Loading...
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.