Planning Commission Agenda 06-07-2005
.
.
.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JUNE 7th, 2005
6:00 P.M
Commissioners:
Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and
Sandy Suchy
Council Liaison:
Glen Posusta
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, Steve Grittman - NAC, and
Angela Schumann
I. Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the special Planning Commission meeting held Tuesday, May 23rd,
2005.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizen comments.
5. Continued Public Hearing - Amendment to Ordinance for Open and Outdoor Storage
Applicant: City of Monticello
6. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a requcst for a Conditional Use Permit for Open
and Outdoor Storage for the storage and rental of vehicles in a B-3 (Highway Business)
District.
Applicant: Enterprise Rent-a-Car
7. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a Simple Subdivision to create two
conforming unplattcd lots in a PZM (Performance Zoned~Mixed) Zoning District
Applicant: Antoinette Breiwick
8. Public Hearing _ Consideration to amend the Monticello Zoning Ordinance relating to filing
procedures for formal applications of Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permits, Planned
Unit Developments and Variances, and to amend the ordinance to detine Simple Subdivisions
and the application process related to Simple Subdivisions.
Applicant: City of Monticello.
9. Public Hearing _ Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Special Home
Occupation allowing for an in-home hair care salon in an R-2 Zoning District.
Applicant: Tom and Kristy Brion
.
.
.
10. Public Hearing _ Consideration of a request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Devclopmcnt for thc Jefferson at Monticello dcvelopmcnt, an approximately 875 acre
dcvelopment consisting of approximately 2700 residcntial units over 515 acres, 328 acres of
community property/open spacc and 32 acres of commercial development.
Applicant: Hcritagc Developmcnt
11. Public Hearing _ Considcration of a request for a ConditionalUsc Permit for a Concept Stage
Planned Unit Development for Monte Club Villas, a 14.18 acrc rcsidential dcvelopment
consisting of 26 detached townhome units.
Applicant: L & G, LLC
12. Publ ic Hearing _. Consideration of a request for Prcl iminary Plat for Hiddcn Forcst, a 103.44 acre
rcsidential subdivision consisting of 171 single~family units, and of a request to rc-zone from A-O
to R-I (Single-Family Rcsidential) and R-l A (Single-Family Residential).
Applicant: Bradley Paumen
13. Consideration to approve a resolution ofthe City of Monticcllo Planning Commission finding that
a modification to the Redevclopment Plan for Ccntral Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1
and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for T1F District No. 1-34 conform to the General Plans for
the devclopmcnt and redevelopment ofthe city.
Applicant: City of Monticcllo
14. Comprehcnsive Plan Update
15. Community Hcalth Assessment - Summary Update
16. Adjourn.
.
.
.
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDA Y, MAY 23rd, 2005
5:30 P.M
Commissioners Present:
Dick Frie, Rod Dragsten, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and
Sandy Suchy
Council Liaison Absent:
Glen Posusta
Staff Present:
Jeff O'Neill, Steve Grittman - NAC, and
Angela Schumann
1. Call to order.
Chairman Frie called the meeting to order and noted a full quorum and the
absence of Council member posusta.
2. A roval ofthe minutes of the re ular Plannin' Commission meetin
200S and the revised minutes of Tuesdav, AprilSth, 200S.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE REVISED
MINUTES OF APRIL STH, 200S.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRJED.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MAY
3rd,200S.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HILGART. MOTION CARRIED.
3. Citizen comments.
NONE.
4. Consideration ofa request for rezoning from R-PUD (Residential Planned Unit
Development) to B-4 (Regional Business) and preliminary plat for Monticello Commerce
Center ih Addition. Applicant: Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.
Grittman provided the staffreport, explaining that the subject property is approximately
28 acres, and is surrounded by school, church, park and neighborhood. Grittman noted
that at this time, the small triangular portion south east of Meadow Oak would retain its
R-PUD status. The applicant is requesting that the north side of Meadow Oak Avenue be
rezoned toB-4, regional commercial. Grittman stated that regional commercial uses
would be consistent with interchanges. According to the plan presented, approximately
12 acres would be utilized for commercial uses. The balance of the plat would be
encumbered by the interchange and ponding for the interchange.
Planning Commission Minutes OS/23/05
.
Frie rcconfirmed that the triangular piece would remain R-PUD and that this application
focuses strictly on north side of Meadow Oak.
Suchy asked wherc the access to the commercial areas would be. O'Neill stated it would
come from the south.
Chairman Fric opened thc public hearing. Charlie Pfeffer, reprcsentative for Monticello
Industrial Park, madc himself available for questions.
Betsy Miller, residcnt at 2318 Eastwood Circle addressed the Commission. Miller
explained that as her property line abuts the triangle property she does have concerns
about the commercial uses near a residential area and the traffic it will generate. Miller
stated that while she understands that commcrcial is thc bcst use of the propcrty, she
noted that thc rcquest does represent a significant changc from residential to commercial
use. Miller requested that the applicant and Commission consider a buffer yard or
landscaping of some kind.
Frie stated that buffer yards will be planned for as the property develops.
Frie askcd Pfeffcr to respond to Miller's comments. Pfeffer stated that they are only
platting at this time to facilitate the construction ofthe interchange. They have no users
at this point. In terms of a butfer, Pfeffer statcd that it would be unusual to do a buffer
along frontage of Meadow Oak A vcnue.
.
Miller askcd about the possibility of changing the zoning of the triangular piece near
Mcadow Oaks at a later date? Frie stated that ifthat were requested, anothcr public
hearing notice would be issued.
O'Neill stated that staff would probably require a buffer betwecn thc park and
commercial use as part of any proposed developmcnt. He also stated that the corner will
need to be looked at the time of development. Miller stated that shc just wants some
scnsitivity to safety and aesthetic concerns.
Chairman Fric closed thc public hearing.
Dragsten pointed out that Meadow Oak will be a busy road during interchange
construction. Frie asked if the road would be widened as part of construction. O'Neill
stated it would be posted for no parking. Pfeffer stated there will be a temporary parking
lot contiguous to the west line of the park.
Dragsten asked why three outlots were being platted. O'Neill clarilied that it is due to
ponding for the interchange: Outlot C is pond, Outlot A is B-4, Outlot B is the R-PUD.
Dragsten asked ifthe location at which County 18 and Highway 75 intersect is zoned B-
4. O'Neill clarified that it is.
.
Suchy if access was coming from Meadow Oak A venue. Pfeffer confirmed. Suchy
asked if it will be two lanes with turn lanes. Pfeffer stated it will be a 40-44 foot road
with that center lane as turn lane. O'Neill noted that there would be sidewalk along
roadway as well.
2
Planning Commission Minutes OS/23/05
.
Hilgart asked if apartments would be allowed under R-PUD zoning. O'Neill stated that
he thought only under a CUP. Hilgart stated his preference of commercial over
apartments in that area.
Frie asked for an explanation of the difference between a final plat and development plan.
Pfeffer responded that the development plan related to site development, how it will be
developed, versus the recorded documents with surveyed legal.
Frie asked if either would be brought before Commission. O'Neill stated that both would
potentially come forward via another preliminary plat.
Dragsten asked why the ponds are next to County 18, instead of at the back of the
property. Pfeffer stated that it is the lowest part. It was also their preference, as the
ponds are considered adherence to development. Dragsten stated it might have been a
better buffer on other side.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
REZONING, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED
USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT OF OTHER
NEIGHBORING PROPERTY SURROUNDING Tl-IE INTERCHANGE AND THE
USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HILGART TO RECOMMEND APPROV AL OF THE
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PLAT IS
NECESSARY TO FINALIZE PLANNING FOR THE INTERCHANGE, AND BASED
ON A CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANTS PROVIDE COMPLETE SITE
PLANNING DETAILS, INCLUDING GRADING, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITIES, AT
THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUCHY. MOTION CARRIED.
5. Adiourn
MOTION TO ADJOURN BY COMMISSIONER DRAGTSEN.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ. MOTION CARRIED.
.
3
Planning Commission Agenda 06/07/05
.
5. Continucd Public Hearin - Amcndment to Ordinance for 0 en and Outdoor
Stora2:c. Applicant: City of Monticello
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Staff is recommending tabling ofthis item in order to allow for the committee to meet
to discuss adjustments to the amendment language.
A meeting of the ad hoc committee involved with this amendment is tentatively
scheduled for Tuesday, June 21st at 3:00 PM.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to continue the amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance for Open
and Outdoor Storage to the July meeting of the Planning Commission.
2. Motion of other.
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/07/05
6.
Public Hearin2:: Consideration of a reQuest for a Conditional Usc Permit for
Open and Outdoor Storal!e in a B-3 Zonin2: District. Applicant: Enterprise
Rent-a-Car. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND.
Enterprise Rent~a-Car is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to utilize 4 of the 8 off-
street parking spaces at 217 Sandberg Road for storage of rental vehicles. Enterprise
would occupy a portion of the building for its office space. Open and Outdoor
Storage in the B-3 District may be allowed under the following regulations:
1. The area is fenced and screened from view of neighboring residential
uses or if abutting an "R" district in compliance with Chapter 3,
Section 2 [0], of this ordinance.
2. Storage is screened from view from the public right-of-way in
compliance with Chapter 3, Section 2 [0], of this ordinance.
3. Storagc area is grassed or surfaced to control dust.
4. All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that thc light source shall
not be visible from the right-of-way or from neighboring residcnces
and shall be in compliance with Chaptcr 3, Section 2 [H], of this
ordinance.
5. Does not take up parking space as required for conformity to this
ordi nance.
6. The provisions of Chapter 22 of this ordinance are considered and
satisfactorily met.
A complete site plan was not submitted for this application, however, the building
appears to be well over 3,000 square fcet in floor area. The previous application
included a plan that would consume up to half of the cxisting parking for the storage
of rental cars, in violation ofthe terms of the Conditional Use Permit requirements.
The new alternative submitted by the applicants relocates the rental car storage to a
fcnced area adjacent to the building, off ofthe parking lot and out ofthe view of the
public. This alternative appears to be consistent with the code requirements for
outdoor storage in this district.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS.
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage
1. Motion to recommend approval of the CUP, based on findings that the
relocated storage area within the existing fence will not interfere with the
use of the site. nor with the traffic on the adjacent street.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/07/05
.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the CUP, based on findings that the
application fails to conform with the specific requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance and will interfere with traffic on the adjacent street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
Staff recommends approval of the CUP based on the revised site plan.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site Location Map
B. Site Map
C. Revised Site Plan - Option A
D. Revised Site Plan - Option B
E. Area Photos
.
.
2
-.~' '.-...... . -
"
J
,12
-E 8.10
!J 14.15
Q
5
./
--
/~(
C, '_'_,_
\, \
\ )
'r I
I j
1/
,j
:=]
fF
D/7
o
PROJECT
SITE
KJRUlERl)'S MOBILE
HOHE PAIl!( IWES',l,
~ELLBERl)'S HllBILE
: HOME,PAIlI< IEAS~l _ _, '.. {' '
~
o
'"
>-
>-
'"
;;)
:8
II
~.E. ~Mh
STREET
~,
~.
__+_m____~..
1_,_
/-----. .
(;
i/
I,'i
FROM :NAC
FAX NO.
:9525959837
Jun. 03 2005 10:42AM
.' ......-
,', ..<C'
~
2s
~
lu
.",,0
j::"
ts
~
IQ"
4
..:; ~a -
_:;u:: i;.-..'.. I\:
_,__ _11;-"
. ~ 1_11.....1;.1::
.. ,g., --. -
.... *bi;I.!'iil~
f
Iii
. .
!Sol -l"-"
.c
'I'
I ..
.ili
11__ Q
II-!
I::C I
c:iG
FROM :NAC FAX NO. :9525959837 Jun. 03 2005 10:42RM P2/4
{pu Jl!
~ -:- I
, ' ...",,~."-J# ~
-- ~
e02' --
\ ,f
vJ \)
\ ~ -04/
~ -
, O.
\ ,-
~ .
\ ~
'"
,
'\
\
\ -
\ .
,
.'- ,
DQ w"'"" 6.'( ~
~c)'S.s t -
.' /
\~ Wo...y
\
,
,
\
- .u-
~ UI
rw \-_..
~0(2) .i,
l fR. ~
., \ ~"17"~ t'
I - tt?.I..#'''.,p~ ..
. @\
~
... ,./ j:~
- t . . . ..." '-- ~ ...... ,'I
. ,
..,\ - -'" -... ..,.... ~~,.. ~.-
" I
" --~....- -- -- .. ..
~- -
--- -- c-c;IJ ".,.r/ ,,_20,47-.s'8
-~
\
l r-' --
FROM :NAC FAX NO. :9525959837 Jun. 133 213135 le1:42AM P3/4
~ _,,----,~-~S -- ~- i;. . liD
Fr - --
~.
Co
, 7
\
.. ~
'"
'\
\
-*
.
. ,
DQ kJQJ G.V ,
- j
~(U'~_ t-
el,
.~
d .
,
\
\
.". q\
~ \ .-"
: fiD. ~
. .. ~,~.A1:!/jiI1' ~ t'
tI:!?.I,........":I&' ..
'" @ \
.1 i~~
. ..
. . ". , '"- ~ '-I ,..
.
')' - ~ .. -.-~ v"n ,-.
, ..-- I
.... - .......... ~.... -- .. I~
--- - ~C> -4.r/ ...-:"_~-~/~
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06107105
7.
Public Hearin!!: Consideration of a request for a Simple Subdivision to create
two conformin!! unplatted lots in a PZM (Performance Zoned-Mixed) Zoning
District. ApDlicant: Antoinette Breiwick. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
In a review of the submitted application materials by staff, it was noted that per
Monticello's ordinmlce related to subdivision, the subdivision of unplatted parcels of
less than 5 acres requires that the applicant plat the property to be subdivided.
However, planning staff have reviewed this property's uniq ue situation and have
determined that simple subdivision of this property could be recommended under the
following circumstances:
· The Certificate of Survey is revised to show existing lot lines.
· The Certificate of Survey is revised to show a 6' drainage and utility easement
surrounding the property lines of both resulting parcels. A separate drainage
and utility easement document may be provided.
· As applicant, you confirm in writing that the legal description for the two
resulting unplatted parcels is acceptable to the Wright County Recorder's
office, for the purpose of the subdivision of land.
The applicant has provided the requested revised lot survey. Both of the resulting lots
conform to the standards for the PZM zoning district. The lot areas, at 13,731 and
444,007 square feet exceed the 10,000 square foot lot area required by a single-family
district. The minimum width for lots in single-family districts, such as the R-l, is 80
lect. Both of the proposed lots exceed that dimension. Front, rear and side yard
setbacks are also met for all existing structures. Should the applicant propose further
development on either parcel, the development will be subject to the appropriate
planning or building review at that time.
The applicant has also indicated that they had met with the Wright County Auditor's
Office, who has confirmed that the legal description of the two resulting parcels is
acceptable for recording. As a condition of approval, staff would recommend that the
applicant provide written proof of the subdivision and parcel assignment by Wright
County.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/07/05
.
AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Consideration to approve a Simple Subdivision to create two
conforming unplatted lots in a PZM (Performancc Zoned-Mixed) Zoning District
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Simple Subdivision, based on a finding
that the proposed subdivision creates two fully conforming lots in thc
PZM district, subject to written verification of legal parcel status by
Wright County.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Simple Subdivision, for reasons to be
determined by the Planning Commission.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative number I above.
SUPPORTING DATA
.
Exhibit A - Site I,ocation
Exhibit B - Certificate of Survey
.
2
.-
.
.
.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission
on June 7th, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.. in the Monticello City Hall to consider the following matter:
PUBLIC MEETING:
Consideration of a request for a Simple Subdivision to create two
conforming unplatted lots in a PZM (Performance Zoned-Mixed)
Zoning District
LOCATION:
That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section
10, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota being part
of Block 1 of BAR BUR'S ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF
MONTICELLO, according to the recorded plat thereof, described as
follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 1, Block I,
GRIEFNOW ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof:
thence on an assured bearing of North 79 degrees 59 minutes West
along the south I ine of said Lot 1 and the south lines of Lots 2, 3, 4
and 5 of said Block 1, GRIEFNOW ADDITION, a distance of360.00
feet to the most easterly corner of Lot 6 of said Block 1, GRIEFNOW
ADDITION; thence South 27 degrees, 51 minutes West along the
southeasterly line of said Lot 6, a distance of 113.82 feet to the
northeasterly line of the Southwesterly 80.00 feet of said I310ck I of
said BARBUR'S ADDITION TO TilE TOWN OF MONTICELLO;
thence South 62 degrees 24 minutes 58 seconds East along said
northeasterly line, a distance of343.74 feet to the northwesterly line
of Elm Street; thence North 27 degrees 35 lninutes 02 seconds East
along said northwesterly line, a distance of 222.4 7 feet is the point of
beginning.
APPLICANT:
Antonette Breiwick
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all persons desiring to be heard on
referenced subjects will be heard at this meeting.
Note:
Decisions of the Planning Commission will be subject to the approval or denial of the City
Council and will be considered on Monday, June 13th, 2005 at 7 p.m., at the Monticello City
Hall.
~
R_ 39
._""~-~=~~"V'.'.
7A
~m.~
o
.~
1:/4
MI LE
l
1/2
MILE
PROJ:ECT SITE
Of
o
.
KJELLBEAIi'S MOBILE
HIM: PARK (liES!)
KJELLBERG'S HllII1LE
: HOME PARK CEASTI
I~'" -
'J-
NA;<QLlI HIIFF'S A:x):r:(Jf>,'
I..f)
,'t\
C)
'"
---
16
--~
~
R
'" .\
:;-ti
7J\ ~
.>~
--
..... Ji~
~
.......
.......~
.......
.......~....... ~..""
.......
~ .~
.............. .. ~I
~....... I;
....... ~,.
~ ~
....... i....
--
'f::.o
.........
"9"
.......
Planning Commission Agenda 06/07/05
.
8. Public Hearin!! - Consideration to amend the Monticello Zonin!! Ordinance
relatin!! to min!! procedures for formal applications of Preliminary Plat.
Conditional Use Permits, Planned Unit Developments and Variances, and to
amend the ordinance to define Simple Subdivisions and the application process
related to Simple Subdivisions. Applicant: Citv of Monticello
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Staff is recommending continuation due to the length of the June ih Planning
Commission agenda.
AL TERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to continue the amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regarding
filing procedures for formal application and the process for Simple Subdivisions
to a future meeting of the Planning Commission.
2, Motion of other.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 06/07/05
9.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Kristy Brion requests a Conditional Use Pertnit for a special home occupation permit that
would allow hair care salon services at her home. The home is located in an R-2 district, at
339 East 4th Street. .
The proposed use and associated operation is similar to other uses a1l0wed by special permit
such as photography studio, saw sharpening, skate sharpening, sma1l appliance and small
engine repair and the like. In describing the salon activities, Brion notes that the salon will be
a one-clicnt operation, with a single station. The salon will havc no othcr cmployees. Please
see Brion's special home application for further detail.
It appears that the use proposed is no different than other home occupation uses that are
allowed. Additionally, in revicwing the permit request form and supplied site plan, the
applicant has indicated that the use wi1l meet a1l ofthc code requiremcnts. Therefore, it is the
view of staff that the proposed use is cligible for a home occupation permit.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1: Conditional Use Permit for a Special Home Occupation for an In-Home Hair Care
Salon in an R-2 district.
]) Motion to approvc the Conditional Use Pcrmit for a Special Home Occupation for an in-
home hair care salon bascd on the finding that thc proposed use is consistent with the
standards identified in the Spccial Home Occupation section of the Monticcllo Zoning
Ordinance.
2) Motion to deny the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a Special Home Occupation
based on a finding to be determined by the Planning Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends alternative! above.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Site Location Map
B. Special Home Occupation Permit Application
C. Site Plan
D. Special Home Occupation Ordinancc
.
. - ~ -.. ....".,...".. - "' .. ~ . - ~ ,
qA- ;~
MONl
.,
'.- --.. _on,
1:/L1
Mt LE
f
1/2
MI LE
Cll'Y HALL 1
[
o
.. ~ - - ~ .. - .. . . ~ . ~ - .. .. . . . , .. .
CllY HALL PHONE
Cf!Y HALL FAx
- ~ - - . .. - - - , - ~ - .. .. - . ~ - . .. -
- , . -.. _ r _ , _ .. .. . ~ ~ ~ . . '. .
A.l;)DRES5:
505 WAI..Nm'Sl'REEr:
sc1rrE 1 .
MONrICELLo, MN 553l
HOURs: 8:00 AM - 4:~
.-n:&rC.WORKSPHON.J
PfjBUCWORKSFAX :
_n., ... _. .., ,_. __.__
~.......... ~~
..........-
.
CITY OF MONTlCELLO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
(612) 295-2711
ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT - HOME OCCUPATION
APPLICA TIONIPERMIT
Applicant Name:
I / I r-) 1/ ~. ,
.A\\ i r:.!-\/ C.l I : '~~., ('J
I
,', {<~.t~
;~~ ",.,:,~,'~ ::5": I ~
""-',
c-"--' -;>' ....~}
n'XDc
PlanillngQ(!J
Case #
C t-UYC)
Phone: Homc: 7ft:?y
I
Q r.:- t, 7' C-""j
"}',"'''' "".~.' '.' .....1. ,i'
,....., .1 _
.~ ~.~, j:~, ..':- ,~N''') I'\~' .''''''''''Y'''~'
B liS!' nes s :!: r '-'\/'1 \,.:. \ l .j:, .h.:
. ... '~""'M'.<1':J ,:. " l, ....~"'., ",.,
'~;',)~" I ':; '"I'<'''/.;
WILL THE HOME OCCUPATION INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING?
(Circle your response)
2.
3.
4.
5.
Retail activity? Yes No/._
Manufacturing or repair <~Ctivity? Yes 0?\---.,.
Inventory to be kept on the premises? Yes CJ:>iQ. \
Any person other than those residing on the premises employed in the
home occupation? Yes No
Use ofmechanicaJ equipment not customarily found in the home? Yes €J
More than one ro~m devote~ to the hO~J:L~_..oecupation? Yes ~
OutsIde storage of)l*l~.nals? Yes (No)
Slgnage? Yes ~
Internal or external alterations involving constnlCtion? Yes .No
Will the home occupation be conducted in a garage or accessory building? Yes
Will the home occupation result in more than one cust(}mer's car being parked
on the premises at any given point in time? Yes / No
No
'-"3 ,-
Address: .-:) , . C~
11,.....
,.-
,\, ,....\/ "',~'
i (' F;
Zoned:K..- \
13. Describe the entrancc to the space devoted to the home occupation:
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Business Name:
f\ I((J-..Xy\
: ""\~'\i~~ : r
./ k_.......
"'j. ).,.^,";;~ ~
" {U
~,l!'-;O 1:1.'".
1 tit..,
,\~_...'~'~
I. Please describe qle propose;d home occupation activity in general tenns and location within home.
t"U" \ \1' (A If' e,.. .,' - '\' (') r:-fY~'\(:'-' i"")f"~r"'~'i\ ',_.'" '
. .:....(... -." ..... _____i:. .~ ...' I; . \ 'C'.' . ..
~' ......r .", _nJ ..
.'
.
.
HOM EOCC^PP: OKI22/01
Page I
.
.
.
Please provide detail for all YES answers above:
ge>
I have reviewed the regulations associated with operation of a home occupation, and I have reviewed City staff
comments: I do hereby agree to abide by all City of Monticello home occupation regulations.
r"-_,
~LD dO. OS
Dae I
FEE: $10 / $125 r--'
'...,
Receipt # ~l~l
*******************************************************************************************
(For City Use Only)
It ha..<; been determined by staff that this home occupation permit is:
),(A pproved
rJDenied
[ ] Special Permit Needed
STAFF COMMENTS:
-~'-
Assistant Administrator
Date Approved
Public Hearing Date:
N/A
110M EOCC.APP: 08/22/03
Page 2
~
o
o
a::
J:
~
CD
w
<:~
~. z
w
,..,
"
'<J-
~m
1
C'"J
,"
.
.
.
view and shall be located within a separate room, the access of
which is in clear view and under the control of the persons
responsible for the operation.
9t7
b.
Magazines. Publications classified or qualifying as adult uses
shall be covered with a wrapper or other means to prevent display
of any material other than t~e publication title.
c. Other Use. Adult use/accessory activities not specifically cited
shall comply with the intent of this section subject to the approval
of the Zoning Administrator.
4. Adult use/accessory activities shall be prohibited from both internal and
external advertising and signing of adult materials and products.
5. Adult use/accessory activities shall be prohibited in establishments where
liquor is served.
6. Adult use/accessory activities shall be prohibited at any public show,
movie, caravan, circus, carnival, theatrical, or other performance or
exhibition presented to the general public where minors are admitted.
(01/13/92, #217)
3-11: HOME OCCUPATIONS:
[A]
Purpose. The purpose of this section is to prevent competition with business
districts and to provide a means through the establishment of specific standards
and procedures by which home occupations can be conducted in residential
neighborhoods without jeopardizing the health, safety, and general welfare of
the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, this section is intended to provide a
mechanism enabling the distinction between permitted home occupations and
special or customarily "more sensitive" home occupations so that permitted
home occupations may be allowed through an administrative process rather than
a legislative hearing process.
[B] Application. Subject to the non-conforming use provision of this section, all
occupations conducted in the home shall comply with the provisions of this
section. This section shall not be construed, however, to apply to home
occupations accessory to farming.
[C] Procedures and Permits.
1.
Permitted Home Occupation. Any permitted home occupation as defined
in this section shall require a "permitted home occupation permit." Such
permits shall be issued subject to the conditions of this section, other
applicable city code provisions, and state law. This permit may be issued
by the Zoning Administrator or his agent based upon proof of compliance
with the provisions of this section.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/66
.
.
.
Application for the permitted home occupation permit shall be
accompanied by a fee as adopted by the Council.
If the Administrator denies a permitted home occupation permit to an
applicant, the applicant may appeal the decision to the City Council acting
as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, which shall make the final
decision. The permit shall remain in force and effect until such time as
there has been a change in conditions or until such time as the provisions
of this section have been reached. At such time as the City has reason to
believe that either event has taken place, a public hearing shall be held
before the Planning Commission. The Council shall make a final
decision on whether or not the permit holder is entitled to the permit.
2.
Special Home Occupation. Any home occupation which does not meet
the specific requirements for a permitted home occupation as defined in
this section shall require a "special home occupation permit" which shall
be applied for, reviewed, and disposed of in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 22 of the zoning ordinance.
3.
Declaration of Conditions. The Planning Commission and the Council
may impose such conditions of the granting of a "special home
occupation permit" as may be necessary to carry out the purpose and
provisions of this section.
4.
Effect of Permit. A "special home occupation permit" may be issued for a
period of one (I) year after which the permit may be reissued for periods
of up to three (3) years each. Each application for permit renewal will be
reviewed by City staff. City staff will determine whether or not it is
necessary to process permit renewal in accordance with the procedural
requirements of the initial special home occupation permit. Staff
determination will be made based upon the manner of operation observed
by staff and based upon the level of complaints made about the home
occupation.
5. Transferability. Permits shall not run with the land and shall not be
transferable.
6.
Lapse of Special Home Occupation Permit by Non-Use. Whenever
within one (I) year after granting a permit the use as permitted by the
permit shall not have been initiated, then such permit shall become null
and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to complete the
work has been granted by the Council. Such extension shall be requested
in writing and filed with the Zoning Administrator at least thirty (30) days
before the expiration of the original permit. There shall be no charge for
the filing of such petition. The request for extension shall state facts
showing a good faith attempt to initiate the use. Such petition shall be
presented to the Planning Commission for a recommendation and to the
Council for a decision.
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/67
7.
Reconsideration. Whenever an application for a permit has been
considered and denied by the Council, a similar application for a permit
affecting substantially the same property shall not be considered again by
the Planning Commission or Council for at least six (6) months from the
date of its denial unless a decision to reconsider such matter is made by
not less than four-fifths (4/5) vote of the full Council.
.
8. Renewal (jfPermits. An applicant shall not have a vested right to a
permit renewal by reason of having obtained a previous permit. In
applying for and accepting a permit, the permit holder agrees that his
monetary investment in the home occupation will be fully amortized over
the life of the permit and that a permit renewal will not be needed to
amortize the investment. Each application for the renewal of a permit
will be reviewed without taking into consideration that a previous permit
has been granted. The previous granting or renewal of a permit shall not
constitute a precedent or basis for the renewal of a permit.
[D] Requirements: General Provisions. All home occupations shall comply with
the following general provisions and, according to definition, the applicable
requirement provisions.
I. General Provisions.
a.
No home occupation shall produce light glare, noise, odor, or
vibration that will in any way have an objectionable effect upon
adjacent or nearby property.
.
b. No equipment shall be used in the home occupation which will
create electrical interference to surrounding properties.
c. Any home occupation shall be clearly incidental and secondary to
the residential use of the premises, should not change the
residential character thereof and shall result in no incompatibility
or disturbance to the surrounding residential uses.
d. No home occupation shall require internal or external alterations
or involve construction features not customarily found in
dwellings except where required to comply with local and state
fire and police recommendations.
e. There shall be no exterior storage of equipment or materials used
in the home occupation, except personal automobiles used in the
home occupation may be parked on the site.
f. The home occupation shall meet all applicable fire and building
codes.
.
g.
There shall be no exterior display or exterior signs or interior
display or interior signs which are visible from outside the
MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3/68
dwelling with the exception of an identification sign which is
limited to identifying the name ofthe resident only.
.
h.
All home occupations shall comply with the provisions of the city
code.
1. No home occupation shall be conducted between the hours of 10
p.m. and 7 a.m. unless said occupation is contained entirely within
the principal building and will not require anyon-street parking
facilities.
.1. No home occupation shall be permitted which results in or
generates more traffic than one (1) car for off-street parking at any
given point in time.
[E] Requirements: Permitted Home Occupations.
I. No person other than those who customarily reside on the premises shall
be employed.
2. All permitted home occupations shall be conducted entirely within the
principal building and may not be conducted in an accessory building.
3.
Permitted home occupations shall not create a parking demand in excess
of that which can be accommodated as defined in Section 3-5 [F] 6,
where no vehicle is parked closer than fifteen (15) feet from the curb line.
.
4. Permitted home occupations include and are not limited to: art studio,
dressmaking, secretarial services, foster care, professional offices and
teaching with musical, dancing, and other instructions which consist of no
more than one pupil at a time and similar uses.
5. The home occupation shall not involve any of the following: repair
service or manufacturing which requires equipment other than found in a
dwelling; teaching which customarily consists of more than one pupil at a
time; over-the-counter sale of merchandise produced off the premises,
except for those brand name products that are not marketed and sold in a
wholesale or retail outlet.
[F] Requirements: Special Home Occupations.
1. No person other than a resident shall conduct the home occupation,
except where the applicant can satisfactorily prove unusual or unique
conditions or need for non-resident assistance and that this exception
would not compromise the intent of this chapter.
.
2.
Examples of special home occupations include: barber and beauty
services, photography studio, group lessons, saw sharpening, skate
MONT1CELLO ZON1NG ORDlNANCE
3/69
sharpening, small appliances and small engine repair and the like.
3.
The special home occupation may involve any ofthe following: stock-in-
trade incidental to the performance of the service, repair service or
manufacturing which requires equipment other than customarily found in
a home, the teaching with musical, dancing, and other instruction of more
than one pupil at a time.
.
4. Non-Conforming Use. Existing home occupations lawfully existing on
the effective date ofthis section may continue as non-conforming uses.
They shall, however, be required to obtain permits for their continued
operation. Any existing home occupation that is discontinued for a period
of more than 180 days, or is in violation of the provisions of this chapter
under which it was initially established, shall be brought into conformity
with the provisions of this section.
5. Inspection. The City hereby reserves the right upon issuing any home
occupation permit to inspect the premises in which the occupation is
being conducted to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section
or any conditions additionally imposed.
(8/1 0/92, #232)
3-11A:
OUTDOOR SALES AND DISPLAY:
.
[A]
LICENSE. A license must be obtained by any person or business engaging in
the operation of seasonal outdoor sales and displays as herein defined.
No license shall be required for temporary outdoor sales and displays as herein
defined that are conducted by the operators of a legitimate business if it is
determined by the Zoning Administrator that such outdoor display or sale is
consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan.
(Transient merchants engaged in outdoor sales and display shall be subject to
the provisions of Chapter 10 of the City Code.)
[B] Those outdoor sales and displays that are determined by the Zoning
Administrator not to be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code or
Comprehensive Plan may be appealed to the City Council.
-
[C] APPLICATION, FEE, AND LICENSE PERIOD. Application for an outdoor
sales and display license shall be made to the Zoning Administrator of the City
on a form to be provided by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning
Administrator is hereby authorized to review and approve licenses for outdoor
sales and displays as follows:
.
MONT1CELLO ZONING ORDINANCE
3170
.
10.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/07/05
Public Hcarim!: Consideration of a reQuest for a Concept Sta2:c PUD.
Applicant: Herita2:e Dcvelopment. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Attached to this cover summary is a report on the proposed Heritage project
known as "Jefferson", an 890 acre mixed use project incorporating the Silver
Springs Golf Course and other land. The project has received a significant
amount of attention, and the concept plan has been revised since its original draft
was rolled out earlier this year. The developers have also held two neighborhood
meetings to present the concept and gather feedback from surrounding property
owners. Those meetings were held as a communication means betwcen the
developer and neighboring property owners and were not part of the formal City
review of the project. The Concept Stage PUD application is the beginning of
formal review by the City.
In summary, the proposal consists of about 45 acres of commercial office and
retail property, a remodeling/reconstruction of the Silver Springs Golf Course to
an 18 hole facility, and approximately 2,600 residential units. Of the residential
development, 717 units are detached single family housing, 268 of which meet the
80 foot lot width for R-1, and 449 which are on 50 and 60 foot wide lots. The
remaining 1,890 units are attached housing, with a mix of townhouse styles and
multiple family designs.
There are several significant questions raised by the project, including the
following:
. The City's ability to finance, provide and maintain the extensive levels of
infrastructure necessary to support a development that would increase the
City's population by up to 70%, including sewer, water, regional
roadways, and a freeway interchange. Cost studies are currently underway
in this rcgard. The distribution of utility and freeway interchange costs
have not been established.
. The market feasibility of the project in developing higher end housing, in
light of the developer's proposal to remodel the golf course into a high-
level facility over a period of 8 years, rather than "up-front". Staff notes
that in similar projects in other locations, the amenities are provided at the
beginning to set the tone for the project and attract the higher-end market.
To reflect the pattern in these other projccts, the phasing would need to be
reversed, or the design of the projcct would need to be overhauled.
. The nature of the project land use mix, which includes just 10% of the
units meeting the City's R-l zoning, and would elevatc Monticello's ratio
of attached housing to more than 40% of its housing stock, more than
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/07/05
......
~
Hennepin County (the County with the highest such ratio in the Twin
Cities metro area).
.
The high number of units (given the overall size of the project) without
exposure to either golf course or wetland amenities. More than 2,000 of
the units are located without the advantage of these amenities, raising
concerns over the basic nature ofthe project.
.
The trade-off of large areas of commercial/industrial guided land for
medium- and high-density residential development, preserving just 32
acres for business park and 13 acres for local retail.
.
The phasing plan for the project, which essentially builds in nearly 900
attached housing units (and 145 detached units) in the earliest phases,
most of which are the lowest-value housing in the project.
The items raised above need to be considered even before the many "smaller"
issues of project design, building architecture, neighborhood livability, retail use
location, public ballfield location, public park and pathway provision, and
relationship to existing land uses. This is not to diminish the importance of those
factors, however. There are several such issues that staff and others have noted,
some of which arc not possible to fully examine at the scale of drawings currently
available.
However, the fundamental issues discussed in the paragraphs above, and
supported by the text in the attached report, lead planning staff to recommend a
denial of the current version of the Concept Plan, based on a concern that action
on the plan is premature at this time, given the several major outstanding
unknowns. In order to providc guidance to the developer in their ongoing efforts
to update the Plan and submit a new Concept, the Planning Commission and City
Council should address the following questions:
1. What sort of public financial role will the City be willing to play in this
project'? Will the City bond for various projects with financial securities
from the developer, or will the City require the developer to obtain private
financing for all improvements?
.
2. How will the City's risk be secured by the developer, assuming that many
of the infrastructure projects will need to be publicly financed?
3. Will the City participate financially in any ofthe "oversizing" that may be
done as a part ofthe project, or will it expect the developer to carry those
costs as a component of dcveloping at the edge of the City's service arca?
What would be the City's share of "oversizing" if it is willing to
participate?
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/07/05
.
4. What proportion of attached housing is a reasonable percentage to expect
for this project? For Monticello overall?
5. Is the City willing to wait for the golf course development, on the hope
that it will eventually lead to the higher valued development in the future?
6. What contribution will the City expect the developer to make toward the
construction of an interchange with 1-94?
7. Should the developer provide additional information related to market
feasibility? What is the evidence that the golf course, as currently
conceived, will continue to be a viable entity into the future, since it is
advertised as the central amenity feature to this project? What evidence
exists that will support the housing values in the numbers of units
proposed - especially if significant cost increases raise housing costs
beyond those currently suggested?
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
.
Decision 1: Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for "JefTerson", a mixed
use PUD.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Stage plan, based on
findings that the project, with appropriate amendments to the City's
Comprehensive Plan and attention to detailed design changes as noted
in the attached report, meets the City's expectation for land
development in this area of the City.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage PUD plan, based on
findings as stated in the attached Exhibit - Findings of Fact. Planning
Commission should review the findings of fact listed and determine
which, if not all, standards apply for denial. This will assist the
applicant in the re-design of the concept plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
As discussed, Staff recommends denial of the Concept Stage PUD as being
premature at this time. The questions and issues raised in this report are intended
to guide the Planning Commission, City Council, and the developer in the
preparation of a revised Concept Stage plan for subsequent submission.
')
.)
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/07/05
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A -
Exhibit B -
Exhibit C -
Exhibit D -
.
.
Findings of Fact for Denial
Staff Analysis/Introduction to Jefferson at Monticello
Developer Packet including Concept Stage PUD Plans
Long Range Land Use Plan
4
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/07/05
IDA
.
Findings of Fact
Supporting a Recommendation of Denial
Heritage Development - Jefferson Concept Stage pun
I. The project will require millions of dollars (totals currently unknown) in
public investment for public sanitary sewcr, public water, public roadways
and an interstate highway interchange.
2. The project raises issues of iinancial feasibility for the City that could
endanger the City's financial health without better description of market
feasibility and financial securities.
3. The project is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan with regard to
balanced housing stock and cmphasis on commcrcial and industrial
development.
4. The project is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan policy for
attached-detached residential unit mix and overall residential density.
5.
The project relies on phasing that delays the golf course amenity until too late
in the project timcline to ensure high-value housing as called for in the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
.
6. The project relies on phasing that leads to the construction of an unbalanced
mix of lower-valued units in the earliest phases.
7. The project's unit mix results in a ratio of attached units that is inconsistent
with local historical trends, Wright County housing mix, and exceeds even
those of more urbanized areas of the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
8. The dcsign of the golf course facility appcars to omit practicc facilities,
raising questions of market niche and market viability of the golf course as the
central project amenity.
9. The Concept Plan shows high-use park and commercial facilities adjacent to
existing rural residential neighborhoods, in eonflict with Comprehensive Plan
policy for reasonable land use transitions and buffering.
.
5
.
.
.
IDe>
Planning Commission Agenda 06/07105
Introduction - .Jefferson at Monticello
Overall Review
The Heritage Development project, known as "Jefferson at Monticello", is an 890 acre
development on the northwest boundary of the City. The proposal consists of approximately 400
acres of residential land, 32 acres of business park land, 15 acres of retail commercial land, ] 0 I
acres of public open space and wetland, and a remodeling of the 36 hole Silver Springs golf
facility into an 18 ho1c championship golf course. The proposed area would occur west of 1-94
betwecn 120th St NE to the North and Highway 39 to the south.
The projcct proposes 268 units of R-l lots, 449 units of small-lot single family (60 and 50 foot
widths), 974 townhouse units of various design, 498 condo units, 49 "Senior Row" townhouses,
and 360 units of scnior condos, for a total of 2,598 units.
A business park is added to the northeast side of the site and surrounded by townhomes and
condos. Recreation available throughout the site includes a small "city park" in the southeast
corner and a trail systcm traveling through the voids of the lots. Othcr open space, though not all
necessarily public, includes the golf course and flood mitigation areas. Undefined medical and
neighborhood commcrcial centers are also proposed in the southern and northeastern portions of
the site area. The site has proposed to modify the road structure to allow for curving roads and
roads terminating at the ends of townhome developments.
In order to complete the development, the following steps have been recommended by staff or
are required as part of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
. Market Study - Golf Courses, Housing, Local Business
. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow for higher densities and residential and
commercia] uses
. Rezoning _ Agricultural Open Space to PUD - Various residential, business, open space
base zoning requirements will be sought
. Preliminary Plat
. Planned Unit Development (PUD)
. Alternative Urban Areawide Review Document (AUAR)
Market Analysis
Based upon population projections, an estimated 7,000 new residents would reside in the City by
2013. Because the City has not undertaken specific comprehensive planning within this area
(including growth policy, land usc planning, and goal setting) or finalized utility and
transportation planning for this area of the community, these discussions necd to be considered
concurrently with the more specific project review.
.
According to the Minnesota State Demographic Center, the following population projects exist
within for the City.
2005 2010
Population 9177 10,431
* Estimated populations. MN DATA NET
2015
11,632
2020
12,711
2025
13,153
Using this information, it is anticipated that the City will see a l3% rate of growth within each
five-year period. Within the proposed development, it is anticipated that an estimated 7,000
residents will be added between 2006 and 2013. Therefore, it is estimated that Monticello's
population would increase to 15,500 people prior to 2015, or 33% greater than anticipated. This
population increase does not include any other increases in population due to other developments
or migration into the City.
In addition to the population increases that the developmcnt will cause, an additional component
that should be examincd is the overall site itself. As part ofthe developer's materials it is clcar
that the golf course will be a focal point of the site area. According to Minnesota Golf therc are
approximately] 4 public, semi public, and public golf courses within a 25 mile radius of the
development. Additional new courses are also being proposed in other areas within the region.
A question that should bc asked is what will bc the market for this typc of developmcnt within 5
years or 10 ycars? Furthcrmore, will this niche development with high-end townhomcs and
condominiums bc able to sustain itself if markct conditions slow? Typically higher cnd
condominiums and townhomes retain thcir value if located near amenities such as watcrbodies,
landmarks, or other amenities. If, however, thc golf course market falters will these homcs be
able to rctain thcir valuc equal to the infrastructurc funding necessary to accommodatc them?
.
Clearly, the developer assumcs thc risk of market driven housing, however, the City shares an
equal, if not greater risk, in the long term maintenance and financing of needed infrastructure.
The development will require significant upgrades as well as new construction necdcd for
various city infrastructure projects. This development will rely on cxtending all city utilities and
building a new intcrchange onto 1-94. The developer has proposed to put up money for
infrastructurc costs at an amount has yet to be determincd. The city's financial abilities and necds
will be discussed later in this report.
Because ofthat risk as well as thc scope ofthe projcct, our office recommends that an
independent market analysis be conducted for this developmcnt. Because the City is a major
stakeholder and will no doubt bc vested in the life cycle of this dcvelopment beyond its
completion, additional research is essential. The market rescarch should be conducted to include
the following:
. Recent trends in golf course developments
. Forecasted residcntial devclopment
.
2
. Forccasted methodology to includc:
.
a. Regional review and analysis
b. Historical growth and 10-20 year trends
c. Percentage oftotal regional residential development
. Price niches for this dcvelopment compared to existing housing stock and regional
forecasts
. financial impacts on city services. Estimated need for additional staff and staff
serVlces.
. Estimated impact on the area school system.
. Current conditions for rctail and business within this area
. Forecasted retail development
. Location attri butes
Comprehensive Plan
.
Because the site area was included in the City's anncxation arca since the last comprehensive
plan amendment in 1996, there are very preliminary findings for this area. The Jefferson at
Monticello development proposes a major departure from the current comprehensive plan. The
portion of the project east of Cameron Avenue is guided for a mix of industrial development
along the freeway, and low dcnsity residential adjacent to the Silver Springs Golf Course. The
entire golf course propcrty west of Cameron is guided for open space. The land uses that
comprise the Jefferson at Monticello rcquire a wholesale change to the land use plan: Industrial
area is significantly reduced, open space is significantly reduced, and the residential areas arc
dramatically increased both in geographic area and in density.
In order to accommodate this wholesale change the City should consider the following policy
questions prior to moving forward with the development:
At 3.2 units per gross residential acre (excluding commercial land, hut
including go{f'course and open space), how does the City feel about this
density, compared to the maximum 3.0 units per acre normally allowed?
At 6.5 units per net residential acre (excluding all non-residential uses and
collector street ROW, but including local street ROW), how does the City
feel about this density, compared to the maximum 4. () units per acre
allowed?
.
At this dcnsity, the project is defined as medium density, even including the golf course land in
the density calculation, At a net density, the project is about as dense as any other townhouse
3
.
project in the City - and this is at a scale more than 10 times larger than that of the largest
competing development. There is very little "low density residential" shown on the plan, even
though that is the only residential land use designation currently applicable to the area. There are
nearly 600 units of multiple family housing (Senior Condos and "Retreat Condos"). In addition,
there are approximately 700 units of "townhouses" in 8 and lO unit clusters that would qualify as
multiple family units in the City's zoning ordinance.
Again, the only residential land use designated for this area is "low density residential", although
very little can be found in the concept plan. The City officials will need to ask if they want the
city to grow at this density and if this is the housing market they want to open to current and ncw
rcsidcnts.
When considering requests for Comprehensive Plan amendments, the City should look at the
following policies found within the Comprehcnsive Plan when making a dctermination as to the
scope of the project (staff's comments are in italic)
Housing:
Policy: Housing is a support system for the primary City functions. City decision making will
review housing proposals and land usc planning relating to residential use, as to how they relate
to the City's primary goals and objectives.
.
The development (?fJefferson at Monticello will depend upon the City's polices related
to land use within this area. Currently the area is designatedfor open space and residential
uses.
Policy: The City should monitor housing development in an effort to provide a full rangc of
housing choices. An unbalanced housing supply leaves gaps in the community's social structure,
whethcr it is in afTordable housing units housing the City's industrial labor supply, moderate
family housing, or higher end housing providing move-up opportunities for maturing families
and residents.
The proposed development will encompass an array q{housing styles and housing
densities as described in this report. The overall plan will allow for l~fecycle housing options
and prices. These options however, will he impacted by the overall infrastructure costs
associated with the development.
Policy: Monticello will actively utilize its zoning power to accomplish its goals. Monticello will
apply many tools in order to accomplish its goal of housing which builds community, rather than
merely population.
In order to accommodate this type q{developmenl. a Planned Unit Development district
will be necessary to allow fhr flexibility in lot area, lot widths, and setbacks. Additionally, the
City will need to allow the development to occur at a higher density than has been recommended
by the Comprehensive Plan.
.
4
~
'WI'
Growth Management:
Policy: Monticello will direct the atlem of rowth throu ,h land use lannin and infrastructure
development. Infrastructurc life is often 40-50 years or more. As a result, decisions on the
location and installatiop of ncw investments ip infrastructure have long lasting effects.
The development will have a la,tin!: impact on infrastructure and urban design within the
City and surrounding area. The interchange alone will have a dramatic impact on traffic flow
throughout the region. To this end, additional information pertainin!: to financial impacts and
who will be responsible for costs associated with said development will be critical.
Policy: The Cit will monitor but not ace rowlh and develo ment. The primary role for the
City in planning for new development will be to provide properly zoned and serviced land to
accommodate current needs. This policy states that the desired balance will be achieved as the
market acts to meet needs and demands.
The City will need to determine ~fthe size and scope of the project is acceptable
compared adjoining land uses and the overall market qf"the City.
Amending the City's Comprehensive Plan is a policy decision that must be made by the City.
The City, in considering an amendment oftbe Comprehensive Plan, will need to determine if
higher density residential uses are appropriate for this area and the surrounding land uses.
.
Zoning
The current site area is zoned as A-O, or Agriculture under the County's zoning. [n order to
procecd with the development, the developer will be requestiug to rezone the area to
accommodate residential and business and commercial uses. When rezoning the area, the City
should look at surrounding land uses to avoid spot zoning or reclassifications that do not follow
the policies of the comprehensive plan. In granting or recommending any rezoning the City
should consider the following:
1. The proposed development conforms to policies, goals, and standards of the
Comprehensive Plan. (The City must first approve the Comprehensive Plan prior to
rezoning the area).
2. Sufficient information is necessary for the City to determine whether the proposed
development is in keeping with the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance and the
comprehensive plan.
With regard to question 2, there does not appear to be sufficient information necessary at this
time for the City to determine whether the proposed development is in keeping with the intent
and purpose of the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan.
.
5
.
.
.
Alternative Urban Areawide Review Document (AUAR)
Thc City is currently undergoing an AUAR. The content of the AUAR will be similar to an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W), however must provide f()r a level of analysis
comparable to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for possible impacts of residential,
commercial, as well as the development of related infrastructure. Additionally, the AUAR
prescribes mitigation measures that may impact areas of the concept plan.
Existing Land Uses
The current uses of the proposed land are primarily agriculture and open space. Existing
structures include buildings from threc farms, two large lot residential neighborhoods, multiple
scattered single family units, and the golf course and club house. The farm structures will be
demolished to make room for new development.
The current 36 hole golf course and club housc will be reworked into a new 18 hole
championship course and a probable redesign of the club house to match the proposed
architecture of the development.
Site Layout
The developer is proposing to add 2,598 dwelling units over approximately 890 acres in the next
eight years. As illustrated in the table below the majority of these new dwelling units will be
multi family attached units.
The main focus of the site is the conversion of the current 36 hole golf course into an 18 hole
championship course. The golf course would be surrounded by the upper level executive
housing and higher level townhomes.
Bclow is a review ofthe proposed lots proposed by the devcloper as well as the City's zoning
district regulations compared to the proposed development
6
.
Summary of Proposed Structure and Acres pcr Use.
Development Summary Number of Units Acres per Use U nits per Acre
80' Lots 268 81.32 3.3 (net density)*
60' Lots 332 73.90 4.5 (net density)*
50' Lots 117 18.93 6.2 (nct density)*
Total Single Family Lots 717 174.15 4.1 (nct density)*
Multi Family 1881 224.4 7 8.4 (net density)*
Total Dwelling Units 2598 398.62 6.5 (net density)**
Jefferson Parkway ROW 12.90
Other ROW 84.80
Golf Course 198.18
City Park 28.83
Open Space 101.00
Total Housing Units 2598 824.33 T 3.2 (gross density)***
Business Park Needs Discussion 32.15
Neighborhood Scrviccs Needs Discussion 13.20
Total Exception 7 Existing Single 17.45
Family Units
*Net Dcnsity=#of dwelling units pcr type/total acres for specified type
**Total Nct Density~-#of dwelling units per type/(total acres for spccified type+other ROW)
***Gross Density'~Total dwelling units/(total dwelling acres~street ROW+all determined open space)
.
Comparison of Monticello's Arca Regulations versuS Jefferson's Proposal
Monticello's Area Rel!ulations Jefferson's Proposal
District Lot Width Lot Area (sqft) Lot Width Average Lot
Area (sqft)
R~1 80 12000 80' Lot 13216 sf
R~IA 90 16000 NA NA
R~2 80 5,000 sf/unit Varies Varies
R~2A 45 7500 60" Lot 9696 sf
50" Lot 7048
R~3 80 10000 NA NA
Many ofthc following issues werc raised with the developer in previous renditions of the project.
Some of thesc have been addresscd in subsequent drawings. They are repeated here for
refercnce, although some are new, and othcrs still need to be considered:
. "football" shaped SF residential area on east side of Cameron - nced to change
this street pattern to eliminate the odd intersections and narrow corner lots
.
7
.
· There should be no ponding consuming land in the business park. Ponding should
occur in other areas.
· The neighborhood business loeatedin the southeastern portion of the plan will
have an impact on the adjoining existing homes due to light and increased tramc.
This commercial pocket should be removed to ensure similar land uses next to
existing neighborhoods.
· The plan needs to be drawn so it does not have a pond completely surrounded by
roads as in Gable Townhouse area east of Cameron.
· The Township Road along the north boundary of the project area is mislabeled as
County Road 75
· Access horn Ponderosa development - the Ponderosa layout accommodates it,
but it should be reviewed carefully. The neighbors did not express opposition at
the open house; however they do not want to pay for it.
· The developer should identify public and private roadway areas within the
project. They are not reviewable at this scale.
.
· Private drive or alleys should be a design consideration in the small~lot single
family areas in order to encourage recessed, side~loaded or rear~loaded garages.
· Location of JeHerson Parkway (CSAH 39) adjacent to west boundary of Devron
Greens -"- are there any concerns here? (Residents at the open house objected to
cutting off their view of the golf course.) ]t is noted that the residents have no
ownership interest in the golf course or its view.
· No small playground areas are shown in this project. With potential population of
7000~8000, the project area will need to accommodate several layers of park use--
how should the plan address local park access? The current Parks Master Plan
suggests a walking distance of one quarter to one half mile, maximum.
Additionally, the subdivision ordinance states that 10% of the gross area (or 89
acres) shall be dedicated for park purposes.
· Individual driveway access points too many of the townhouses are too close to
Chelsea Road - future reviews will need to examine garage and driveway
locations to ensure adequate spacing and setbacks.
· Correct the existing angled street and intersection along the north side of project.
· Village Townhomes are single~loaded units, however, they have a single
continuous roofline and no variation in fayade from unit to unit.
.
8
.
· Retreat condominiums - how do these work? The plans do not provide adequate
detail to sire planning around these (and other) building styles. Underground
parking? Other neighborhood amenities?
· In staffs review, the Prairie Townhomes and Gable Townhomes received the
greatest amount of acceptance. These units were each single-loaded, had tuck-
under garage designs, or recessed garage exposure, and had interesting roofline
and wall plane variation.
· No building examples for Senior Row Townhomes or the Senior Condos were
provided.
· Pipeline easement runs through property lines of proposed units. Closer review at
a more manageable scale will be needed.
· Residential types should face each other. Townhomes facing 80' lots adjacent to
Hole 2 should be redesigned to be single family homes.
· What protective measures are being taken along Otter Creek?
· Is existing vegetation on the sire worth saving? (L,arge trees, stands of
woodlands, open grassland)
. Unit Comparison
The proposed development is comprised of 72% multi family units and 28% single family units.
The current make up of the City of Monticello is the opposite; 70% single family and 23% multi
family according the 2000 US Census.
In past review, Monticello has felt their housing market suffices for affordable housing units and
moderate family housing, but has left the upper-level housing market open to other areas outside
the City. With the defInition of upper level being general, Monticello has 146 or 8% of its
homes priced over $200,000 (2000 US Census Data). Understandably, on average homes in the
Wright County area have been increasing in value by 10% per year, making these home
approximately $300,000 today.
The proposed single family homes for the proposed development would begin at $225,000 _
$350,000. 2000 US Census Data states the median price for a single family home in Monticello
is $130,200, projected to approximately $195,000 today (10% per year projection). Even
proposed condos and townhomes would begin at $160,000.
To follow are tables that show a comparison of dwelling units per structure for Wright County
Versus other nearby Counties of the metropolitan area
.
9
.
.
.
Anoka County Carver County
Existinl! # of Units Percent Existing # of lJnits Percent
Total Housing 103,126 95.4 Total Housing 23878 96.0
Units Units
Units per Structure Units per Structure
1 86360 79.9 1 20585 81.9
2 1565 1.4 2 342 1.4
3-4 1474 1.4 3-4 410 1.6
5-9 1908 1.8 5-9 793 3.2
I 0-1 9 2626 2.4 10-19 627 2.5
20 + 9193 8.5 20 + 1321 5.3
Total Multi 16766 15.5 Total Multi 3498 14.0
Family Family
Hennepin County Wright County
Existing # of Units Percent Existing # of Units Percent
Total Housing 467204 99.7 Total Housing 31765 92.5
Units Units
Units per Structure Units per Structure
1 300427 63.5 1 28055 81.7
2 21989 4.7 2 398 1.2
3-4 12318 2.6 3-4 422 1.2
5-9 12641 2.7 5-9 542 1.6
10-19 27565 5.9 1 0-1 9 881 2.6
20 + 95264 20.3 20 + 1467 4.3
Total Multi 169777 36.2 Total Multi 3710 10.9
Family Family
Source: 2000 Census Data, www.census.gov
Data excludes mobile home boat, RV, van, ete housing units
Existing Housing Units in Monticello and Number of Units per Structure vs. Proposed Housing
Units in JefTerson Development and Number of Units per Structure.
Existinl! # of Units Percent Proposed # of Units Percent
Total Housing 3005 100 Total Housing 2598 100
Units Units
Units per Structure Units per Structure
I 2118 70.4 1 717 27.6
2 33 1.1 2 0 0
3-4 112 3.7 3-4 578 22.2
5-9 53 1.8 5-9 445 17.1
1 0- 1 9 185 6.2 1 0-1 9 498 19.2
20 + 294 9.8 20 + 360 13.9
10
.
.
.
Total Multi 677 22.6 Total Multi 1752 72.4
Family Family
Source: 2000 Census Data www.census.gov
The developer has indicated that there the golf course is the primary focal point within the
development, below is a review of the number of units with views of either the golf course or an
environmental area within the development.
Comparison of Units with Views to the Golf Course or Environmental Amenity
Unit Type Total # of Units # of Units with Views to Golf Course or
Environmental Amcnity
50' SF Lots 117 34
60' SF Lots 332 19
80' SF Lots 268 212
Prairie Townhome 333 240
Village Townhome 161 16
Gable Townhome 120 36
Vista Townhome 360 0
Urban Condos 270 10
Retreat 228 0
Senior Row 49 0
Senior Condos 360 0
Total # of Units 2598 567
Architecture and Housing Style
The developer is proposing an array of housing styles that range from vista townhomes to agcd
restricted indepcndent senior housing. Below is a table that estimates the type of housing style,
proposed architecture and exterior finishings, and proposed square footage. As indicated on thc
plans submitted by the developer, thesc styles arc subject to change. Additionally, the markct
price for these units will also be impacted if 100% of the infrastructure costs are borne by the
dcveloper.
Below is a review of the proposed housing types:
Young Professional and First Time Housing
Housing 'fype
Vista Townhomes, Village Townhomes, Retrcat Condominiums, Gable
Townhomcs
1,000-1,700 s uare fect. Two car inte rated gara es
Hardiboard, vinyl, stonc, brick, shake and board lapsiding, multiple roof
pitches throu haut each housin design.
1 ]
~ """"-. -_.,~ ~~' -"..~~
.
.
-
~
Maintained by HOA Maintained
Owner or HOA
Market Price $160,000-$275,000
Family Formation Housing
Housing Type Urban, Single Family Homes, Retreat Condominiums and 4 plex townhomes
Square Footage 1,600- 1,800 square feet. Square footage unknown for single family homes.
Exterior Finishes 2 level underground parking with direct home access for urban single family
and Styles homes. Single family homes have a mix affront forward and detached
garage designs. Varying roof pitches are proposed throughout.
Maintained by HOA for the urban single homes and retreat condominiums. Owner
Owner or HOA maintained for single family.
Market Price $225,000-$325,000
Move lJp Golf Course Housing
Housing Type Larger Single Family Homes, Prairie Townhomes
Square Footage 1,500 -1,900 square feet
Exterior Finishes Hardiboard, vinyl, stone, brick, shake, and board lapsiding. Varying roof
and Styles pitches, and front forward designs for the single family homes.
Maintained hy lIOA for the townhomes. Owner maintained for single fmnily.
Owner or HOA
Market Price $250,000-$350,00 for the townhomes. $320,000+ for the single fmnily
homes.
Executive Housing
Housing Type Housing types within this category are existing homesite within the site area.
Market Price $350,000+
Lifestyle and Empty Nester Housing
JIousing Styles Prairie Townhomes, Retreat Homes, Gable Townhomes, Detached Villas
Square Footage Prairie Homes 1,500-1,900 square feet. Unknown for othcr units.
Exterior Finishes Front and rcar porches, undcrground parking for condominiums. Additional
and Styles information regarding finishes will be required for housing types.
Maintained by HOA maintained.
HOA or Owner
Market Price $200,000-$350,000
12
whom. I f the developer assumes the cost of some or all of these components the overall cost of
each unit will no doubt increase. If the costs of housin g increases, the question that wi II remain .
is if the Monticello market place can accommodate high end condominiums and townhomes.
Unanswered questions include those relating to land use policies and planning, population
growth, infrastructure costs and financing, housing costs, market demand, and the overall
phasing of the project remain. It is because of these global unanswcred questions that we
recommend denial of the concept plan. This recommendation is based upon the premise that the
more the City knows today the less will be unknown tomorrow. That is, if the developer and
City agree to a conceptual plan with a list of recommendations for moving forward that include
financial questions, policy questions, and land use questions, we are balancing these
recommendations in the hope that things resolve themselves.
On the contrary, because of the size and scope of the site, our recommendation would be to
create avenues whereby information is determined before any conceptual approval is granted.
An independent market analysis would be mutually beneficial to both the developer and the City.
This document would allow information to be presented that specially looks at growth, housing,
business, and recreational components and how they are balanced with the overall City and
region. To this end, our recommendation is not necessarily a denial based upon a bad plan,
rather, it is based upon the understanding that moving forward with a conceptual plan with a
large amount of unresolved information is bad planning.
.
19
.
The developer is proposing an eight year phasing plan with construction to begin as early as
2005 or 2006. Below is a review of the proposed plan.
.
Phasing
Years Acres Multifamily Units Single Family lJnits Open Space
Phase 1 2005- 159.6 acres 563 units 88 units
2006
Phase 1 a 2006 28.7 acres Eastern portion of
golf course
Phase 2 2007- 143.1 acres 246 units 57 units Portion of golf course
2008
Phase 2a 2009 76.6 acres 376 units 73 units
Phase 3 2010- 166 acres 147 units 223 units
2011
Phase 3a 2012 46.0 acres 127 units
Phase 4 2013 259.7 acres 549 units 149 units Remainder of golf
course
The overall phasing plan will allow for the development of a majority of the multifamily units at
the earlier years with the majority of the single family units to be constructed in the later years.
Additionally, the completion ofthe golf course would not occur until the final year ofthe
phasing plan. As mentioned previously, staff has concerns with the overall phasing in of the golf
course. Because of the scope of the plan as well as the course being a focal point within the
overall site, the course should be constructed in the earlier phases.
.
With regard to the overall plan, the City should consider if the golf course, trails, parks and other
community amenities should be completed in the earlier phases. This will ensure that the
development's theme is completed prior to future phases.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed development is ambitious as it seeks to utilize and upgrade the current golf course
and provide for an array of housing units and styles within this area. The development will allow
opportunity areas for public recreation via parks, trails, pocket parks, a city park, and landscaped
boulevards. In addition to the residential development, a portion of the plan will include a mix
of business and commercial opportunity areas to be located in the northeastern and southeastern
portion ofthe site area. When completed, the development will create roughly 2,600 units with
an estimated population of between 5,000-7,000 people.
The site area includes the development of roughly 898 acres which is larger than any single
development recently proposed within the City. In order to accommodate the development,
major infrastructure components will need to be resolved. This includes how the construction of
roads, bridges, the interchange, sanitary sewer, utilities, and other eosts will be paid and by .
18
2. Since the golf course is to be considered a major focal point within the development, should
approval of the plan be contingent upon completion of the entire golf course as part of phase .
1 of the development?
3. The golf course should include a driving range within the overall course plan.
4. Are there other areas that should be identified for parks within the plan? The City's
subdivision ordinance states that an amount of land equal to 1 O%if the gross land area of the
plat shall be presumptively deflned as "reasonable commensurate." Based upon the total
gross area, 89 acres of land would be needcd to satisfy the City's park requircment unless it
is determined that cash in lieu of land or a combination of cash in lieu and land is
recommended.
5. The city should make the determination as if additional passive open space should be
identified within the area or if larger pocket parks should be located within the ovcrall sitc.
6. If pocket parks are proposed within the site, does the city wish to have these parks operated
by the HOA or by the City? If the city wishes to maintain these areas, it should be assumed
that additional costs on public works will be anticipated.
Pedestrian trails move through voids crcatcd by the units and along roadways in uncontinuous
connections. Monticcllo as a whole would need to envision the walkability or the city before
allowing a trail system to be constructed in one development. Possible extensions for the
development into the surrounding community could be to the YMCA property to the south, .
along the extended Chelsea Road to the southeast, across the current Orchard Road bridge to the
northeast, and to other future developments to the north and west of the proposed. Also a safe
pedestrian crossing over 1-94 to the east, where Otter Creek connects to Par West Park, would
give waJkable access to Downtown Monticello.
The Parks Commission has not had an opportunity to review this concept. The concept plan
shown at this scale makes a Parks Commission review difficult. It will be critical for the Parks
Commission to review a plan illustrating open space, park areas and trailways in a more detailed
plan.
Public vehicle eonnections to thc site will need to be reviewed in a more comprehensivc manner.
The coneept plan proposes dead ending the current roadway that runs through the site. New
local road ways connect the site north to south, but there is no east/west connection through the
site. Currently this development is not surrounded by major city developments. The small
residential lots that exist are able to use existing local streets with case, if Jefferson is built in full
then this will not longer be the case. Roads will have to widened, and an over pass will have to
be built to create a connection with 1-94 and the communities adjaeent to it.
.
17
Land Use Relationships
.
Consideration should be given to the neighborhood commercial area. Should it be next to
something else, rather than existing residential? Perhaps a more appropriate location would be
nearer to CSAH 39 and the Clubhouse area. There should also be a green space butfer around
the existing single family areas.
High density uses against existing residential is a concern. Land use relationships to adjoining
parcels and within the project need to be addressed.
These are two examples of potential land use conHicts between existing and proposed
development. While the City's zoning ordinance provides for buffer zones (these will
need to be addressed with more detailed plans), there are some land use conflicts with this plan
that will require revisions to the project.
Open Space and Recreation
The existing golf course is the featured attraction to the development. Located within the center
of the development, the course will provide opportunities for view sheds, trails, and community
development opportunities within the overall site. In addition to the golf course, the applicant
has also identified open space and a city park within the plan. The open space is mainly located
in the n0l1hwestern portion of the site. The majority of the open space entails wetland areas,
however, passive open space are also located within the site. .
Passive open space is generally described as open space that is essentially unimproved and set
aside, dedicated, designated, or reserved for public or private use or for the use and enjoyment of
owners and occupants of the land. In addition to the open space, a city park is located within the
eastern portion of the site. Within the park, baseball fields, parking, and trail connections are
proposed.
Below is a review of the amount of open space within the site compared to the overall site area:
Acres Percent of the total site area
Open Space (Wetlands) 101 acres 11%
City Park 29 acres 3[)/O
Golf Course 198 acres 22%
In review of the open space proposed by the development the following questions and comments
should be examined by the City:
1. What is the function of the golf course? Is it to be a pubic, semi-public, or private course? If
it is private or semi-private, what are the impacts on the entire city? Does the City wish to
have an exclusive type course within this area?
.
16
.
-.
-
Aged Restrictive Independent Senior Housing
Housing Styles Ownership Condominiums and Rental Apartments
Square Footage Unknown
Exterior Finishes Unknown
and Styles
Maintained by HOA
HOA or Owner
Market Price $150,000-$300,000
Business Composition
.Jefferson at Monticello proposes to include a 32.15 acre business park and 13.2 acres of
neighborhood services including medical facilities. The concept plan proposed the business park
to include a mix of office and industrial. The concept plan shows a glass office build with
attractive fountain and landscaping, but we are left to our own assumption as to what companies
will occupy the space. A detailed outline of possibilities should be presented to the city. This
area would not be set aside as a major area for retail, but rather a place for office space and
commercial. Use and building standards need to determined by the developer to have these area
blend into the surrounding neighborhoods.
The neighborhood services areas are proposed to include multi story buildings. The multi story
buildings would provide for commercial and office mixed use or commercial and residential
mixed use. Providing residential above commercial is an adequate way to have affordable
apartments and continuous eyes on the street, but is this a type of combined use the City would
like to see? The best building set up in this area would be multi story buildings with office above
commercial. Specific uses will also need to be determined by the City and the developers.
Public Infrastructure
Because of the location of the project, there are several critical public infrastructure projects that
will be necessary to accommodate the development. These include the f()lIowing:
1. Extension of sanitary sewer collection lines, eventually including the expansion of the
wastewater treatment plant;
2. Extension of water lines, including the construction of a new well and water tower;
3. Extension of Chelsea Road from its planned terminus at County Road 39 through the
project to connect with Orchard Road/County 75;
4. Construction ofa new interchange with 1-94 in the area of Orchard Road/County 75;
5. Potential realignment of County 39 to connect with Chelsea Road and the Orchard
Road interchange.
13
.
The developer has indicated in prcliminary discussions that it would expect to be responsible for
the infrastructure costs incurred as a result of its project. City Council members havc indicated
Iikcwise that the current Monticello taxpayers should not be cxpectcd to cover the costs of this
project. As a result, identifying those costs, and determining a rcsponsible phasing and financing
plan for the .Tcf1erson at Monticello project, is a critical step in ensuring that the City's taxpayers
are protected from risk, and thc proposed benefits of the project as advertised by the developer
are rcal ized.
Because of the nature ofthc intfastructure necessary to serve the development arca, it is not
realistic to proceed on a piecemeal basis. The interchange, the utilitics, and the other roadways
all necd to be constructed as complcte projects. That is, we cannot build only a portion of the
interchange, or just a segment of the sanitary sewer linc. Moreover, thcse are inhercntly public
projccts. Thcy may be ultimately paid for by privatc dcvelopment, but the City will need to
fi nance and construct them on the front end.
In discussions with MnDOT the spacing for the interchange will require roughly 2,800 feet
distance on each side ofl-94. Where the interchange is proposed, its proximity to the nuclear
power plant, and overall design requirements will significantly impact the north and south sides
ofthc freeway.
.
The size of financial undertaking necessary to serve this project necessitates a clear
understanding by all parties as to what the expectations are for project timing and how the City's
investmcnts will be secured. As cost studies as currently underway for thesc projects, at this
timc the identification of cost and funding sources has not becn determined.
Access
The concept plan relies on a number of transportation improvements that provide conncctions to
other parts of the community, but also serve to dcfine the layout of the project mId provide
collector access to the nOlihwest part of the City.
Cameron Avenue is being treated as local street access sometimes, and non-access
collector street sometimcs. The function and need of this road needs to be examined
and made consistent. Cameron Ave. to the cast -. this arca is cut off from rest of
development - thcre is no continuity between east and west ~ thc design needs to show
some roadway and/or pedestrian connection between the two sides of the project.
Canleron A venue is an existing roadway that connects the Orchard Road area on the north to
County Highway 39 on the south. There are somc parcels that rely on Cameron f()r local street
access, but it also serves as a collector route to some of the area. Becausc Cameron has been
constructed as a Township Road, it was built to a rural cross section. The road would have to be
reconstructed to remain a part of this project. As a result, the project plan should consider this
roadway to be either collector or local strcet - not a little of both.
-
-
14
.
Moreover, in its collcctor role, it cuts the cast portion of the project area off from the wcst. The
plan does not provide an east-west connection, but requires crossing of this roadway for the golf
course use. As a collector, only grade-separated crossings should be considered. If at~grade
crossings are permitted, Cameron will need to be redesigned as a local street, and double-
frontage lot conditions should be eliminated.
Chelsea Road is shown passing around Devron Greens and serving various business
parcels- also while Cameron Avenue remains dircctly adjacent to this subdivision. Is
there a bettcr design for this area?
Chelsea Road is a collector street, but will provide limited direct access to the larger commercial
parcels. There would not appear to be a need for both Cameron and Chelsea in this area. The
plan should be rcdesigned to make a better distinction between collector and local street layout.
The general street layout will need to be reviewed more closely by planning and engineering
staff.
Jcflerson Pkwy is to be a major collector, dcsignated as County State Aid Highway
39. The design of this road is to be as a parkway, even though it will carry some
significant truck traffic from the west.
.....
The rcvised layout for CSAH 39 (called Jeffcrson Parkway in this project) will rely on the
cooperation of the County Highway Department. This road will provide the primary exposurc
for the project, so attractive roadway design will be important, as will views of the projcct from
the roadway. At the samc time, it serves a major regional transportation role, particularly for
gravel truck traffic from the west. Most of this traffic is likely heading for 1-94. With a new
interchmIge at Orchard Road, this conncction will reduce heavy truck traffic through the existing
neighborhoods, however, it will raise issues for compatibility between this traffic and the ncw
project. The high-end housing areas adjacent to the golf course will need to be shielded from the
impacts of the heaviest traffic on CSAH 39.
......
The whole pedestrian systcm is not reviewable at this scale. The project should provide at least
two grade-separated crossings of CSAH 39 J()r both golf course and pedestrian USe. Other local
and regional trail issues should be addressed, and it is noted that trails will be more specifically
addresscd as a part of a future review. In addition, it will be important to ensurc that trai Is
throughout the project can function for both golf course and pedestrian use.
The plan provides an illustration of internal trail conccpts. As noted, the trail system cannot be
cxamined at the scale of these drawings. The City will need to set goals for the trail system
within this pr~ject, as well as connections to other parts of the community. Possible extcrnal
connections would be to the YMCA property to the south, along the Chelsea Road cxtension to
the southeast, across thc current CSAH 39 bridge to the east, across the current Orchard Road
bridgc to the northeast, and to other potcntial development to the north and west. Other options
include possibilities for pedestrian crossings OVer the freeway to the east.
Local (and pcrhaps minor collcctor) strcet COlillcctions will need to be examined in a more
comprchensi ve manner.
15
.
..-..
....
Planning Commission Agenda -- 06/07/05
11.
Public Hearilll!: Consideration of a reQuest for a Concept Stal!e PUD for Monte
Club Villas, 14.18 acre residential development consistinl! of 26 detached
townhome units. Applicant: L&G, LLC. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The applicants havc requcsted approval of a 26 unit detached townhome project that
would he located on the site of the current Monte Club restaurant, as well as the north
slope of the Monte Club hill along Fenning A venue. The project sitc is divided by an
easement for overhead power lines running cast-west through the middle of the area.
Detached townhomes are single family homes which are developcd with common
open spacc and a homcowncrs association for ownership and maintenance of the
common land.
The development site is steeply slopcd, and is covcred with a variety of trees,
including large oak trees and newer Poplar and Ash woodlands. The units themselves
are designed to sit on relatively narrow lots with three car garages. The projcct relies
on privatc strect access, however, the garages are turned and share driveways to
minimize thc impact of garages at the street. The project also includes a common
opcn green with visitor parking, surrounded by the private streets at the top of the hill.
Due to the significant slopes, there arc two separate sections of the project. At the top
of the hill, project aceess for the south area would oecur from a private street off of
Fenning in the location of the current rcstaurant drivcway. The north half would gain
access from a separate private street which would be a cul-de-sac strect serving just
seven units.
Staff notes that construction of this project would rely on a great amount of
excavating and rctaining wall construction to support both the houses and the roads.
The trce cover on the the site would be eliminated to accomplish the development.
Monte Club hill is identified in the Comprehensivc Plan as being one of the most
significant natural features of thc community. Due to its sever slopes and
inaecessibiJity to farming, there have remained several stands of woods on the hill, as
well as excellent views in all directions. Becausc a developmcnt of this scope in this
location would compromise one of the City's most identifiable landmarks, staff havc
been working on alternative options to preserve some of thcse asscts.
One of these alternatives has hccn to trade a portion of the adjacent park land for a
broad block of development land. This concept would reorient the project from a
north-south project stepping down (and consuming) the hillside to an east-west
project running along the slope. This changc would prescrve a major strip of
woodlands (approximately 250~300 fect wide) all the way from Fenning Avenuc on
the west to connect to the City's Water Tower park area on the east. This design
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/07/05
.
results in a net increase in park area, preserves a natural swale through the current
park land area, and preserves the applicant's unit count near the 26 proposed.
Relevant to this idea is that the applicant's proposed plan does not provide a
significant park space connection, mId the unit count would probably be reduced to 23
or 24 when park dedication is accounted for.
Staff's concept would preserve a band of woodlands all across the hill, maintaining a
view of forested hillside from thc community. It is also noted that it would likely
reduce grading and the need to construct as much retaining wall.
The downside to the staff alternative is that the plan would gain the preservation of
some of the poplar/ash woods in trade for the loss of some of the oak woods on the
City's park property. While the view of the hillside from the community does not
distinguish between the types of trees, oak woods are often more highly valued due to
their rarity.
As a final note of the alternative, it is noted that the Park Commission was not
favorable to the trade, primarily due to the concern over precedent as well as the loss
of a portion of the existing oak trees. Planning staff is conccrned, howevcr, that the
design as submitted would have a much greater visual impact on the hillside, to the
detriment of Monte Club hill as an attractivc natural feature.
.
The Park Commission met on the site and developed a third alternative. This option
would utilize the applicant's proposal, but would eliminate the northern tier of seven
lots, acquiring them through requircd dedication (about 3 lots) and the remainder
through purchase. This option would preserve all of the highly valuable woodlands
and minimize the amount of street eonstruction since all of the remaining lots would
gain access from the upper level, eliminating the northern cul-de-sac street.
AL TERNA TIVE ACTIONS
Decision): Concept Stage Planned Unit Development for Monte Club Villas.
I. Motion to recommend approval of the Concept Stage PUD, based on a finding
that the proposed plan is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
policies and objectives, and a finding that the project constitutes
reasonablc use of the property.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Concept Stage PUD, bascd on a finding
that the project is inconsistent with the goals and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, due to the extensive tree loss and visual impact on
the Monte Club hillside.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/07!O5
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff does not recommend the alternative proposed by the applicants. While density
of the project (at less than 2 units per acre) is low, the project will have a drmnatic
effect on the Monte Club hill, both from the impact on the site, as well as on the view
of the hill from the community. Because there would appear to be other alternatives
that would moderate this impact, planning staff would recommend that a differcnt
dcvelopment plan be considered.
As noted, the Park Commission's recommendation is to preserve the existing park
land, and acquirc the northern tier of the Monte Club Villas propcrty through
dedication requirement and purchase. This option, while accommodating
development, would preserve the greatest amount of woodlands on the hill, and
would compensate the applicant for the loss of development capacity.
Other options include:
.
· The land swap option raised by staff - this option would increase park
preservation over the applicants' plan (less, however, than the Park
Commission plan, but with no out-of-pocket cost).
· Retain the current land use designations: Commercial on the Monte Club half
of the land, Medium Density Residential on the north half of the land. This
plan would require a complete revision to the concept.
If the project goes forward as proposed, it will be important to include Park
Commission review of any park dedication requirements t(Jr the plat.
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A - Site Plan
Exhibit B - Aerial with Plan Overlay
Exhibit C - Staff Alternative Plan
Exhibit D - Area Trail and Park Plan
Exhibit E - Applicant PUD Plan
Exhibit F - Parks Commission Request Plan
Exhibit G - Alternative/Swap Plan
.....
.....
"'
..J
N~
-~............
lV1d H~13>lS
'011 .~ :ll? 1
'0113~I1NO~ .:10 Al18. g
SV111A lllH 3lNO~ G -
ili
. .~." - ,., ... .-.........-.-." ----.-=".--- .-.. "QN '6i1~ ~:~lao n;:!:o~:~-S:l.'tj;i.1J8 '~~~~lf9f5-JJllll~~~
:."--~::.::=-:~"--_.::=:~~===== .,.,__ ~O;::~-~O ']~~ ;~~ ! ()ll35I_L~~\JJ~:;~ :-_ ~~:la~~~n~~o
---~.-._.-._---".--..,-",_._..,,-.,-- ~S G3'~]HO -I ,J ONI 'S3J.VIOOSSV 'B
H~W :AEl NMVtlO I ~ I
ij)ir-- 'AS N~IS]O I ":tOOZ 9 1 A \1W NOSI:I303d ~I:IVa08
NGlldl~"5JO ___.___ .J~ .S079TlSO----.--.. '31'0
'J i\ J ~;? "', :;-" Ii j
"":',,,_:. ~.~:!".~.~.~ "~'crt; !.~'g
..,~., "'''--.. ,I
" _:~~~l~~ .~.~ dO
-~,--
~.- --
-'-'-".
..-"
. "~~
~'"
'"
'~"
....~. '......
/
,~, "~'" ....
..... '...., '" <
".................'-. ................l
'J~
~ CONCEPT PLAN OF MONTE HILL VILLAS
.
..
11C,
.
.
.
:g
I
NUl fGGV
f-lJXIS
S77ffl
WNlGdV:J
DeSIGN ~OHUM
J~n"14" 2003 5:36PM
~
II
i
i !
r I
ct J
:.. ~
Q II
Ii I
~ I?
~
n
II
II
II
u
I~ U . I. 0 0 't
"=--\
f.
'S
)>
....
...
i
,..
......
)0--'" / }
c ~, :;'
!
I
:I:
;
Ii
:t
t
.
c.r
..
r. ~
l\P
=:t:..
'"
~
"
.~
.. :-
-
~
~
~
~
~
j
m -=- ~ PI '
! :~l '-1-"
811lRrn~m
ill!!," 'l!I!!!~s~t
(,',r
. ~ f .
1. ~
rf
c'"
d'"
'"
';2
" ..
J-
i'
('f.
',\
r
". J
t..
n
"<
~ ~.
,,::.v
"1 .--
.. i """~f
~ . ,'w.
,..-.---...-..... .
I
,
I
I
.
I
t
...-..J
g:.
.01
~
~
....'......_....,~- --,..,~-......_-_.-..
v'
" ,"
S"
"r-
o. ,
. .
......,.._-..". .
.
. .\
j
I
,
\
.
,
i
!
i
1
I
,
,
I
I
\
~
'r..o
. !
.' ..
(.1'
'"
,..
...
j
.
,,~ .'
...
; ,
I'
." ".., 'f
.',~z.."'~:""""""""" .........- ~-::....." ~t....
'I-:;""_-~ i
I
i
,
I
,!
f
!
..'..,.,.:
i,
;
i
f
I
.
I
,
li
::
..~
,.,
.
4':~'
,
;
i
i
I
t
I
"'-....- ..
. ; ~~
. , ,
.'
.
. .
. "
w
..-.. ..-.- .,
.
.0:........'
'" .
. ~ :'"
.. ",f'~ lI' ~.'
.
~-
I~" ..
...
C"
i
I
I
I
".it
.
lie
.
.
I\~
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/07/05
12.
Public Hearinl!: Consideration of a request for preliminary plat approval for
Hidden Forest. a 103.44 acre residential subdivision of 171 sinlde familv units.
and rezoninl! from A-O to R-l and R-IA. Applicant: Bradlev Paumen. (NAC)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Bradley Paumen is requesting preliminary plat approval of a single family
development to be known as Hidden Forest. The subject site is 96 acres in area and is
located south of County Highway 39, east of Riverside Acres, a rural residential
project on the east boundary of the City. The project includes a request for rezoning
from its current A-a, Agricultural-Open Space designation, to a mix ofR-l and R-IA
zonmg.
Rezoninz. Rezonings are regulated by the zoning ordinance process requiring
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility with surrounding existing
and future land uses, and the ability to serve the proposed development with adequate
public services. In this case, adjoining land uses include rural family homes to the
west, County Highway 39 to the north, and rural agricultural uses to the east and
south. Utilities are available to the site from County Highway 39. The proposed
zoning would appear to meet each of the requirements for rezoning.
Preliminary Plat. rrhe proposed preliminary plat includes 12 single family
parcels. The following table illustrates the performance requirements ofthe R-I
District;
R-l Requirements R-IA Requirements
Lot Area 12,000 sf 16,000
Lot Width 80 feet 90 feet
Front Setback 30 feet 35 fect
Side Setback - House 1 5 feet 15 feet
Side
Side Setback - Garage 6 feet 6 feet
Side
Rear Setback 30 feet / usable 30 feet / usable
Roof Pitch 5112 5/12
Garage Size 450 sf 700 sf
House Size 2,000 sf 2,000 sf
Finished Size 1,050 sf 2,000 sf finished
Foundation Size None See note
Garage Location Standard setbacks No more than 5' forward
The south portion of the site, divided from the north portion, is planned for the R-IA,
given the extensive wetland and woodland cover in this area. An extension of the
primary street access is provided to the southwest boundary to connect to another,
1
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/07/05
related project that is expected to be proposed later this year known as Sunset Ridge.
The project plans show 9 R-l A lots to the west of this street extension, and 5 R-I A
lots to the east of this street. An additional 49 R-IA lots may be proposed in the next
phase. It is noted that an additional access street to the east may be desirable in this
area, and should be subject to further review by the City Engineer.
The R-l proposal consists of 105 single family lots. Each of the lots appears to meet
the City's standard minimum dimensional requirements for R-l residential, without
the need to average the lot sizes or setbacks.
.
The layout reflects the discussions between staff and the applicant, including
connection to the public township road to the west, and minimal use of cul-de-sac
design where practical. The City Engineer has made several comments as to
engineering design, including the need to add sidewalks on one side of all streets, and
the design of the cul-de-sacs to meet the City's island requirements. The cul-de-sacs
require the creation of an association of those parcels that front of the cul-de-sac for
maintenance of the island. The preliminary plat are represents the portion of the
original parcel that does not combine the significant stands of trees. The treed area
was left out of the plat due to the absence of a tree survey. Therefore, until a tree
survey is completed, there is a resulting inability to design that portion of the plat with
tree preservation in mind. In order to facilitate a future design in this area that
accommodates greater tree preservation, at this time staff would recommend the
removal of the five lots and the two road access points to the east of "Street A". This
will help accommodate the future road alignments in that area.
Park dedication is planned for the south portion of the site, incorporating pathway
(including boardwalks) and parkland around the wetland area, and connecting to the
southwest. Provision for future park dedication should be made in the development
contract to avoid later confusion over the amount of dedication required. The Parks
Commission has reviewed the park and trail dedication proposed and recommended
approval.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
Decision 1. Rezoning from A-O to R-l and R-IA, Single Family Residential
1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning to R-l and R-IA, based on
a finding that the proposed zoning is consistent with the surrounding
neighborhood, eonsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and meets the
requirements of the Zoning regulations for rezoning consideration.
.
2
Planning Commission Agenda - 6/07/05
.
2.
Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on a finding that a
different zoning district would better meet the requirements ofthc
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Decision 2. Preliminary Plat for Hidden Forest
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat of Hidden Forest,
based on a finding that the land use pattern is consistent with the City's
Comprchensive Plan, and that the proposed plat meets thc R-l zoning
regulations, subject to the following conditions;
1. The applicant will necd to receive access approval onto CSAH 39 from
Wright County.
2. A park dedication requirement as set by City resolution is recorded with
the development contract to be approved with the final plat, based on the
phasing of park dedication.
.
3. The applicant redesign the plat to remove the 5 lots to the east of "Street
A" at this time. Arrangement of those lots to be included in a future phase
of developmcnt for Outlot D.
4. The applicant accommodates the requirements of the City Engineer's
report, dated 6/1/05.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary Plat of Hiddcn Forcst, based
on a finding that proposed plat is not consistent with the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance.
ST AFF RECOMMENllA TION
Staff recommends approval of the Hidden Forest Preliminary Plat and rezoning with
the conditions listed in this report.
SUPPORTING DATA
.
Exhibit A - Site Location Map
Exhibit B - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit C - Grading Plan
Exhibit D - Utility Plan
Exhibit E - Site Aerial with Plat Overlay
3
i2A
.
'ee of
fy comer
'th side
,City of Monticello
Wright County, MN
29)
~ - ~ -------- I
IIIIIIIIIIr. .....~..... ....-t'1Ii:II".-.-. __~~ ~ __ ~
...........-:: ...:::- --.... ~~ --- ~ ----
I --- I .\..
r~ ,:
. I . ,. I 8 c,i
,,~ .
Sec. 8 ~ 17. Twp. 121. Rng. 24
VICINITY YAP
.
\f"
, '
r' ,
'", ,
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City of Monticello Planning Commission
on June 7th, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.. in the Monticello City Hall to consider the following matter:
.
PUBLIC MEETING:
Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat for Hidden Forest, a
103.44 acre residential subdivision consisting of 171 single-family
units, and of a request to re-zone from A-O to R-l (Single-Family
Residential) and R-IA (Single~Family Residential).
LOCATION:
Vicinity of Haug Avenue and County Road 39.
Parcell:
The West 40.00 feet of the East 285.00 feet of Government Lot 2, Section 8,
Township 121, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota, lying North of the
centerline of County Rd. 39, per WRIGHT COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT-
OF-W A Y PLAT No.6, according to the recorded plat thereof, said Wright
County. Subject to an easement for County Road No. 39, and subject to all
other easements of record, if any.
Parcel 2:
That part of Government Lot 2, Section 8, Township 121, Range 24, Wright
County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the center line of County Rd. 39, per
WRIGHT COUNTY HIGHWA Y RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT No.6,
according to the recorded plat thereot~ said Wright County and easterly of .
the east line of HARTWIG's RIVER ROAD ACRES, according to the
recorded plat thereof, said Wright County, as monumented, and that part of
the East Half of the Northwest Quarter and the Northeast Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of Section 17, Township 121, Range 24, said Wright
County lying easterly of RIVERSIDE ACRES, according to the recorded
plat thereof, said Wright County, as monumented. Together with: Outlots B
and C, said RIVERSIDE ACRES, as monumented. Subject to an easement
for County Road No. 39, and subject to all other easements of record, if any.
A copy of the preliminary plat is available for review at the
Monticello City Hall.
APPLICANT:
Bradley Pauman
Written and oral testimony will be accepted on above subjects, and all persons desiring to be heard on
referenced subjects will be heard at this meeting.
Note: Decisions of the Planning Commission will be subject to the approval or denial of the City
Council and will be considered on Monday, June 27th, 2005 at 7 p.m., at the Monticello City
Hall.
Jetf~ e:2--!ListcatOf
.
O'ZO~\:O~ :'oN )11.01
iVld 3~d l :31U ~MO
~:)Jl OJ~~Jf1J
O:J:J'~f'I ')Jl NMV~O
H~\: ~ ~:'\8 N~1530
3).VO ~~ ~O/ll/\:O :3iVO
IJ ~N 0,\ 0 5 151 ~
-,1).dlijJ530
~........ ~
i
T--\
, . ,
L~
....
. ...
~ ~
1 ~ ~
l ~
;(
~
'" hl
,
I
"I
--I
I
1
1
"'L_J
..;
!
",i.h
c:;.... c+'
"Eu;. ~ ~
!~=t=
D"U'~ ~
iai~
..c -a c;jI"
- s
:; ;:t~
e~-g D
.- D U
Ii i>al
.......!..1;I1lI
::~.!
.i~~:s
~'i:_S 0
- 1
.,
1
I
I
-I
"I
1
,
,
-"
~
~
i! ~
~~~~a~ h~~
~e'ffiE~~i~~~
~a~i'!<'it;~1",iQ~
~~~H~~~~~~
~~~U~E~EB~
El101S0\ \o-<;>-x~
n
~
h~ d
'< '" ~~
~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~
is ~ '" ;:ilJ @ ~
; ~ i; : ~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 13 B
i ~ 'g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ !;l !;l
B ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~ ~
H.@o~f~ II
I ~
~
>-
'"
..~-
'::.;~
- .~:~:~;l
':~j-.
'z.-::.
't~- .
~-r-
'::J:;.L
>-
'"
@
~
'"
"
~
~
\!;
~~
i3
~N
it
"
~
.
S
t
1
"
S
'ON '6.~
:.\00
~~1r.&1:l1li ~i$jS~~
aNlij]}N~'~
mm m~~'\~,mmmm
~ONliiiJ. "1:>088" 11
N08YIOad'J.y"eOS
;pllu6!S
luawdolaAaa DU1P3 .
N~ 'ollao!lUO~ JO ^l!O ~ 0J
lsaJo.:;j uapP!H ill
.1.1 .~ It.t ,,/1 ,tts "III JO "/1 3f'I .1/1 10 _!If 1 IIJntJS - -- \
I
I '*
I \
/ ('--..-i---..,./...J /
" /." --------------- / "
· ._MJ.----~-----~L./-
-..- /"
~i8,. I 1 ~. .,- --
J ~J,J ,:1:'" ! I ~
'''"/.. . hil
r ~ ~/ ~ ~ _ ;,(-1<<1 _ _ -, -MO - ~ - r J......" - ~ & ";I-tII) - - - . ]~tG ~ - -Clli I \ ~
- - .c:b - - -/<-]~ - Y ]r:..~~d :0 ;~-::'i)J;" ;U:U:::I>>~) - - - J-Hi) - - -Clli \;\-t
! ..../ .'IRUION '-1IUD1'f UO/I~!;N)i;~.,. MIiIIJd pffll.f'l I i ~
// r \ i~\
/ , iii
/ (/ .. Ii~
, 0 ~
! .. Ii (I
I ,. ~, f\ i ~
/ ,\ I I ~
, II ~
/ I.:;" 1\ \_1,,)
).. , ~ I 1 ~ \:j ..
.:: / f,? I i \6 Ct:
~ ,... .. .. 1<'"
I ." , !El"
I ! I. ..'
, :t ".
. I"
f I,. l t ",iiiS-C _-::-
}. _..-.Ij,~) --
J" ,.-""'~..~-
J ,. I lll.e{ ,.
. I
...,'U2......,...,.. "f
-=i\ .......Zl6,.,. ...- ,.1
1\
Ii
."".~Zj)..,.. Ot~\
-lianJ. -in:H2H)1;'
. ..~, \ ,ll' 1 \,' i
~~'\.\l: JT i:! !
.,........ '\ I ' , . .,.". (I i ~ot<LI-OOO.<.. :
'\ ....... \ \ \ \ \ , / ,,I I; '1II&.'El 'V .:Jlulllr" '"" uJlI'r
Ih. \ \: \ i \ \".\, \ /"f', .. ) ( " ,,/
.. I; '.JA";'>r +0,>\yC;.~,;>..'.,.,.tf).;'y'~.lfot..1.t'1.0I BfS"
i:' i~' ':'</.".Y"{'I':~;'! \ \ i i \. \ i I / f / ,// " r.."f~'.....' II
,
044"".
..
~
~
l\
j
:'"
'1 {
H ~;
~~ ~ ~
f ~ 'i
~
I
{:~
1
I
"
1-- //..,...
,f
\~;j
f.,
"
I"S
~~
Il;gl:l
a:
llj
<"
,.
)
.. .
""
,.
..
".
/
I
j
/ \
,f ihn1 )
I '?VJ
.i.( I
\ 1 !
II
, j .
) rJ
i
i
i
I
!
/
I i
~ I
<l, II
\ \
,
~
i
I
~
...."J~".i
.'
..,!
i
I
i
i
\
\
,...,,1144'/
O'ZO~\:O I :'ON 311.01
O~~ J~d ~ 'J1U ~MO
OJJ :)Jl OJ~J3HJ
OJ:)'~~ :)Jl NMVHO
1 DN V lfl'\Vl 1 SNOI I ~ g - ~~\: ~:'\8 N~IS30
idlHJSJO 31VO ~~ 1;0/ ~ I /\:0 :3).VO
<:>
~
~ lS~ ~
~ ~\!; ~ <.l ~
~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~
~ ~e; \E <> ~ ~;r; C1 ~
il' -'~ '" ~ h ':i l'i 1:' ~ l'i
if ~i! B B i;\ ;:i t; <'i Ii: t;
~ ! i ~i ~ Iii I i I i
, 0 ~ f ~ \
I ~
I I
~
,i ~
: ~ '" ~ ~ ~
_ h ~ ;( '" C1
, " ~ ~ '" ~
~ i'i =- ~ lQ ~
:~~~~~
"VI tI) VI V'l ~
J13a~aCl
\ \ 0 {;l- Z I',
~ v
I \
B
V>
~~B ~
::J~~i8 ~
i5~ ~al~t;i ~
G~ ~~~ilI....
~\h ~al"''''~~ ~
z o;J :::l1..Ll~o ~
~~ ~ ~::;ai:i:l "
ac z" i3i3a~
i3\5::;ili ,aa."
Q ....J~g M800
~~~m1A!
~~ "- "'l'i
~1- lrl ~<
~" I ~~
a~ ~
~~ &
"-"- g:
1!
~ II
~ij j. 11
,g~ ~~~ j
~i l1J~ If
iiO- ~~ ii " 0
~~~ " ~ 'Ii
'S'O E .. ..
~~ ~-g:i 6 !-S 6
~Ii
~~ 00 (!; "
~H . .~ '0
i~ E >.
," U
_il L1; !! E
. I · · ·
\:;
'ON '~.~
UDld uonD6!l!~ ~ 'IOJlUOO
UO!SOJ3 '6U1PDJD AJDUlw!laJd
luewdolaAaa DU1P3
N~ 'olla=>!lUoV'j JO ^l18
lsaJO.:;j uapPIH
to
:"lDQ
~~~1r'.J1{)Q ~.J~iM'~~
nW4.VI'l
aN"'JJNlaN:~ llAP
nNlAJ^ll')S aNvl
':>NliSi.LYI~088Y It
NOSYilO!d 'J.YYOOS
:psub~S
<.l
i:;
s
i
~
e;
!
~ ~ II
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ !
~ IL ~ ~
i ~ p-
~ ~. ! i
;!; ~ ~ i ~~ ~q !l
~ ~ IJ! 0
~~ <L ~ ; ll:'G:'
~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~~ ~ ~ ~ !~
f q> i ~ ~
~ "'-$ ~ ~. ~ ~.J ~n 50
~ ~ ~
fA 9 ~"l!> ..."
a !O ,.,1lI
'll !CIl
" ~I ~i
3 ~..... " ~
U
" ~ 3
~ "
~ ~ ~
..
~ i
~ ~
II i
~ ~ ~
....U ~
~ .... 2
~ ~ ~ 0:
~ ~ i ~~
q>
~. ~ ~~
~~9
!.....
~
g
~
..
~
>-
'"
~
~
~
'"
"
~
~
l'.;
~~
"'-$
iI
it
3
"
~
\
I
i
I
\
\
)
/
I
t..
~f.'/
....'j"'Ii...._
",.'
1......,.
.....liI'rl!l.
..,,6/
/
~.
~r t
l!
0'
&l15
$'
\,
0"
.","6'.'"
gtG... .... ........
0",
...,
~"S'
O"~y,
lira...
9re..
..,.if. .
..:lJ.ti
0<'
.-.-itll
it6....
.. ....~
. . ..:-!~O'~Ot~O~ "ON J11J
L..... O~D ]~d ~ 'JllJ ~Ma
O~J 'AS Q]~J]HJ
OJJ'~~ '.lJ3 NM~~O
DI'l ;AS N~IS]a
]l~O ~~ SOl L l/m ']l~O
UPld UOllo61llv-l ~ 'IOJlU08
UO!SOJ3 '6UlpOJD AJOUIWll€lJd
luawdol€l^€lO DU1P3
Nv-l 'olla:>llUov-l }O Al!8 g
lS€lJO..:l U€lPPIH i -.;:
is
~ 1'0
~ ~
~!,. '" l; ~ ~
je~~~~!~
! <I,,,>;:; i :t !Q ~
;~~~~~~~
3E~BBBBa
,[J 110 -<;r 8 1\
tv
II
~
-' ~
~ l-
I ~
~
is ~
~ "
,.
'" ~
~ f
~ ~
fA
~ "
~
~
l's
~~
'"
~
"I ~ ~! ~ ~ '"
'li El,. tl " !>: l:l <i
:0 ~ ~l:i ~ ~ t! ~ ~ 1.i ~ ~
" ~~ ~ lli l:l ill '"
~ : ~Q; ~ ~ >- ':i ~ e ~ ~
" if ~~ ~ ~ i;l ~ l;; <I rt l;;
; ~ ! : ~~ ~ ~ i i I ~ ~ ~
@"~fl 1:1\...
~ I...
I ~ I ...
I I
;
I
I
i
I
I
~
~
~
<L
~
~
"
~~ (L ~~
i~ ! ~~
!lsS; ~
1l:<L 2;
Il:
."
"
0
f:i "II
ol .0
.:. ~ '5iri i
~ ~ ."", I
ll"'"
,I; ~ii-
jj",g ~
~ E';;-
~ti .!i~ ~
"6E 'Ii'll::
":Ii
!~ ilg 'E
~.." 1
Iiu t"~
,g..Qtl
~~ "~i ;€
-" ~~t .
~f ~n 'll
~: .!log ]i
R.
"l1
t
f ti
~ H
.~ ~~
'E H
1i Vi:
"ll ~5
I gS
. ""
.-
,./ ... I : i'=--=
1<<1 _ _ _ -;lItO h \
~ - - - ~]~ _ _ _ r . II
_ ]_11) _ _ _ ~ ]_~ J~1fO - - -"U.J I i I
, (~d 1m 'U.Wfm~J;O ;~~ .,\- - -i--tlO ~ - -~ : i ..
,U.luits". ,.,.... -"IJD:J" I ."
I UOfI~hy ..III.Od p8t1lf1 I :
I
I, ~I
IHI
IPI
! ~ 1\ (
I TJ. ~
Ii I
Ii I
: I
I I~;/)
I I;:! llJ~
,I I~[\:
I lol-,
,I :~::;
I ~:rl~
i --
/ I t'J
"". m... '1 : [;:
......... ....."..". I (:)
Ii : ::~
Ii I "
I' n'
'... .. -I 1-"'"
". "'. .11. ().
"'l ~ I . I
\ I ~ !
" l
1'1, I
1./ ,"
. f /
-i.l I 1! I i:.iI
,,'r<. . I .~.I 111
I! ~I f:
I;M V
li'l,\0
'J~ ~r
.ON '61j1~
:alDQ
~~1r.~~ ~\fl1il-:'~1
'~lddV~
'N"']]NI~N llAP
.N1A]^ll")! aNV'
m~oNjmijiiYI008SY ,
NOSYilOld".LUVDOS
:paufi!s
-i/>
i
li
;:
~t:
o:;i
~~
~; /
L.
,........
..,,96-"" ,.."
..,---
'<11':
~',
",.
,~~' .'
t~e-"'"
I
~
<il
Hi
\,i
~
I
'/
I~
/1
d
/1
'I
"
fl
~..;::-..
--- .........
...._~.""
" \'\
..... ' .
.~ ,\ <il
',\,
\\
0(
\-.'"
\\.
\ \
\ '"
\ \\ \.
\\ ~
\\
~\ \\
'f".,..,.,',.>r"""h';'~'--'-"'\"'A"'J'"h/''''' ...,.(( I., \\~\
". ) "'.,,, "'. \ : I "" \~
-i---r-----:l'r.~~- '\ "I \\
(Q"" ,of' ,( \, ... ., ',.\- \
\ II-- ," 'Ii ~..:,,,,, \,.
, ;' '.'." \\
j
. "". lp;'B
~
~
'.,
'. .. ".. '
~..~, ~\~.~. ~\~
\ \ \ \
\ t \ \,
;. ~. ~
~
\\\\.......~\\
" \\".~ ~.!
,,<1' ) $"
$ ~~,'
: .a. .
\ fl" i
)1 J ! I :i
! ,) I i L
i, 1 i i
/ !!'
! \
I
I
.J.
~
..
!
~
(
\ I
i (
i,. a
...........)
~
..
-ll
",
::
~
cia __~NOlV,inOA'fl Oi NOISI ~ 0 ~\
NO'idl~OS,O 3iVO
O'W~\:O~ :'ON 31"
l'in 3~d S '31U OMO
O~~ 'AS OJ~~3H~
O~~.~~ 'AS NM~O
l OVi 'J..8 NOIS,O
~~ go/~ ~/~O '3i~0
lU9Wd019^9a DUIP]
NVi '01l901lUOVi }O Al!::> g
lsaJo.:;j uapPIH ~
'ON 'f)gM
:Q11DG
:pau6\S
d;~~~"~3li ~i!~~~~
~Wl'ddVVi
$~~it~ JWl
":>NI 'siivI:>oSSVII"
NOSUaO:iild 'J.UVOOB
UDld Allllln };JDU!W1I9Jd
L.f)
-~
t"~
tu ",:";.,,,~
cJ
.,,::'5
t:)
-
"')".'~~;"^"';'''~'' "...".J...^~""~
",^'Yt
I
~
., r
iel
l~ ~
~'" I
;2 L
\;
f i
\L
r
\1
/.1
'L
t r
(: I
l
r
I
I
", L
,----
1
U
:"t
L'}
l"
..
,,:
, .,
~~:
~ ~
~
;;:;
~
~
1;l
~
is ~
~~~;: ~
~ ~ & ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
<:>>l~~i3~ i~~'"
~~~t;~U)i:t~~~
:iiliilliill
: ~ 11 ! 1- .~ I I
IIII
llJ
Cl
~/~
'I:
t'J
@~
~~
i~ ~
~~ ~ ~
, ~~~~~~;~
e g>-'B<>~~~S
~~ \3~~I~~~~
~ ~ ~ g~J ~ B B B E
..II &e1"S
~ ." r ~ !i.
I
I
Cl:
---
;'II' ;
',' IU)
\;: s-:: {y~
Be "ON peo2:J .{JI,JnO:J I
-+
_____ - ---t
~I
\ :
\~
1\
I
..
~Et../"V I
I li'iifi.7 ----'------
~F."W DO vno:; -
_ I 1'1"'61"7
<-<- S I I 'ill ~lt,91.g;V-
I I
I I
I I
I I
r----..J I
I,
.-.-
'oN 'fi~M '"\"0 uOld '<;l!l!ln '<;JOUlW!laJd
...- o'to\>m I "ON 311' ~~~n~t.~ f8:U~~1S--:'~t '"
11!n 3~d 9 '31U OMO ;PQub!S '~8
000 ;AS. 03~~3H3
OOO':lrl :AB NMV~O Im~3Nlisa.iYI008Syi . ... .... ... lUElwdolaAaa DUlP3
0:> ~I'!QlV 1l0A'fl O! SN(jI<:I^l~ ~O II-\:O
DYl 'AS NOIS30 NOSU:iilO:iild'J.tJYOOa NVi 'OllaoIlUOVi ^l!::) 0
01.LdI~OS3q 3iVO 'ON ~O/l ~/\:O JO z
.u A3~ '3nO 8 tC
lSElJO J UElPPIH '"
.- en -
-.
Nn
N
~. I;;
~
~
;'!
0
2
~
0 en
.
I
/
/*'
.___1.
,.~. \"":.,)..,}w~./".)..,)....I.J
~
".
".
'"
~
...
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ! eJ !
:~~1<!~! ~ ...).
;~"'..,~~,. ~~~~
'rt~~t; ~n:~~~
:~~i~~II!ii~ ".
, B a: ~ ~ a: ~ '..
'~11!1-..II , I
".
<II
Ii
IIII ~
l<'
2 ".
~ n,
\
@~ ~ -l ._,
I \
gij , \
.. ~ .
jl ' \
\
~ tl ~ \
, ~I ; ~ i ~ \ ..
.
\
: ~li~I~~~S
~! ~~!;l ~~~~
~ ~~~J~BBB8 ".
" <II f I !i,& e 1 a 8
~
I
I
~~~
\'~
'"
)~8
.
.
.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/07/05
13.
Consideration to approve a resolution findine: that a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No.1 and the
TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-34 conform to the e:eneral plans for the development
and redevelopment of the citv - Applicant: Citv of Monticello (O.K.)
A. Reference and backeround:
The Planning Commission is asked to adopt the attached resolution stating it tinds the
modification to the Redcvelopment Plan to enlarge the boundaries of the Ccntral Monticello
Redevelopment Project No. I and proposed TIF District No. 1-34 Plan conform with the
general plans for development and redevelopment of the city as described in the comprehensive
plan.
First, the modifIcation includes enlarging the Project No. 1 boundaries to include the A VR site
(requested for annexation by the Council May 23) and Otter Creek Crossing (future
development of the city-owned business center.)
Secondly, proposed TIF District No. 1-34, a Renewal and Renovation District, is being
established to assist in covering a portion of the City's cost and to minimize the impact of a
higher than expected payment for land and other costs associated with the public
improvements. The project costs are estimated at $16,000,000 and the City's share is over
$4,000,000, but could be higher. The private developers will be responsible tCJ[ their own land
acquisition and are being assessed or traded for land at over $5.4 million.
The TIF District boundaries include the Dahlheimer site and the parcel currently under
condemnation. The tax increment revenue will be generated from the proposed Target Store
and the proposed adjacent retail (outlots) of approximately 35,000 sq. ft. as per the fInal plat of
Union Crossing. The proposed Home Depot and other retail-strip development is not included
in this TIF District.
The Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat for Union Crossing in December,
2004. The Final Plat is scheduled to be on the Council Agenda of June 13, 2005.
For this agenda item, the Planning Commission is stating the TIF Plan for District No. 1-34
conforms with the Comprehensive Plan: Land use, zoning, and general development plans.
The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing and adopt the TIF Plan for District No.
1-34 on June 27, 2005.
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 06/07/05
B.
Alternative Action:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution finding that a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for
Central Monticello Redevelopment Projeet No.1 and the TIF Plan for 'fIF District No.
t- 34 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the city.
2. A motion to deny adoption of a resolution finding ..............................................
3. A motion to table any action.
c.
Rccommendation:
The City Administrator and HRA Executive Director recommend Alternative NO.1.
Reasons: Enlargement of the Project No.1 Plan boundaries allows the City the ability to
establish TIF Districts within those boundaries. Establishment ofTIF District No. 1-34 allows
the City the ability to cover a portion of the City's cost and to minimize the impact of a higher
than expected payment for land acquisition and other public improvement costs. Since the
proposed District boundaries only cover a portion of the new development, the remaining
portion of the new development will disburse immediate economic benefit to the City. Lastly,
as the Planning Commission previously approved the Preliminary Plat for Union Crossing, it is
assumed the Plat conformed with the general plans for development and redevelopment of the
city.
D.
SUDDortine: Data:
Resolution for adoption, maps, and TIF District No. 1-34 Plan
2
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOI,tITION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT A MODIFICA nON TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 1-34 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 Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I,
reflecting its increase in size, (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification ") and a Tax Increment Financing
Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34 (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan
Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans") and has submitted the
Plans to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.175, Subd. 3, and
. WHEREAS, the Conunission has reviewed the Plans 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 Plans conform with the
general plans tor the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Dated: June 7, 2005
Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
.
-----
.
E-f
OZ<
~~~~
<~~~
~~~<
E-fUOE-f
zE::=~U
~z~e;
UO~O
~Q~
~~
~
~
--rJ f
~ ~
> -0
1. t
.--' =:>
t. 0
Q)JJ
{~"'I..' ~..
..., . .-.~ ~-~ --,
: ;::.1 ,.'/... :~,
..' .---...........,.."
~ .c"~(:~h. ...~,~
..~ .(f': I ""..:1...4
:.. '-~ .'. ....: 'f' /)
';):'h\:'~rJl '.J;l;:~
'~1~' ':~:-:,fJi~~
... -.,., "'i < ~ r':;-~~" \~:;":'r ,:f [J /.:.
\ \~ . ( ~ -:... ..: ~ " \:-> \'':': ;1. .'li~.<; "::",
. . '. J -I'" .... t. "/ .-1 ~...,.....l.... ..1').- \
.\ '. \ I; ..,. .;.' ,jt: ' i.tJ... ("; --::-d'i"
\),\':\ -., 1.__'.I:?-%".-. . '':'..I~jl''f~
'"H' .J: .'. . ,.. : "-'..4 f ~:c: ~.b~. v~.~,
..;. ./ / ',1 r'J '\ t -... .::.' If:). "';
I. ':~'r."i ' ,.r.;:~..;..: "',.. "::":: I ~~:': '.~
I II I \ ., ..,. '_,.,. .. ...
.:. /,- : ,,::,7c:._. - ......"-:r... . _.~ - , -/ /,'
I -.. . . .... ~ f1"-. .,.; (" .
I . .:J' it;.. . l' ...~~j;j;:':.:.~.:~..-. t , .' ...:. ..:
:f .-' /.~.-: . -'-~~ *-t--.\ :~. I . -/ r::.
i -- . I .. " _) \.-:' r -. 1.1 .
1-;0r~. .':::: t. \~_,,~ .~ -j-;:":--II: ;-=-'-..:..:
'r .~'" ' ,..,- j 'J'.. ~:., ..t'.: ..,.
i'. -:. . . "-.,;: .. . .1/"" _...;
r r'.' .. \. . ...t.. 't ... ..__'.;
;'!i. .' is"' '.;:p::i. r-:-"'.-':. :
. .,.;- _!..... .'" ..' ~.-.:-.~J
.:....o/~. . . ;::';..' I:<.::..~ ~.!
.j .;. .-' : r> . :r -; .( . . ...-.....
. : . ..' ::.~ .. I /?:l"; .
..' ..; 1'./.. ,
. 'l:,. ." ... ,
t.:.../:. r', ;, .' I,: ./ iJ_'"
i I'~'
'. '.'- -',--.\
. . I ..' .: .'
C.~.~, . . I '.' ~ i
- - - ~-I~ --L..
."1' ',::;;0.;
...~,l ~ . ,,":,>.' .
.-' r. " .
... ... I' . ..
..J ..-~,
" . .~ -'
.. --'c. r .--~-
I .
.. v r .__:-~__..
. '. i '"
~".. '...
'. f:'~ ::. I.
.j ~ ..;1-"1:: *-
I '. .-~:.;. 'r ~.
......1 .~ .. .~... .. .'O._ ..
'. l. :~'.<:-:''''I
'1 ': - ..}r,.'-'.....-. :.=.-....;..."':::.:..::...
I. -..J', .-.....-..1 .' ......
~-~-~-~~-~~~.~~-.
r i-l ;. ..... , . . ,
- . ./ " I
,/.. . .- r'" I .:-":, , ~ .
.:~. '.. .-- . t. 7. "\ ':: ...~
....:' !~~. . . .:1 '" '.,:' ~ I (,)
'j r"O" . . . ..' t{ .... " ~ I'; ';"
~. .,J\. . .': ...:. . ;.:~. t )i , . ..:-. .:.'. ~ ...:
"I(~... ..~-"" ", t ~,.:...' .,~.: -_....
:-i~~:;:' .R. ..n r.... ..::...~.:..../.r . :;;':~"l:':"~
'j.. " :; =E!;~7.r'" 'I-'~'" ......
l:- ---.1 . . . 0 II . .:: \.,,:-
.. 1'\;':: ' ~ -1:"- '': : . ... ./..- .':-:i:
,. );"\"1,: 0. ~"\/~'".. .~;t'" I!.,.!- )~~I "'/~:"'.:
L. ,.' f ,. '#-..-. . I 'L:.,f.___. _..... .\.~, .
,. .,,, "'\ , p::: -.. . ,,; . '..t '1]. ,..
if' .. '). .:" .;.t..-'~.. -/ c:=='';;'':: ::;!.i.;' r ! .' :i~' .L~' .'
. J . "r-~".",I, .', . . I \_
I. ...!.I..., ;......:,b, ~j:: "'/:. ~ '.' ('- - . . . ., _ . '. . '.....
......-........-.....------1 ' :
.:,~;:&:t"';;;;;: .dL?~:-l;:.~;,:':(_~__....~\.'I..- ." ,
-.(~;~~....J.
. IIrw.. _ .., . .r_
J.:, I
. :
!
, ......:.7~-
"",-.. --
~.. .'
iI.~ :. I
.:.,I~
;.::,
. ,.,
.~ 1
. . .
i . .
:- ... .,,'
. 01'
...
.J':___
,
.\.
.'
.'" .;.
:;.., fI
fd ,.. ~
. : +! .
. .."
.-'--..' f'I-..
;. ".rIM t.
,
.
-;:. .
;,.
.; ...
>..
"D
:J
Cf)
o ~
...
a> ~
o .;
;:;
. .
.;,-
:".'
;::!h
.:.!:l;;
:;:: Ii:
~:~J/'
. ....;,
.. .
... .
. :'.g'
~=
c
.0
en
X
Q)
C
c
<(
,-
<5
~
fl~l~
lO"S
r:
o
.N
:'01
r: .
:-..
e
o .&
~r.
-Sf'
.' ==
... III
:-;(
"W
~....
... ~ t
. -..:
'.
u ~.
'"
...
~
'"
...
c:
... ...
... E
l:.l.
E 0
--
- ...
>
,.....
... "t:\
-- ...
u.cc
I~
::::
.
.
.
Proposed Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1
City of Monticello
Wright County, Minnesota
Parcel Map
1-94 and CSAH 18 OVerpass
City of Monticello
"+
"~&dIIW,_
...
-
o 125 250
500
Feel
.
.
.
MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICEllO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
and the
THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
for the establishment of
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT No. 1..34
(a renewal and renovation district)
within
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
.
MONTICELLO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Public Hearing: June 27,2005
Adopted:
This document is in draft form for distribution to the County and the School District. The TIF
Plan contains the estimatedfiscal and economic implications of the proposed TIF District. The
City and the HRA may make minor changes to this draft document prior to the public hearing.
e
EHLERS
Prepared by: EHLERS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105
651-697-8500 fax: 651-697-8555 www.ehlers-inc.com
& ASSOCIATES INC
.
.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(for reference purposes only)
SECTION 1- MODIFICA TION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1. . . . .. . . . . . .. 1-1
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . .. 1-1
SECTION 11- TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-1
Subsection 2-1. 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. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-2
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District ................................ 2-2
Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District .................................... 2-3
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity
Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ............... 2-3
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness ... . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . .. 2-4
Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds .......................................... 2-5
Subsection 2-11. Business Subsidies ............................. _ . . _ . . . .' 2-6
Subsection 2-12. County Road Costs ...................................... 2-7
Subsection 2-13. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-7
Subsection 2-14. Supporting Documentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
Subsection 2-15. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ........................ 2-8
Subsection 2-16. Modifications to the District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-9
Subsection 2-17. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-9
Subsection 2-18. Limitation of Increment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
Subsection 2-19. Use of Tax Increment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Subsection 2-20. Excess Increments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Subsection 2-21. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2-11
Subsection 2-22. Assessment Agreements ........................... 2-12
Subsection 2-23. Administration of the District. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
Subsection 2-24. Annual Disclosure Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
Subsection 2-25. Reasonable Expectations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12
Subsection 2-26. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ................ 2-12
Subsection 2-27. Summary ........................................ _ . . . . 2-13
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................... _ . . . . . A-1
APPENDIX B
MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
AND TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN TIF DISTRICT ............. C-1
APPENDIX D
ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-34 ................... _. .. D~1
.
.
.
SECTION I - MODIFICA TION 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.1. Generally, the
substantive changes include the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34 and increasing
the geographic size of Redevelopment Project NO.1 to recognize new areas annexed into the City and new
HRA projects including a new industrial park.
For further information, a review ofthe Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project
No. 1 is recommended. It is available from the Executive Director of the HRA at the City of Monticello.
Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment
Financing Districts located within Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 1-1
.
.
.
SECTION 11- TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-34
Subsection 2-1. Foreword
The Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), the City of Monticello (the "City"),
staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of Tax Increment
Financing District No. lM34 (the "District"), a renewal and renovation tax increment financing district,
located in Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1.
Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority
Within the City, there exists areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or
redevelopment to occur. To this end, the HRA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes ("MS '~, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and MS, Sections 469.174 to
469.1799, 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 "TIF Plan") for Tax Increment Financing
District No. 1-34. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan
for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives
The District currently consists of several parcels ofland and adj acent and internal rights-of-way. The District
is being created to facilitate the construction of various public improvements including a new interchange
with Interstate 94 and a portion of the public improvements adjacent to the District. Of the several hundred
square feet of the new commercial/industrial development to be constructed as a result ofthese improvements
(including approximately 500,000 s.f. of new retail immediately), only 200,000 s.f. of new building area are
included in the District. Please see Appendix A for further proj ect information. Contracts for this have not
been entered into at the time of preparation ofthis TIP Plan, but development is likely to occur in late 2005
and early 2006. This TIP Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment
Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1.
The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIP Plan do not preclude
the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated
to occur over the life of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 and the District.
Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview
1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by
the HRA or City and is further described in this TIP Plan.
2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to
MS, Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws.
3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary
legal requirements, the HRA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may
acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-1
.
.
.
4. The HRA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acqUISITIOn,
construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public streets work within the
District.
Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the
parcels listed below. See the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District.
Parcel Numbers *
213111000161
213000182300
155011000122
155011000153
155011000151
155011000170
* The parcels are being replatted or annexed. It is expected that upon appf9val of the
District, four new parcels will be created and new parcel numbers will be assigned by
Wright County.
The HRA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of
way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the HRA or City only in order to
accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets,
utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to
accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The HRA or City may acquire property by gift,
dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this
TIP Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the
acquisition and related costs.
Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District
The HRA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with
M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a
renewal and renovation district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. lOa. as defined below and on the
next page:
(a) "Renewal and renovation district" means a type of tax increment financing district consisting of a
project, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that:
(1) (i) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area of the district are occupied by buildings,
streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar structures;
(ii) 20 percent of the buildings are structurally substandard; and
(ia) 30 percent of the other buildings require substantial renovation or clearance
to remove existing conditions such as: inadequate street layout, incompatible uses
or land use relationships, overcrowding of buildings on the land, excessive dwelling
unit density, obsolete buildings not suitable for improvement or conversion, or
other identified hazards to the health, safety, and general well-being of the
community; and
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-2
.
(2) the conditions described in clause (1) are reasonable distributed throughout the geographic
area of the district.
(b) For purposes of determining whether a building is structurally substandard, whether parcels
are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots, or other similar
structures, or whether noncontiguous areas qualifY, the provisions of subdivision 10,
paragraphs (c), (e), and (f) apply.
In meeting the statutory criteria the HRA and City rely on the following facts and findings:
o The District is a renewal and renovation district consisting of an expected four parcels.
o An inventory shows that the more than 70 of the area of the District consist of occupied parcels. To be
occupied, at least 15% of the area of the parcel is covered by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel
parking lots, or other similar structures.
o An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 20 percent of the buildings
are structurally substandard as defined in the TIP Act. (See Appendix E).
o An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 30 percent of the buildings
require substantial renovation or clearance to remove existing conditions such as defined in the TIP Act.
(See Appendix E).
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.176 Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that
qualified under the provisions ofM.S. Section 273.111 or 273.112 of Chapter 473Hfor taxes payable in any
of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District.
.
Subsection 2-7. Duration of the District
Pursuant toM.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration ofthe District
must be indicated within the TIP Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1 b, the duration of the
District will be 15 years after receipt of the first increment by the HRA or City (a total of 16 years of tax
increment). The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2008. Thus, it is
estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIP Plan for subsequent phases or other
changes, would terminate after 2023, or when the TIP Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2007, the
term of the District will be 2022. The HRA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the
legally required date.
Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax
Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements
Pursuantto M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original ~et Tax Capacity
(OmC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor
in 2005 for taxes payable 2006.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning
in the payment year 2008) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of:
.
1. Change in tax exempt status of property;
2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district;
3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements;
4. Change in the use of the property and classification;
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-3
.
5. Change in state law governing class rates; or
6. Change in previously issued building permits.
In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC,
no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the HRA or City.
The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2006, assuming the
request for certification is made before June 30, 2006. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the
District appear in the table below.
Pursuant to Us., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and Us., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated
Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Central Monticello Redevelopment Proj ect No.1,
upon completion ofthe redevelopment, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the
table below. The HRA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment
of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2008. The Project Tax Capacity
(PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed.
Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (pTC) $347,780
Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity(ONTC) $35,554
Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $312,226
Original Local Tax Rate 1.22111 Pay 2005
. Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $381,262
Percent Retained by the lIRA 100%
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the HRA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its
request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S.,
Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which
building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the
TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase
the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building
permit was issued.
The City is reviewing the area to be included in the District to determine if any building permits have
been issued dnring the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City.
Subsection 2-9. Sources of Revenue/Bonded Indebtedness
.
Public improvement costs, acquisition, relocation, utilities, streets and sidewalks, and site preparation costs
and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax
increments or a general obligation (GO) tax increment financing/special assessment bond and/or an internal
loan. The HRA or City reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally applicable to the HRA or
City and the TIF 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.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-4
.
.
.
The HRA or City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF
Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by general obligation (GO) bond/interfWld
loan/transfer. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total
principal amoWlt of bonded indebtedness, including a general obligation (GO) TIF bond, or other
indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $10,000,000, of which $5,900,000
will be TIF related with the remainder being paid with assessments or taxes. Any increase in bonded
indebtedness will require modification to the TIP Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. It is
estimated that $500,000 in interfWld loans will be financed with tax increment revenues.
This provision does not obligate the lIRA or City to incur debt. The HRA or City will issue bonds or incur
other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The HRA or City
may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the TIF Plan through loans from fWlds of the
HRA or City or to reimburse the developer on a "pay-as-you-go" basis for eligible costs paid for by a
developer.
The estimated sources of funds for the District are contained in the table below.
SOURCES OF FUNDS
TOTAL
$5,500,000
$100,000
$5,600,000
$500,000
$5,400,000
Tax Increment
Interest
PROJECT REVENUES
Interfund Loans
Bond Proceeds
Subsection 2.10.
Uses of Funds
Currently Wlder consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the construction of various public
improvements including a new interchange with Interstate 94 and a portion of the public improvements
adjacent to the District. The HRA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance
to the project for certain costs. The HRA and City have studied the feasibility of the development or
redevelopment of property in and aroWld the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or
redevelopment of the District, this TIF 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 fWlds associated with the District is
outlined in table on the following page.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-5
.
USES OF FUNDS
TOTAL
$3,000,000
$500,000
$100,000
$1,000,000
$710,000
$590,000
Land/Building Acquisition
Site Improvements/Preparation
Public Utilities
Ramps, Bridges, Streets and Sidewalks
mterest
Administrative Costs (up to 10%)
PROJECT COSTS TOTAL $5,900,000
mterfund Loans $500,000
Bond Principal* $5,400,000
*mcluding assessments, bond principal could total over $10,000,000
The above budget is organized according to the Office of State Auditor (OSA) reporting forms.
It is estimated that the cost of improvements, including administrative expenses which will be paid or
financed with tax increments, will equal $5,900,000 as is presented in the budget above.
.
Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification
to this TIP Plan. Pursuant to MS. Section 469.176, Subd 4(c), revenues derived from increments must be
spent only to assist the facility directly or for administrative expenses.
Subsection 2.11,
Business Subsidies
Pursuant to M.S. Sections 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered
a business subsidy:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
. (9)
(10)
A business subsidy ofless than $25,000;
Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses,
such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria;
Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a
public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at
the time the improvements are made;
Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined inM.S. Section 116J.552, Subd. 3;
Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing
it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that
the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost;
Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is
to provide those services;
Assistance for housing;
Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing
hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under MS. Section 469.174, Subd. 23;
Assistance for energy conservation;
Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law;
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. \-34
2-6
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(11)
. (12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation;
Benefits derived from regulation;
mdirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions;
Funds'from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and
bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999;
Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business;
Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S. Section
469.174, Subd. 19;
Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation
is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value;
General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally
technical nature.
Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local
government agency;
Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority;
Business loans and loan guarantees of$75,000 or less; and
Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic
Development Administration.
The HRA will comply with M.s., Section 116J.993 to 116J.994 to the extent the tax increment assistance
under this TIP Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. The project is expected to be exempt
under clause (3 and/or 17).
.
Subsection 2-12. County Road Costs
Pursuant to M.S.. Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the HRA or City to pay for all or
part of the cost of county road improvements ifthe proposed development to 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 if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five
years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan.
lfthe county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the City within forty-five days
of receipt of this TIF Plan. The HRA and City are aware that the County could claim that tax increment
should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing.
Subsection 2-13. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions
The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF
Plan would occur without the creation ofthe District. However, the HRA or City has determined that such
development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the
fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as
follows if the "but for" test was not met:
.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Incrcment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No_ )-34
2-7
.
IMPACT ON TAX BASE
Wright County
City of Monticello
lSD No. 882
2004/2005
Total Net
Tax Capacity
90,204,086
11,863,014
18,405,444
Estimated Captured
Tax Capacity (CTC)
Upon Completion
312,226
312,226
312,226
Percent of CTC
to Entitv Total
0.3461 %
2.6319%
1.6964%
IMPACT ON TAX RATES
Wright County
City of Monticello
lSD No. 882
Other (Hospital)
Total
2004/2005 Percent Potential
Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes
0.344140 28.18% 312,226 107,449
0.586510 48.03% 312,226 183,124
0.263790 21.60% 312,226 82,362
0.026670 2.18% 312226 8.327
1.221110 100.00% 381,262
.
The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate
used for calculations is the actual2004/Pay 2005 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are
based on estimated Pay 2005 figures. The District will be certified under the actual 2005/Pay 2006 rates,
which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared.
Subsection 2-14. Supporting Documentation
Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd 1, clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description
of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth inM.S. Section 469.175 Subd 3, clause (2)
and the findings are required in the resolution approving the TIF district.. Following is a list of reports and
studies on file at the City that support the Authority's findings:
.
A list of applicable studies \vil1 be listed here prior to the public hearing.
Subsection 2-15. 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 ofthe following potential revenue sources:
.
1. Taxes paid by the captured nettax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S.,
Section 469.177;
2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, purchased by the HRA or
City with tax increments;
3. Repayments of loans or other advances made by the HRA or City with tax increments; and
4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No_ )-34
2-8
Subsection 2~16. Modifications to the District
.
In accordance withM.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any:
1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.
1 or the District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd.
4(e);
2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred;
3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF
Plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized;
4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the HRA or City;
5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the project, including administrative expenses, that will be
paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or
6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA or City,
shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval
of the original TIF Plan.
The HRA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic
area of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 or the District. Modifications to the District in the
form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan.
Subsection 2-17. Administrative Expenses
.
In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the
HRA or City, other than:
1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land;
2. 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
proj ect;
3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the
proj ect; or
4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued
pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or
5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance
costs described in clauses (1) to (3).
For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982,
administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants,
and planning or economic development consultants. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax
increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up
to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan
or the total tax increments, as defined by M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District,
whichever is less.
.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual
administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District. The county may require payment of those
expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. }- 34
2-9
.
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36
percent) of any increment distributed to the HRA or City 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. This amount may be adjusted annually by the
Commissioner of Revenue.
Subsection 2-18. Limitation of Increment
Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. la, no tax increment shall be paid to the HRA or City for the
District after three (3) years from the date of certification of the Original Net Tax Capacity value of the
taxable property in the District by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) year period:
(1) Bonds have been issued in aid of the project containing the District pursuant to M.S., Section
469.178, or any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.152
to 469.165, or
(2) The HRA or City has acquired property within the District, or
(3) The HRA or City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within
the District.
The bonds must be issued, or the HRA or City must acquire property or construct or cause public
improvements to be constructed by approximately June, 2008 and report such actions to the County Auditor.
. The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District
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.
Pursuant to M.S., 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.
The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place
for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-10
.
year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes
of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of
a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing
street.
The HRA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately June, 2009
and report such actions to the County Auditor.
Subsection 2-19. Use of Tax Increment
The HRA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable
property located in the District for the following purposes:
.
1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project;
2. To pay for project costs including as identified in the budget set forth in the TIP Plan;
3. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in MS., Section 469.176, Subd. 4;
4. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the
HRA or City or for the benefit of Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 by a developer;
5. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing
the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIP Plan or pursuant to
M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and
6. 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 M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152
through 469.165, and/or MS., Sections 469.178.
These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the HRA or City nor for
other purposes prohibited by M.S, Section 469.176, Subd. 4.
Subsection 2-20. Excess Increments
Excess increments, as defined inM.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more ofthe
following:
1. Prepay any outstanding 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
4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in
proportion to their local tax rates.
In addition, the HRA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIP Plan
in order to finance additional public costs in Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 or the District.
Subsection 2-21. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer
.
The HRA or City 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 HRA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the
development with HRA or City plans and ordinances. The HRA or City may also use the Agreements to
address other issues related to the development.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-11
.
.
.
Subsection 2~22.
Assessment Agreements
Pursuant to MS., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the HRA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement
in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market
value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement
shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements
to be 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 County Assessor shall also certify the
minimum market value agreement.
Subsection 2~23. Administration of the District
Administration of the District will be handled by the Executive Director of the HRA.
Subsection 2~24. Annual Disclosure Requirements
Pursuant to M.S.. Section 469.175, Subd. 5, 6 and 6a the HRA or City 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 HRA or City on or before
August 15.
If the HRA or City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by MS.
Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution
of tax increment from the District.
Subsection 2~25. Reasonable Expectations
As required by the TIP Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated
development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the
reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be
expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market
value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected
tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIP Plan. In making said
determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects
and upon HRA or City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site. A comparative
analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax
increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix
D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated
subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value ofthe site absent the establishment ofthe District and the
use of tax increments.
Subsection 2~26. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment
1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIP
Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the capital and administration costs of
Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.124 to 469.134. Tax
increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the
acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan fOf Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-12
.
.
.
regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit
of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues
derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. Pursuant to MS.,
Section 469.176, Subd. 4/., no tax increment may be used for a commons area used as a public park or
a facility used for social, recreational, or conference purposes. This subdivision does not apply to a
privately owned facility for conference purposes or a parking structure.
2. Pooling Limitations. At least 80 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on
activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance
activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not
more than 20 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise,
on activities outside of the District except to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced
bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they
were solely for activities outside ofthe District.
3. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments. Tax increments derived from the District shall
be deemed to have satisfied the 80 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only ifthe five year rule
set forth in Us., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year
following certification of the District, 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., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5.
4. Renewal and Renovation District. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4j. At least 90 percent of
the revenues derived from tax increment from a renewal and renovation district must be used to finance
the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation of renewal and renovation districts under M.S.,
Section 469.174. These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally
substandard buildings or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring
adjacent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and
rehabilitation of structures, clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation
necessary for development of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking
facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the HRA or City, including the cost of
preparation of the development action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs.
Subsection 2-27.
Summary
The HRA or City is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard
areas, provide an impetus for commercial and industrial development by improving the efficiency of the
transportation system, including access to the interstate highway system and roads adjacent to the interchange
with the interstate highway. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060
Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-1105, telephone (651) 697-8500.
Monticello Housing and Redevelopment Authority
Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34
2-13
.
.
.
APPENDIX A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Monticello is coordinating a large public improvement project which involves the State of
Minnesota, Wright County, and private parties in the construction of a new freeway interchange with 1-94.
As a part of the estimated $16,000,000 project, the City is responsible to acquiring key pieces of property
for right-of-way purposes. The City's estimated share of the project is over $4,000,000, but could be much
higher. The reason for the increased costs would be for an unknown payment for land on a piece of property
which is the City has commenced condemnation and has also commenced annexation proceedings. The TIF
will assist in covering a portion of the City's cost and to minimize the impact of a higher than expected
payment for land associated with the public improvements.
Without the interchange and right-of-way acquisition, development in the TIF district of similar size and
scope would not occur and development of the area would take longer and would not be expected to result
in a market value as high as expected with the new commercial in the TIF District and commercial and
industrial development adjacent to the interchange. Because the property to be included in the District
contain buildings which meet the qualifications of the TIF with substandard and inefficient buildings and
land uses, the timeframe for improving the area would also be extended substantially.
The property to be included in the TIF includes the parcel under condemnation and a portion of the new
development, limited to the Target store and adjacent retail of approximately 35,000 s.f. Therefore, a
substantial public benefit will be realized immediately from the City's efforts from new development.
The private developers will be responsible for their own land acquisition and are being assessed or traded
for land at over $5.4M.
APPENDIX
A-I
.
.
.
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN TIF DISTRICT*
The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way identified by the parcels listed below.
OriQ:inal Parcel To Be Platted As:
Numbers
213111000161
213000182300 The parcels are being re-platted or annexed. It is
155011000122 expected that upon approval of the District, four new
155011000153 parcels will be created and new parcel numbers will
be assigned by Wright County. This information will
155011000151 be provided prior to the request for certification.
155011000170
APPENDIX
C-I
.
.
.
5/27/2005
..
EHLERS
ill.Io1IDDlll'riIoIMt
Page 1 012
Monticello HRA: 1-94 Improvements
llF District #34
Dlstr1ctType
P1str1ct Number
Inflation Rate - Every Veer
In~st Rete
Present Value Dale
Local Tax Rate - Maximum
Fiscal Disparities Election (A-inside or B-oulllide)
Vear Disllicl was cartifiad
Assumes First Tax Incremonl For Disllicl
Vear Disllicl was modifiad
DavelopmenllocatBd In modlflad aree
Assumes First Tax Increment for Project
Vears Of Tax In<:rement
Assumes Last Vear Of Tax Increment
Renewal and Renovollon
34
O.OOOO'A.
5.5000%
01-Aug.o5
122.1110% Pay 2005
N1A
Pay 2_
;!008
NlA
No
2008
16
2023
Fiscal Disparities Ratio
Fiscal Disparities Metro WId. Till< Rete
Local Tax Rate - CUrrent
State WIde Property Tax Rate (usad for Iolal taxes)
Mar1<e1 Value Tax Rat. (usad for totel taxes)
Commercial Industrial Class Rate
First 150.000
OVer 150,000
Rentel Class Rete
Resldentel Class Rat.
First 500,000
OVer 500 000
0.0000%
0.0000%
122.1110% Pay 2005
51.1210% Pay 2005
0.0544% pey 2005
1.50%-2.00%
1.50%
2.00%
1.25%
1.00%-1.25%
1.00%
1.25%
CI... Rate After
Land Building Total Class Baae After Conversion Date
Moo 10 PID Me.rket Value Mar1<at Value Market Value Rate Tax Caoacltv Conversion Tax Caoacltv Payeble
213111000161 340,500 151,900 502,400
213000152300 59,500 0 59,500
155011000122 151,200 699,000 860.200
155011000153 7,700 0 7,700
155011000151 69,100 0 59,100
155011000170 219,100 97,200 315,300
Total. 1815200 35 554 1.50%-2.00% 35 554 2008
Total Market Value Tans Per Total Mar1<at Class Project Vear Date
Phase Use SQ. Ft./Unlts SQ. Ft./Unlts Sa. Ft./Unhs Taxes Value Rate Tax Caeacltv Constructed Pavable
1 Targot 174,550 80.00 $2.81 490,093 13,954,000 1.50%-2.00% 278,530 2006 2008
2 Ret.1I 35 000 100.00 $3.48 121865 3,500,000 1.50%-2.00% 69,250 2007 2009
TOTAL 811958 17 4ti4 000 347 780
Note:
1. Tax estimates are based on mar1<ol value.
2. TIF run assumes 100% of the building is constructed by January 2, 2006 fcr payable 2007.
Total Local Ascal Local Ascal _de Fiscal State-wide Market
Use Tax Tax Dlsparttles Tax Disparttles Property Local Disparities Property Value Total
Cacacltv Cacacltv Tax Caoacltv Rate Tax Rate Tax Rate Taxes Taxes Taxes Ta_ Taxas
Taroet 278 530 278 530 0 1.22111 0.00000 0.51121 340,116 0 142387 7.'189 490,093
Retail 69 250 69 250 0 1.22111 0.00000 0.51121 84 562 0 35 401 1.902 121665
TOTAL 347 780 347 760 0 424 578 0 177 789 9A92 611958
Note:
1. Menticello does nct pay Fiscal Disparities.
P"'POrH by Elliof>
Not
Captured
Not
Captured
tifrun 1
5/27/2005 Page 2 of 2
. I ~.~.~,~,~,~
MONllCELLO HRA: 1-94 IMPROVEMENTS
Bas. Project Fiscal Captured Semi-Annual state Admin. Seml-Annual Semi-Annual PAYMt:;NT DATt:;
Pt:;R10D BEGINNING Tax Tax Dlspar1ties Tax Gross Tax Audllo, at Net Tax Present PERIOD ENDING
Yrs. Mth. Yr, C. ac Ca ilIC- Reduction Ca ac Increment 0.36% 10.00% Increment Val.... Yrs. Mth. Vr.
0.0 02-01 2005 35,554 35,554 0.0 06-01 2005
0.0 06-01 200s 35,554 35,554 0 Presant Value Dete - 8-01-05 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2006
0.0 02-01 2006 35,554 35,554 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 06-01 2006
0.0 06-01 2006 35,554 35,554 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2007
0.0 02-01 2007 35,554 35,554 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 06-01 2007
0.0 06-01 2007 35,554 35,554 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 02-01 2008
0.0 02-01 2008 35,554 278,530 0 242,976 148,350 (534) (14,782) 133,035 113,051 0.5 06-01 2008
0.5 06-01 2008 35,554 278,530 0 242,976 148,350 (534) (14,782) 133,035 223,078 1.0 02-01 2009
1.0 02-01 2009 35,554 347,780 0 312,228 190,631 (688) (18,994) 170,950 360,875 1.5 06-01 2009
1.5 06-01 2009 35,554 347.790 0 312,226 190,631 (688) (18,994) 170,950 494,591 2.0 02-01 2010
2.0 02-01 2010 35,554 347,780 0 312,226 190,831 (688) (18,994) 170,950 824,923 2.5 06-01 2010
2.5 06-01 2010 35,554 347,780 0 312,226 190,631 (888) (18,994) 170,950 751,767 3.0 02-01 2011
3.0 02.<11 2011 35,554 347,780 0 312,228 190,831 (688) (18,994) 170,950 875,217 3.5 06-01 2011
3.5 06-01 2011 35,554 347,780 0 312,228 190,831 (688) (18,994) 170,950 995,362 4.0 02"()1 2012
4.0 02-01 2012 35,554 347,780 0 312,226 190,831 (688) (18,994) 170,950 1,112,291 4.5 06-01 2012
4.5 06-01 2012 35.554 347,780 0 312,226 190,631 (688) (18,994) 170,950 1.226,091 5.0 02-01 2013
5.0 02-01 2013 35,554 347.780 0 312,228 190,831 (688) (18,994) 170,950 1,336,846 5.5 06-01 2013
5.5 08-01 2013 35,554 347,760 0 312.228 190,831 (688) (18,994) 170,950 1,444,636 6.0 02-01 2014
6.0 02-01 2014 35,554 347,780 0 312,226 190,831 (686) (18,994) 170,950 1,549,541 8.5 06-01 2014
6.5 06-01 2014 35,554 347,780 0 312,226 190,631 (888) (18,994) 170,950 1,651,839 7.0 02-01 2015
7.0 02-01 2015 35,554 347,780 0 312,226 190,631 (688) (18,994) 170,950 1,751,004 7.5 06-01 2015
7.5 08-01 2015 35,554 347,780 0 312,228 190,631 (688) (18,994) 170,950 1,847,709 8.0 02-01 2016
6.0 02-01 2016 35,554 347,780 0 312,226 190,831 (686) (18,994) 170.950 1,941,827 8.5 06-01 2018
8.5 08-01 2016 35,554 347.780 0 312,226 190,631 (888) (18,994) 170,950 2,033,425 9.0 02-01 2017
9.0 02-01 2017 35,554 347,780 0 312,226 190.831 (688) (18,994) 170,950 2,122,572 9.5 08-01 2017
9.5 08-01 2017 35,554 347,780 0 312,226 190,831 (688) (18,994) 170,950 2,209,333 10.0 02-01 2018
10.0 02-01 2018 35,554 347,790 0 312,226 190,631 (888) (18,994) 170,950 2,293,772 10.5 08-01 2018
10.5 08-01 2018 35.554 347,780 0 312,226 190,631 (688) (18,994) 170,950 2,375,951 11.0 02-01 2019
11.0 02-01 2019 35,554 347,780 0 312,226 190,631 (688) (18,994) 170,950 2,455,930 11.5 08-01 2019
11.5 08-01 2019 35,554 347,760 0 312,226 190,831 (688) (18,994) 170,950 2,533,769 12.0 02-01 2020
12.0 02-01 2020 35,554 347,780 0 312,226 190,831 (888) (18,994) 170,950 2,609,525 12.5 08-01 2020
12.5 08-01 2020 35,554 347,780 0 312,226 190,631 (688) (18,994) 170,950 2,683,253 13.0 02-01 2021
13.0 02-01 2021 35,554 347,780 0 312,226 190,631 (688) (18,994) 170,950 2,755,008 13.5 08-01 2021
13.5 08-01 2021 35,554 347,780 0 312,226 190,631 (688) (18,994) 170,950 2,824,842 14.0 02-01 2022
14.0 02-01 2022 35,554 347,780 0 312,226 190,631 (688) (18,994) 170,950 2,892,808 14.5 08-01 2022
14.5 08-01 2022 35,554 347,780 0 312,228 190,631 (688) (18,994) 170,950 2,958.954 15.0 02-01 2023
15.0 02-01 2023 35,554 347,780 0 312.228 190,831 (688) (18,994) 170,950 3,023,330 15.5 08-01 2023
08-01 2023 35 554 347 780 0 312 226 190631 888 18994 170 950 3 085 983 18.0 02-01 2024
Totals 6 015 635 21656 599 398 5 394 581
nt Val.... Date - 8-01-05 3 535 893 12389 342 887 3 085 883
Not.:
1_ State Auditor payment is based on 1st half! pay 2004 actual and may inl:;rease over term of dl&trict.
2. Assumes developmont is cOMtrueted in 20061 i)S!if)ssed in 2007 and fif5t incr$mont is paid In 2008.
3. Amount of increment will vary depending upon market value, tax ratl9s, chl.$S rates. construction schedule and lnflilltlon on market value.
4. Inflation on tax rates cannot be captured - TAX RATES COULD DECLINE
5. TIF does not capture state wide property taxes or market value p,operty taxes.
6. Assumes no Inflationary Increment In 2007.
How 111.:I: Increment is C.lculated
l'otal Pf'O~rty Taxes
l~lIIs Statt Tax
lesJ Mar-kd Valut: Tal"
le$5 E:l:istint Tans
Annual Tax Increment Finantin2
611,958
_177,789
-9t491
~ Estimate
381,262 le5' any .dmin. Fees
Current Mar1tet Vail.le . Est. '.815,200
New Mal1c;et Value ~ Est. 17,464,000
OItferenc~ 15.648.800
Present Value of Tax Increment J.523,505
OifftIrlllnc. 12,125.295
V~lue Ukstv to OCicur Without lax Ineremenll& lflss Than: 12125295
.
PreP*iM by Ehlers
tifl\ln 1
.
.
.
APPENDIX E
REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-34
To be added to prior to the public hearing
APPENDIX
B-1
.
.
.
APPENDIX F
BUTIFOR QUALIFICATIONS
Current Market Value - Est.
New Market Value - Est.
Difference
Present Value of Tax Increment
Difference
Value Likely to Occur Without Tax Increment is Less Than:
1,815,200
17,464,000
15,648,800
3,523,505
12,125,295
12,125,295
More iriformation to be added to prior to the public hearing
APPENDIX
F-l
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MONTICELLO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1 AND A TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
DISTRICT NO. 1-34 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 Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I,
reflecting its increase in size, (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification ") and a Tax Increment Financing
Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-34 (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan
Modification and the TIF Plan arc referred to collectively herein as the "Plans") and has submitted the
Plans to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.175, Subd. 3, and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans 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 Plans conform with the
general plans for the development and redevelopment oHhe City as a whole.
Dated: June 7, 2005
Chair
ATTEST:
Secretary
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda 06/07/05
15.
Comprehensive Community Health Assessment of Monticello (Summary)
Dated: Mav 2005
Report from Commissioner Suchy
A comprehensive community health assessment was completed of Monticello by 10
nursing students from the University of Minnesota. Wright County Public Health had
requested this assessment and Monticello was chosen because this area is an area of
changing population and demographics. It was felt that we could benefit from an
assessment of this type.
Residential Characteristics
-Many young families and older residents
-Most of the working population commutes to the Twin Cities area
-The largest ethnic minority in the city is the Latino population
"Overall, when one is immersed in the Monticello Community, there are feelings of a
family-friendly environment with new growth and potential for further development.
Population
7,868
Mainly Caucasian - 2.2% Hispanic
Median Household Income
$45,384 (this income is considered "middle class")
95.5% of the residents were at or above poverty level
Middle class = $30,000 - $74,999 (51%)
Upper class = $75,000+ (27%)
Lower class = less than $30,000 (22%)
Married couple families make up 61.2% of the population.
Average Age
35-39
Unemployment Rate (2004 census)
5.1 % (which is lower than Wright County and MN as a whole 5.7%)
3 types of houses recognized
SF units (984 units in 2004)
Multiple family units (676 multiple family units)
Mobile homes (227 mobile homes)
60% of these units were owned by occupant.
Planning Commission Agenda 06/07/05
.
Median sale price of a home in 2004 was $132,000
Median rent was $400
Economic Systems
Economically Monticello is doing well. The city of Monticello has a strong industrial
base, with slow steady growth. There arc at least 27 manufacturers. The building of
250 new housing units per year provides jobs for contractors and construction
workers.
50% of Monticello's population commutes to jobs outside of Monticello. Traveling
longer distances affects the amount of time parents can spend with their children.
The high cost of fuel affects the amount of spending money for other needs and
activities.
Crime
Very low, similar to surrounding communities. Vehicle theft is the most common
type of criminal activity.
.
Other Arcas Discussed/Reviewed (see complete assessment that is Ull liIe at the City of Munticellu. Monticello
Chamber and/ur Dick Frie)
-fire department
-food supply systcm
-scnior center
-religious groups
-health systems
Educated Monticello Rcsidents (over age 25)
84.2% high school education or higher
21 % bachelor's degree or higher
5% graduate or professional degree
-High level of parent involvcment
-2004 graduation rate 98%
-Estimated 40% go onto college
-Students score high academically against other cities
Noted:
The community center and new high school were thought by some to recruit people
of higher socioeconomic status but the introduction of more expensive homes and
citizens of higher socioeconomic status has not followed as expected.
.
Opportunities for Improvement:
-Citizens in the city arc not fully aware of what a rich history the city has.
- Lack of resources for the minority populations.
-Minimal "step up" housing for families wanting to move into larger houses.
-No shelter offered for homeless residents.
2
Planning Commission Agenda 06/07/05
.
-A shopping mall was suggested to improve Monticello's economic situation.
- The fire department and sheriff s department could oiTer more community
prevention and educational programs.
-Extend hours at food shelf (another evening and Saturday hours).
-Only 1 choice for a funeral home. This may create a problem as the population
grows.
-Number of days children attend phy-ed classes with the growing epidemic of obesity
it is imperative that children get the necessary cxercise.
-No adult daycare facility in Monticello.
-Need to advcrtise adult and youth formal recreation programs at low cost - i.e.
additional community leagues.
NOTE: Please reference actllal Ilssessmellt docllmmt for complete information - copy available lit City Hall & Monticello
Chamber.
.
.
^'
.,
ay 26 28B5 15:23:46 Via Fax
ATTEND THE SESSION
CLOSEST TO YOUR CITY:
JUNE 8-ST. CLOUD
JUNE 9-REDWOOD FALLS
JUNEI5-ST. PAUL
JUNE 16-ROCHESTER
JUNE 22-GRAND RAPIDS
JUNE 23-DETROIT LAKES
.
REGISTRATION FEE:
$25 PER SESSION
-)
Adlllin istrator
Page BBl Of BBl
MINNESOTA CITIES REGIONAL TRAINING SESSION
and Use Issues
jOr City Sto:ft Elected Officials,
and Board and Com.1nission Mentbers
Land use continues to be one of the hottest topics in city management
and the source of many expensive chums in cities throughout Minnesota.
These two training sessions are designed to meet the different information
needs of city staff and elected officials. You can register for one or both
sessions as space allows.
SESSION 1:
FOR CITY STAFF
Registration-2:30 p.m.
Program-3- 5p.m.
This hw.ds-on session explores building and de....elQpment fees,
parkland-dedication requirements, and the need for ""Litten findings.
. Learn how to set building and de"-elopment fees in accordance
v..-ith le&rish.tiw requirements md in ways th:at support city
decisio!l.-making.
. L.earn how to establish defensible parkhnd-dedication requirements.
Review methods cities can use to support decisions to request a
contribution from developers to meet increased dem~'\Ilds on city
parks 2IKl u,creation.
. Revie1!lT principles for developing written findings to support 2:nd
help sustain 12Il.d.-use decisions.
A Q&A session/allows the pnut:ntatio71. WrittEn materiaL~ and samples
will be provithd.
SESSION 2:
FOR CITY ELECTED OFFICIALS AND MEMBERS OF EDAs,
HRAs, PLANNI NG COMMISSIONS, AND PORT AUTHORITIES
Rtgi..J.tration-6:30 p.m.
Program-7-9 p.m.
City elected ofiicialsand members of ph.nrling commissions are often
called to comrn.1..l.nicate vvith the public and the C01.lrts to explain ::J.1'ld
jus;tify land-use decisions.
. Learn how to efFectively run a public hearing and arrive at round
land-use decisions.
. Find out how to develop written findings to support dec.isions and
reflect thoughtful consideration of the issues.
. Get ~o\. broad overview of requirements for establishing buildu"lg :and
developmer-.t [eesand p;orkland-dedication req';.ireme!:o.ts.
A Q&A session ftlllJ'ws tho pmrmtatioll. Writtm material.- and samples
will bi providEd.
Register online anytim.e: www.lm.nc.org