, Sections 469.124 to 469.134;
to pay for project costs as identified in the budget;
to finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided inMS., Section 469.176, Subd.
4'
,
to pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to the City or
HRA or for the benefit of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I by the developer;
to finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance, credit enhancement, or
other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal and interest on tax increment
bonds or bonds issued pursuant to the Plan or pursuant to M.S, Chapter 462C and M.S,
Sections 469.152 through 469.165, 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 MS., Chapter 462C and
MS., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, or both.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other
purposes prohibited by MS., Section 469.176, subd. 4. Revenues derived from tax increment from a
housing district must be used solely to finance the cost of housing projects as defined in MS., Section
469.174, subd. 11, that also receives or meetthe requirements forlow income housing credits under Section
42 ofthe Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The cost of public improvements directly related to the housing
projects and the allocated administrative expenses of the City or HRA may be included in the cost of a
housing project.
Subsection 2-19. Notification of Prior Planned Imorovements
The City or HRA shall, after due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County
Auditor or its notice of District No. 1-24 enlargement with a listing ofall properties within District No. 1-24
or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months
immediately preceding approval ofthe Plan by the municipality pursuant to MS, Section 469.175, Subd.
3. The County Auditor shall increase the original value of District No. 1-24 by the value of improvements
for which a building permit was issued.
Pursuant to MS, Section 469.177. Subd. 4, the HRA has reviewed the area to be included in District No.
1-24 and found no parcels for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately
preceding approval of the Plan by the City and HRA.
.
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1
2-11
~
Subsection 2-20. Excess Tax Increments
Pursuant to M.S, Section 469.176, Subd. 2, in any year in which the tax increment exceeds the amount
necessary to pay the costs authorized by the Plan, including the amount necessary to cancel any tax levy as
provided in MS, Section 475.61, Subd. 3, the City or HRA shall use the excess amount to do any of the
following:
I. prepay any outstanding bonds;
2, discharge the pledge of tax increment therefor;
3. pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of such bonds; or
4. return the excess to the County Auditor forredistribution to the respective taxingjurisdictions
in proportion to their local tax rates.
As Modified June 13. 2006
The City or HRA must speud or return excess incremeuts uuder M.S. Section 469.176 Subd 2,
paragraph (c) within nine months after the end of the year.
In addition, the City or HRA may, subjectto the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the Plan in order
to finance additional public costs in District No. 1-24 or Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I.
Subsection 2-21. Reauirements for Al!reements with the Developer
,
The City or HRA will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the
Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the
following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and
electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any
other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the City or HRA to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with city plans and ordinances. The City or HRA may also use the Agreements to address other
issues related to the development.
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central MonticelIo Redevelopment Project No.1
2-12
Pursuant to MS. Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the property to be
acquired in District No. 1-24 as set forth in the 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 MS. Section 469.178, to which tax
increments from property acquired is pledged, without the City or HRA having, prior to acquisition in excess
of I 0 percent of the acreage, concluded an agreement for the development orredevelopment of the property
acquired and which provides recourse for the City or HRA should the development or redevelopment not be
completed.
Subsection 2-22. Assessment Al!reements
.
Pursuant to MS. Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the City or HRA may enter into an agreement in recordable
form with the developer of property within DistrictNo. 1-24 which establishes a minimum market value of
the land and completed improvements for the duration of District No. 1-24. 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 land upon which the improvements are to be constructed
and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment
.
.
.
of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the assessor may certify the minimum market value agreement.
Subsection 2-23. Administration of Tax Increment Financin!! District No. 1-24
Administration of District No. 1-24 will be handled by the Executive Director of the HRA of the City of
Monticello.
Subsection 2-24. Financial Reportin!! ReQuirements
A. Filing with State Auditor, County Auditor, County Board and School Board: Pursuant toMS., Section
469.175, Subd. 5, the City or HRA must file an annual disclosure report for all tax increment financing
districts, including District No. 1-24. The report shall be filed with the County Board, County Auditor, School
Board, and the State Auditor on or before July I (August I beginning for reports to be filed in 1999) of each
year. The report to be filed by the City or HRA shall include the following information:
I.
2.
3.
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 District No. 1-24;
the captured net tax capacity retained by the City or HRA;
the captured net tax capacity shared with other taxing districts;
the tax increment received; and
any additional information necessary to demonstrate compliance with the tax increment
financing plan.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
B. Newspaper Statement: MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City showing:
I. the tax increment received and expended in that year,
2. the original net tax capacity,
3. captured net tax capacity,
4. amount of outstanding bonded indebtedness,
5. the amount of District No. I-24's increment paid to other governmental bodies,
6. the amount paid for administrative costs,
7. the sum of increments paid, directly or indirectly, for activities and improvements located
outside of District No. 1-24, and
8. any additional information the City or HRA deems necessary.
C. State Auditor filing for District No. 1-24: Pursuant to MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 6, the City or HRA
must annually submit to the State Auditor, on or before July I (August I beginning for reports to be filed in
1999), a financial report which shall:
I.
2.
provide for full disclosure of the sources and uses of the public funds in District No. 1-24;
permit comparison and reconciliation with the City and HRA's accounts and financial
reports;
permit auditing ofthe funds expended on behalf of District No. 1-24 or that is funded in part
3.
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I
2-13
.
4.
or whole through the use of a development account funded with tax increments from other
tax increment districts or with public money; and
be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.
The financial report must also include the following:
.
I. the original net tax capacity of District No. 1-24;
2. the captured net tax capacity of District No. 1-24, including the amount of any captured net
tax capacity shared with other taxing districts;
3. the amount budgeted under the Plan, and the actual amount expended for, at least, the
following categories (for the reporting period and for the duration of District No. 1-24):
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;
e. public park facilities, facilities for social, recreational, or conference purposes, or
other similar public improvements; and
4. the total costs of the property to the City or HRA and the price paid the developers (for
properties sold to developers);
5. the amount of increments rebated or paid to developers or property owners for privately
financed improvements or other qualifying costs, other than those reported under clause (3),
that were issued on behalf of private entities for facilities located in District No. 1-24.
D. State Auditor filing for all Tax Increment Financing Districts: Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd.
6a, the City or HRA must also annually report to the State Auditor before oron July I (August I beginning
for reports to be filed in 1999) of each year the following amounts for the entire City:
I. the total principal amount of nondefeased bonds that are outstanding at the end of the
previous calendar year; and
2. the total annual amount of principal and interest payments that are due for the current
calendar year on:
(i) general obligation tax increment financing bonds and
(ii) other tax increment financing bonds; and
for each tax increment financing district within the City:
.
Monticello HRA
1.
2.
3.
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 benefits, such as physical improvements
and the uses of building space, that are financed with revenues derived from increments and
are 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 each district; and
any additional information that the State Auditor may require.
4.
5.
6.
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1
2-14
.
.
.
Copies ofthis report must also be provided to the county and school district boards. If the City fails to make
a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by Section 469.175 sudb. 5, 6 and 6a, the
State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to hold the distribution of tax increment from District No. 1-24.
Subsection 2-25. Municioal Aooroval and Public Puroose
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for
District No. 1-24 as required pursuant to MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that District No. 1-24 is a qualified housing district as defined in M.s., Section
469.174, Subd. 11 and M.s., Section 273.1399, Subd. l(c).
District No. 1-24 consists of a portion of one parcel. The development will consist of 60 units of
senior rental housing. No portion of the property will be used for purposes other than low and
moderate income housing. The development in District No. 1-24 will consist entirely of housing
facilities which meet all of the rent and income limitations for a low-income housing credit under
section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
2.
Finding that the proposed development, in the opznlon of the City Council, would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future and. therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary.
The City has determined that, in view of reduced revenues from a housing facility intended for
occupancy by low and moderate income persons, the development proposed in the Plan would not
be financially feasible without substantial public assistance including tax increment financing. In
making this finding, the City has relied upon the developer's pro forma submitted to the City and
Authority, requirements of other state and local assistance to the development, and analysis of the
need for tax increment assistance prepared by Ehlers and Associates and on file in City Hall.
3.
Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1-24 conforms to the general
plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole.
The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission onAugust4, 1998. The Planning Commission
found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. 1-24 will afford maximum
opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or
redevelopment of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 by private enterprise.
Through the implementation ofthe Plan, the City or HRA will increase the tax base ofthe City, and
will increase the availability of safe and decent life-cycle housing in the City.
Additional findings are set forth in the Authorizing Resolution of the City.
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1
2-15
......
.
Subsection 2-26. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
I. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the capital and administration costs
of the Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I pursuant to the MS. See/ions 469.124 /0
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 acquisition, construction, renovation, operation or maintenance of
a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county,
school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government.
2. Five Year Limitation onCommitrnent of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from District No.
1-24 shall be deemed to have been expended within the TIF District only if the five year rule set forth
inMS.. See/ion 469.1763. Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following
certification of District No. 1-24,80 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures
permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or
credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in MS. See/ion 469.1763. Subd. 5.
Subsection 2-27. Income ReQuirements
-
The housing project must satisfy the applicable income limitations and rent restrictions required in connection
with low income housing tax credits under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Subsection 2-28. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S. See/ion 469.175, Subd. la, the county board may require the City or HRA to pay for all
or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed developmentto be assisted by tax increment
will, in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of
road improvements or other road costs and ifthe road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or other county plan.
In the opinion of the City and HRA and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this Plan will have
little oruo impact upon county roads. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must
notify the City or HRA within thirty days of receipt of this Plan.
Subsection 2-29. Economic Development and Job Creation
The City or HRA is not providing tax increment financing for the purpose of economic development or job
growth and therefore, the provisions ofMS, See/ion 116J. 991, (which states that a business receiving state
or local government assistance for economic development or job growth purposes, including tax increment
financing, must create a net increase in jobs and meet wage level goals in Minnesota within two years of
receiving assistance) are not applicable and the City and HRA are not establishing wage and job goals in
connection with District No. 1-24.
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I
2-16
.
.
.
Subsection 2-30. Summarv
The City of Monticello is establishing District No. I -24 provide an impetus for safe and decent life-cycle
housing development in the City. The Tax Increment Financing Plan for District No. I -24 was prepared by
Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55 I I 3- I 105, telephone (651) 697-
8500.
Monticello HRA
Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I
2.17
.
.
t
APPENDIX A
BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-24
APPENDIX
A-I
.
.
0"" 0<
~o ...:lE-o
~z ...:l0
U E-o ~ C'-l
....u ~~
E-o ~ E-o z
z8 z....
o~ o~
~ ~ ~ ~
...:lE-o ~~
<z o~
~~ ~;:J
E-o ~ E-o 0
:z:~ ....u
~o u
U ...:l E-o
~ =
> C-'
~ ~
~ ~
~
'\
.
Iw II
II! il
Il II
illl
~
-j
~
o
~
u..UJ~
i=o":'
L____
r
~
"
o
i
.
~
f
I
~
o
.
.
.
APPENDIX
APPENDIX B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-24
Lot 4, Block I, Church of St. Henry.
B-1
.
.
THE 4.5 ACRE PARCEL IS A PORTION OF
PARCEL A:
That pa~t of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 12, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota
deecribed ae followe: C~ncing at the northweet corner of the
Korthwest Quarte~ of the Northeast QUarter of Section 13 of said
Township 121, Range 25; thence on an assumed bearing of south 89
degrees 39 minutes 28 seconds East along the north line of 8aid
No~thwe.t Quart.~ of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 172.24 feet
to a line parallel with and distant 50.00 feet southwest from the
center line of the Burlington Northern as measured at a right angle
from said canter line; thence South 52 degrees 37 minutes 59 seconds
Eaat along said parallel line, a distance of 915.31 feet; thence
South 28 deg~ee8 45 minutes 01 seconds West, a diatance of 868.39
feet to the northeasterly right of way line of Interstate Highway Ho.
9.; thence North 63 degreee 30 minutes 18 seconde West along said
northeasterly right of way line, a dietance of 1506.58 feet to a
point hereinafter referred to ae Point A; thence continue Harth 63
degrees 30 minutes 18 second. West along 8aid Dortheasterly right of
way line, a distance ot 1569.36 teet to a point at curve in said
northeasterly right of way line; thence northwesterly along s.id
Dortheaaterly right of way line being a tangential curve concave to
the so~thweat having a radiue of 5829.58 feet and a central angle of
3 degrees 31 minutes 12 secondS, a dietance of 358.14 feet to the
_st line of the Southwaat Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of e.id
Section 12; thence North 1 degree 24 minutee 50 eeconde S.et along
said west line, a distance of 136.83 feet to the north Une of the
South 10.00 acres ot said 80uthweat Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 52 mnutes 01 seconds East along
,.id north line, . distance of 1300.49 feet to the east line of aaid ,
Southwut Quarter of the 80utbw.at Quarter; thence North 1 degree 24
.tnutes 40 seconds East along ,.id east line, a distance of 109.87
feet to the south line of old TerritOrial Road being the point of
beqinning of the land to be deacribed; thence continue North 1
deqrae 24 minute. 40 seconds Bast, . distance of 368.77 feet to a
line parallel with and distant 50.00 feet southwest of as aeasured at
a r19ht IlJ1g1e frcllll aaid center line of the Burlington Northern
Railroad; thence South 73 degree. 13 .inutes 23 seconds Eut alonC)
aaid parallel line, a distance of 246.36 feat; thence southeasterly
along said parallel line being a tangential curve concave to ths
aoutbwe,t having a radius of 2275.00 feet and a cantral an91e of 20
degrees 35 _inutss 25 asconds, a distance of 817.56 feet; thance
Soutb 52 degraes 37 8lnutes S9 seconds East along 8aid parallel line,
a distance of 12.70 feet to the intersection of a line bearing North
28 degrees .5 ainutes 01 seconds Baet trom said Point A; thanc.
South 28 delrre.. 45 .inute. 01 seconde West, a distance of 294.43
te.t to the intersaction of a 11ne bearing SOllth 67 de9re.a 59
.inutes 57 aeconde E.at from the point of beginning; tbance North 67
degrees 59 minutes 57 seconds West, a di.tanca of 903.28 feet to the
point of beginning.
97357
TO BE PLATTED IN SEPTEMBER 1998 AND DESCRIBED AS LOT 3. BLOCK 1, CHURCH OF ST. HENRY'S
.
.
.
APPENDIX C
ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-24
APPENDIX
c-]
07fZlf98
City 01 MOf1ticellO: 60 UM Senior Housing in Oislrict No. 1-24
T.I.F. CASH FLOW ASSUMPTIONS
.
Inflation Rale:
PaY4As-You-Go Interesl Rate:
Tax Extension Rale 4 District 270-3:
BASE VALUE INFORMA nON
Land
Value
See Legal Decsripfion in Exhibit B 100,000
o
o
Total Original Market Vaiue 100 000
Oass Rate: Muhi-Family Market Rate
Multi-Family 4(d)
Original Tax Capacity (when certified):
Original Tax Capacity (when use is changed):
PROJECf VALUE INFORMA nON
Type of Tax Increment District:
0.0000%
6.500%
1.186450 Pay 98
Building Total Pay 99 Tax
Value Value Capacity
0 100,000 2,500
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 100.000 2.500
2.5000% Pay 99
1.0000% Pay 99
2,500 Pay 99
2,500 Pay 98
Qualified Housing
Type Of Units MVPer Total Market Total Tax Year Year
Pro'eel Unit Value Caad Started Pa able
Rental 60 30,000 1.900,000 47,500 1999 2001
Total 60 1 900,000 47 500
Assunes no 4(d) units
SUMMARY
.
Total AnnuaJ Taxes*
Total Annual Tax Incremenl Aftel Admin.
Net Taxes Paid:
Total Annual Taxes Per Unit:
Total Annual Tax Increment Per Unit:
.
MC10Q.01
_,,__!no.
56,356
48,051
8,305
939
801
Page I
Sonlo<2....
07/21/98 City 01 MonticellO: 60Unil Senior Housing in District No. 1.24 pa9f! 2
TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW
Original Project Captured Semi-Annual Admin Semi-Annual Years of PAYMENT DATEl
'00 BEGINNING Tax Tax Tax Gross Tax at Net Tax Tax PERIOD ENDING
Mth. Y.. Capacity Capacity Capacity Incremenl 10,00% Increment Incremenl Yrs. Mth. Y..
0.0 o:!-ol 1999 2,500 2,500 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.5 08-01 19991
0.5 ()8.()1 1999 2.500 2.500 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.002-01 2000'
1.0 02-01 2000 2.500 2.500 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.508-01 20001
1.5 08-01 2000 2,500 2,500 0 0 0 0 0.0 2.002-01 ,
20011
2.0 02-01 2001 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,026 0.5 2.508..()1 =1
2.5 tle-Ol 2001 2,500 47.500 45,000 26.695 2,670 24.026- 1.0 3.002..01
3.0 02-01 2002 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24.026 1.5 3.5 08-01 2002
3.508-01 2002 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,026 2.0 4.002-01 ,
20031
4.002-01 2003 2,500 47,500 45,000 26.695 2,670 24,026 2.5 4.5 08-01 2003
4.5 08-01 2003 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24.026 3.0 5.0 02-01 2004'
5.0 02-01 2004 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24.026 3.5 5.5 08-01 20041
5.5 tle-01 2004 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,026 4.0 6.002.{)1 2005
6.0 02-01 2005 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24.026 4.5 6.5 08-01 20051
6.5 ()8.()1 2005 2,500 47,500 45.000 26.695 2,670 24.026 5.0 7.002-01 2006'
7.002-01 2006 2.soo 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,025 5.5 7.508-01 2006!
7.5 08-01 2006 2,500 47,500 45,000 26.695 2,670 24,026 6.0 8.002-01 20071
8.0 02-01 2007 2,500 47,500 45,000 26.695 2,670 24,026 6.5 8.508..()1 2007!
8.5 08-01 2007 2.500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,026 7.0 9.002...Q1 2008'
9.0 02-01 2008 2.500 47,500 45,000 26.695 2.670 24,026 7.5 9.5 08-01 2008!
9.5 tle-Ol 2008 2.500 47,500 45,000 26.695 2,670 24,026 8.0 10.002-01 2oo9!
10.0 02-01 2009 2.500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,026 8.5 10.508"()1 20091
10.5 tle-Ol 2009 2,500 47,500 45,000 26.695 2,670 24,026 9.0 11.002-01 ,
20101
11.0 02-01 2010 2,500 47.500 45,000 26,695 2.670 24,026 9.5 11.5 ()8.01 2010
11.5 tle-Ol 2010 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2.670 24,026 10.0 12.002..()1 2011
12.0 02-01 2011 2.500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,026 10.5 12.5 tle-Ol 2011
12.5 08-01 2011 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2.670 24,026 11.0 13.002-01 2012
13.0 02-01 2012 2.500 47,500 45,000 26.695 2.670 24,026 11.5 13.5 08-01 2012
13.508.()1 2012 2.500 47,500 45,000 26.695 2,670 24,026 12.0 14.002..01 2013
14.0 02-01 2013 2,500 1,7,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,026 12.5 14.508"()1 2013
~ 08.()1 2013 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,026 13.0 15.002-01 2014
, 02-01 2014 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2.670 24,026 13.5 15.5 tle-Ol 2014
"".5 08-01 2014 2.500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2.670 24,026 14.0 16.002-01 2015
16.0 02-01 2015 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2.670 24,026 14.5 16.5 08-01 2015
16.5 08.()1 2015 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,026 15.0 17.002-01 2016
17.0 02-01 2016 2,500 47.soo 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,026 155 17.5 tle-Ol 2016
17508.()1 2016 2.soo 47.soo 45,000 26,695 2,670 24.026 16.0 16.002.01 2017
18.002-01 2017 2,500 47.soo 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,026 16.5 18.508-01 2017
18508.()1 2017 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2.670 24,026 17.0 19.002-01 2018
19.002-01 2018 2,500 47.soo 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,026 17.5 19.508.()1 2018
19.5 08..01 2018 2,500 47.500 45.000 26,695 2,670 24,026 18.0 20.0 02-01 2019
20.0 02-01 2019 2,500 47.soo 45.000 26,695 2,670 24,026 185 20.5 08-01 2019
2O.508.()1 2019 2,500 47.500 45.000 26,695 2,670 24,026 19.0 21.002-01 2020
21.0 02-01 2020 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2.670 24,026 19.5 21.508-01 2020
215 08.()1 2020 2,500 47.soo 45.000 26,695 2,670 24,026 20.0 22.0 02-01 2021
22.0 02-01 2021 2.500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,026 20.5 22.5 08-01 2021
22.5 tle-Ol 2021 2,500 47,500 45.000 26,695 2.670 24,026 21.0 23.0 02-01 2022
23.0 02-01 2022 2,500 47,500 45,000 26,695 2.670 24,026 21.5 23.5 08-01 2022
23508.()1 2022 2.soo 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,026 22.0 24.0 02-01 2023
24.0 02-01 2023 2.soo 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24.026 22.5 24.5 tle-01 2023
245 tle-01 2023 2.soo 47,500 45,000 26,695 2,670 24,026 23.0 26.0 02-01 2024
25.0 02-01 202' 2.soo 47.500 04.6.000 26.695 2.670 24.026 235 25.5 08-01 2024
25.508.()1 2024 2,500 47,500 45,000 26.695 2,670 24.026 24.0 26.0 02-01 2025
26.0 02-01 2025 2.500 47,500 45,000 26.695 2,670 24,026 24.5 26.5 08-01 2025
265 tle-Ol 2026 2500 47 500 45 000 26695 2670 24026 25.0 27.0 02-01 2026
Totals 1 756 133 478 1 1 91
Pr~nt Values 576706 57671 519035
.
MC10D-0t
_,,_Inc.
.-.....
c-
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 6/06/06
9.
Consideration to review for discussion the standards for Planned Unit
Developments.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
A copy of the minutes of April 18th, 2006 and the slides shown at that meeting are
included for the Commissions review. Also included is a PUD Acceptability
worksheet. All are included for background information and research.
Staff would encourage the Commission to visit PUD sites and consider amenities or
qualities that either support a "superior" PUD product or perhaps reflect those items
which may be undesirable in a PUD project.
The goal of the discussion will be to develop an outcome for measunng PUD
requests.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Minutes of April 18, 2006
B. PUD Slide Image Packet
C. PUD Acceptability Worksheet
.
~
90
~
.
N
.
-
C")
. .
.
It
'<t
e
-
.
L()
.
.
.
CD
e
.
.
I"-
.
.
.
00
.
-
(J)
e
.
o
~
.
.
.
~
~
.
.
It
N
......
.
.
<'l
~
.
.
'<t
......
.
.
.
I.C)
~
.
.
co
~
.
.
.
r-
~
.
.
co
~
.
.
qG
.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ACCEPTABILITY DISCUSSION
.
What PUD projects within Monticello do you think have met the "superior" standard
required by PUD?
. Cottage Charm . Sunset Ponds
. Hunters Crossing . Timber Ridge
. Monticello Travel Center . Union Crossings (Ryan site)
. Spirit Hills . Hillside Farm
. Carlisle Village
.
Describe specific characteristics of those projects that in your opinion make it a
superior project?
.
Please provide examples of other projects outside of Monticello that you can cite as
"superior" projects and describe their characteristics.
.
Please list your "superior" development characteristics below. Staff has put together
a preliminary list of items for consideration.
.
Residential
.
. Clustered development to maximize and/or preserve common open space
. Addition of private recreational spaces (outside of park dedication), with
maintenance
. Enhancements to streetscapes
. Preservation and/ore restoration and enhancement of natural features such as
woodland wetlands, oak savannahs
. Customized lot grading for tree preservation
. Innovative building design, including:
o Increased window fenestration
o Porches, portico's, and other "front forward" design features
o Material upgrades (window banding, shakes, slate or cedar roofing,
hardiboard siding, etc.)
o Stone, brick or other enhanced fayade detailing
o Break-up of building walls
. Intensified landscaping, including:
o Additional tree planting programs
o Whole yard sod requirements
o Foundation planting enhancements
. Incorporation of aesthetic elements (landscape block, gazebos, etc.) to storm
water areas
. Technology upgrades
.
CommerciaIlIndustrial
. Private outdoor seating areas
. Enhanced landscaping in parking areas
. Increased green space around buildings
. Combined, coordinated site signage for multi-business locations
. Monument signage in place of pylon signage
. Decorative paver sidewalks and paths
. Innovative building design, including:
o Increased window fenestration
o Material upgrades
. Please list areas ofthe ordinance that you feel should be inflexible in terms of
granting a PUD. Again, staff has provided some initial information.
. Parking standards - parking counts are not flexible from the ordinance without
cross-easement. Townhouse developments are required to provide the required
number of parking spaces.
. Exterior setbacks - setbacks at plat edges are required as stated in the ordinance
and are not available for variation.
.
.
.
10.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 6/06/06
Consideration of an uudate rel!:ardinl!: centralized messal!:e board sil!:nal!:e.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
A verbal update will be provided by Commissioner Suchy at the meeting.