Planning Commission Agenda 08-06-2002
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - August 6, 2002
7:00 P.M.
/
\
Members:
Dick Frie, Robbie Smith, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Lloyd
Hilgart
Clint Herbst
Jeff O'Neill, Fred Patch, John Glomski and Steve Grittman
Council Liaison:
S tafT:
1 . Call to order.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held July 2, 2002
and the Special Planning Commission meeting held July 22, 2002.
3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
4. Citizens comments.
S. Public Hearing - Consideration of a preliminary plat for the Monticello Commerce Center
6th Addition. Applicant: Monticello Industrial Park, Inc.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of an amendment to the zoning map to re-zone from R-3
to a PUD district allowing a mix of sports facilities and commercial facility; and
Consideration ofa concept stage planned unit development. Applicant: Silver Creek Real
Estate Development, Ltd, LLC and The City of Monticello
7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for conditional use permit allowing
installation of rooftop.telecommunications site. Applicant: Steve Johnson and
V oicestream Wireless Corporation
8. Public Hearing - Consideration of a concept stage planned unit development to allow for
expansion of a drive-in banking facility and coordinated commercial development within
the Central Community District. Applicant: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
9. Consideration of adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
10. Consideration to adopt a resolution fInding that a modification to the Redevelopment
Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the TIU Plan for TIF
District No. 1-31 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of
thc city.
11. Consideration to adopt a resolution finding that a modiilcation to the Redevelopment
Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I and the 'fIF Plan for TIF
District No. 1-32 conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of
the city.
12. Adjourn
-1-
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday - .July 2,2002
7:00 P.M.
Members:
Dick Frie. Robbie Smith. Richard Carlson. Rod Dragsten. Lloyd Hilgart
and
Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Staff:
JeffO'NeilL John Glomski and Steve Grittman
1. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM declaring a quorum.
2. Approval of the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held June 4. 2002
and the Special Planning Commission meeting held June 24. 2002.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
TIlE JUNE 4.2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING-. CHAIR FRIE ADVISED
OF A CORRECTION T,() ITEM 9. PARAGRAPH 2 OF TI-IE MINU-rES STATING
THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE PARKS
C01VIMISSION AND Crry COUNCIL IN 1991. ROD DRAGSTEN AMENDED HIS
MOTION INCLUDING THE CORRECTION. RICHARD CARL.SON SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE TIlE MINUTES OF
THE SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON JUNE 24.2002. ROD
DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL. Y.
3. Consideration of addinl! items to the agenda.
Chair Frie brought forward concerns regarding the present parking on School Blvd.
specifically where the fields are located. stating parking should not be on the south side
when fields are located on north side. This was placed as item 12A on the agenda.
Chair Fric asked for information on the City ordinance in regard to garage sales and the
maximum number per year. This was placed as item 12B on the agenda.
Clint Herbst asked for ordinance information regarding policy for tree plantings.
landscaping. etc. in nevv developments and who is responsible for maintaining it. This
was placed as item 13 on the agenda.
~ 1-
Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/02
4. Citizens comments.
Don Doran. 515 Maple Street. questioned information he had received via mail regarding
the former S1. Henry" s church. Doran stated that there were 2 lots included in this notice
that were incorrect. .lefT O'Neill advised that this was only to notify all residents within a
350 foot radius of the property. Chair Frie stated it would be addressed in item 7.
Doran also asked about the Central Minnesota Housing Partnership project and lot sizes
on Minnesota Street and 61h Street. Frie stated this would be addressed in item 6 on the
agenda.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowinf,!:
accessorv space in excess of 1200 S(I. ft. in the R- 1 district. Arml icant: L vnn & Christine
Anderson
John Glomski provided the staff report advising that the applicant" s proposed accessory
building. added to the existing attached garage, will equal 1324 sq. ft.. which exceeds the
1200 sq. ft. requirement and theref()re the need for a Conditional Use Permit. With a
Conditional Use Permit. the detached accessory structure may exceed 10% of the rear
yard area and the size limitations for a detached and attached accessory structure may be
increased up to a maximum square f()otage of 1500 sq. 1'1... as long as conditions are met.
Glomski advised of these conditions. along \vith the condition that the proposed
accessory structure is used for storage of seasonal vehicles only and no parking of
vehicles in front of the accessory structure or along the rear yard. which would give the
appearance of an everyday garage and driveway.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mr. Anderson addressed the Planning Commission
stati ng that the reason the structure is proposed off to the corner of their lot is that they
di ffered on what is considered the front of the house. He also stated that originally it was
suggested to attach it to the existing garage, but aesthetically they felt it was better wher.e
they were proposing to place it. Frie stated a concern with the applicant accessing the
structure from Starling Rd \vhere there is presently not a driveway. Anderson stated he
would not be continuing this, but that due to a drainage easement in his yard water drains
through the center of his property and therefore when it rains he cannot get access
through that part of the yard. He advised that he \vill work on correcting this drainage
issue. Again. he stated this is only temporary. Frie stated that he agreed this would be an
improvement to the property f()r storage.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Hilgart stated he was also in t~1Yor. Dragsten
stated that the ordinance states not to exceed 1200 sq. t'1.. and he felt there may be a way
to cut this structure c1o\\n to meet that requirement. Anderson advised that he needs the
additional space 1';.11' his boat as he needs 14 feet.
A MOTION WAS f'vL-\DE BY DICK FRIE TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/02
PERMIT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF 10% OF THE REAR YARD AND ALLOWING THE
COMBINED DETACHED AND ATTACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AREA TO
BE GREATER THAN THAT OF THE PRINCIPLE USE AND IN EXCESS OF 1200
SQ. F1.. WITH CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Accessory building space is to be utilized solely for the storage of residential
personal property of the occupant of the principal dwelling, and no accessory
building space is to be utilized for commercial purposes.
2. The parcel on which the accessory building is to be located is of suHicient size
such that the building will not crowd the open space on the lot.
3. The accessory building will not be so large as to have an adverse alIect on the
architectural character or reasonable residential use of the surrounding property.
4. The accessory buildings shall be constructed to be similar to the principal building
in architectural style and building materials.
5. The proposed accessory structure shall be used for storage of seasonal vehicles
(boats, campers. lawn mowers, snowmobiles, etc.) only. There shall be no
vehicles parked in front of the accessory structure or along the rear yard which
would give the appearance of an everyday garage and driveway.
6. Confirmation that the applicant can do what is shown on the site plan via a survey
or staking the plan and getting approval of the zoning official.
MOTION BASED ON TI-IE FINDING THAT THE ACCESSOR Y STRUCTURE WILL
IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WILL NOT HAVE
AN ADVERSE AFFECT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. LLOYD
HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION.
THERE WAS FURT1IER DISCUSSION THAT THE APPLICANT MUST ALSO
MEET THE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS AND BUILDING STANDARDS.
MOTION CARRIED 3 TO 2. WITH ROBBIE SMITH AND ROD DRAGSTEN
OPPOSING.
2. Public Hemin!!. - Consideration of development sta!!.e planned unit development and
preliminarv plat approval allowinll 11 single familv residential units in the R-3 zoning
district. Applicant: Central Minnesota Housin!! Partnership and the City of Monticello
Jeff O'Neill advised that the applicant is still waiting f()r the final plan from the architect
as they are working on including basements and still trying to stay within their budget.
He added that although they are getting donations as well as relaxation of some city fees,
-3-
Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/02
they still need to stay within budget to keep these units affordable. O'Neill stated that the
plan provided addressed most of the issues listed in the staff report and they just do not
have final plans on the homes themselves.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Sheri Harris, CMHP, stated that they are currently
working on other options due to feedback they have received regarding marketing and the
desire for basements, adding that this increases the value of the homes but it also adds to
the cost to build them. Harris provided a site plan showing some units that are being built
in another city which would be similar and include full basements. She did state that the
prices should still be similar to what they had stated previously, which is around
$/15,000 to $120,000. She stated the actual price of the homes are running at $87,000.
O'Neill asked Harris what the value of the homes actually is and she stated they would be
close to $130,000, adding that these would be higher priced homes than what they are
actually putting them on the market for.
Clint Herbst asked how it is determined who gets into these homes and Harris advised
that they are open to anyone interested in purchasing them, but they must meet CMHP
guidelines which targets families that do not exceed 80% of state wide median income,
approx $50,000 fl.)!" a family of tour. Herbst also asked about the process and l-faITis
explained applicants would need to fill out applications, digibility forms, and provide
lender intlJrmation stating that they qualify t{)r a loan. Harris added that they have also
brought in other financing tools to help. Herbst then asked what happens when the
owners sell these properties, are they free to sell at whatever price they choose, and she
stated that once they are in and qualify for the loan, they are free to do \vhatever they
choose, but that they still have to pay back the loans. Chair Frie asked about TfF
assistance and Harris stated that the HRA has approved this. O'Neill asked about
minimum income levels and if there was a range, and she stated there is as they would
have to be abk to qualify flH' a loan. She added that there has already been a lot of
interest. CMIfP is looking at families \vith incomes between $26,000 and $30,000, as a
typical range.
Don Doran, 515 Maple Strect stated he \vas concerned with there only being a 9 ft.
separation bet\veen the houses, and that he still hadn't heard what the dimensions of the
hOllses would be or the size of the lots. Grittman stated there are currently 5 lots hieing
Minnesota Street that arc 66 ft wide and CMHP is proposing 9 lots, with the narrowest
being 33 fcet. There \vOLild also be two 50 ft wide lots facing 61h Street. He also stated
that the houses would be appro" 900 sq. ft. up and down.
Frie asked the other members i hvhen they initially discussed this project. were they not
supportive of hasements and \\ould they want to include this as a recommendation. The
Planning Commission did not recall if there was a consensus regarding inclusion of
basements, although Carlson stated this would definitely increase the values. Harris
stated they are gearing to\vard split entry with basements. O'Neill asked Grittman that
with this type of proposed design, with setbacks and elevations. how will that effect the
-4-
Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/02
appearance of the homes and Grittman stated it would shade those spaces between the
homes, which is ditferent from the original design.
Frie asked Herbst if the council would have a ditferent idea regarding the design and he
felt they would like the idea of basements, but added that he is not in favor of the split
entry design. Robbie Smith asked if there were neighboring residents in the audience and
if so. how they felt about the design. Rose Peters. 503 W. 6th Street, asked if these would
be lower income homes with basements and could they finish off the basements if they
wanted to. Grittman stated he assumed they would be unfinished at the time they are sold
and could be finished at the owners expense. Peters also asked if there was a time frame
on how long they would have to live in the home before being able to sell it. Harris said
the only limitations would be on gap financing and that they w'ould need to repay the
loans prior to selling the home, but there is no time limit on that. Peters also asked if the
owner had to live in the home or could they rent it out and it was advised that this
typically does not happen as the people have to be within a certain income level to quality
for the home in the first place. O'Neill also asked about the low income comment from
Mrs. Peters and l-larris stated that it's actually median income. $8 to $l()/hour wages, and
that this program is for people who can't otherwise get into a home. This is a means to
help them. Robbie Smith asked O'Neill about Sunny Fresh's increase in their
contribution and O'Neill stated that Sunny Fresh is being very generous. Harris added
that this is due to a need for more affordable housing in this community and Sunny Fresh
has many employees that this would benefit. yet there is no special favors given to them
/()l" this contribution.
Mike Cyr. MLC Building, 601 Minnesota SL stated he had concerns about the
architecture, adding that he has taken huge risks to develop property just down the street
with sale prices around $170.000. Cyr said he has no objections to this project and feels
it is needed, but feels it can be built architecturally better and would not want to see a
project that vvould pull that area down. One concern was going from the rambler design.
and also would like to see an association take care of landscaping and maintenance. Cyr
felt that because the site is so tight. the rambler design would be more attractive. Cyr also
asked how they determine a builder. Harris advised that they were approached as a non-
profit agency and this builder has a background with these projects. and is knowledgeable
about affordable housing. They also have several contractors who they are working with
and have worked with previously. but have not committed to anyone yet. Looking to get
the best work for the best price. Cyr had a concern with the bui IdeI' that he had heard of
and ifhe meets the criteria. Harris assured that they would not jeopardize the quality of
the homes.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Lloyd Hilgart asked about square t()otages and
Grittman advised that they were initially proposed at 1.008 sq. ft. Hilgart also asked
Harris about the wide range of income requirements and what is the low end. Harris
stated there is no minimum, but with previous experience in this program, if it went down
to $20,000 per household the applicant probably would not qualify as they would not be
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/02
able to fill in the gap. Hilgart stated he thought the range from $30,000 to $50,000 was
quite a bit of difference, and could the units be made to differ in style and price due to
this. Harris stated that would certainly be an option. She also advised that this is a first
come, first serve basis and they already are taking requests with deposits. The process
would then be to sign purchase agreements and obtain a letter from the lender stating they
qualify. Dragsten felt there were still a lot of unanswered questions and would like to
have them all resolved before moving forvvard. Frie asked O'Neill about architectural
plans that were to be provided at the meeting, and Jeff advised that they were planning on
this but then the request for basements came up and thus the need to redesign. O'Neill
stated they could table this item or call for a special meeting prior to a city council
meeting, but he didn't know what CMHP's time frame was for this construction season.
The commissioners were in favor of the development, but Carlson also agreed with Cyr's
and Dragsten' s comments that they needed more information. Frie asked if they would
be marc comfortable with tabling this item and Herbst stated it was up to CMHP if they
could wait. Harris asked what the preference on home style is so she could proceed with
fInal plans as they need to meet the August 1 construction start date. Linda Bro\>vn, who
is working on the land surveying, asked Grittman about possibly adding one foot between
each unit to make them 10ft. apart and Grittman advised that with splits it would not
make a difference and that they would have to be at least 15 ft. apart to get enough light
between the units for landscaping. Herbst stated his concern is that this be an attractive
home. but does not want basements instead of something that is attractive.
Grittman stated one thing the builders could consider would be rambler facades with half
basements which would save on cost and give them enough space in the basement lor
utilities and laundry, while trimming the footprint. Issue with rambler is that the utilities
would have to be on the main floor taking up too much living space.
The commissioners discussed tabling to either July 8 or July 22 and it was their
consensus that July 8th would not give them sutTicient time. Herbst added that he would
not be at the July 22"J meeting but that he was comfortable with the information he has..
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO TABLE ANY ACTION AND
CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUL Y 22.2002 AT 5:30 PM. RICHARD
CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
7. Public Hcarin!! - Consideration of development staue planned unit development allowin!!
a mixed residential and institutional use in the R-2 district. Request includes use of
church buildinu for church purposes and conversion of former parish center into
combination church office and rental housin~. Applicant: Hope Evanl.!elical Free Church
and the Church of St. Henrv
JdT O'Neill provided the report and asked Grittman about requirements for removing lot
lines that may be present. and should they make that a stipulation of the PUD. Grittman
stated this could be done, but because this is a PUD the development project ties the lots
-6-
Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/02
all together so they could not be sold off anyway.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing and hearing no response, the public hearing was
closed. Carlson asked if there was a parking issue at the parish center with their proposed
use and O'Neill stated the applicant would be reinstating the garage, which is a 4 car
garage, but that there may be some incidental on street parking at times, although no
more than anywhere else. Dragsten questioned if eliminating lot lines was common and
Grittman stated it was. It was advised that it would only be the lot lines on the lot where
the buildings are located.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT
STAGE PUD ALLOWING A MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USE
IN THE R-2 DISTRICT. REQUEST INCLUDES THE CHURCH BUILDING TO BE
ALLOWED FOR CHURCH USES AND THE PARISH CENTER CONVERTED INTO
A COMBINATION OF OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL USE. DEVELOPMENT
STAGE PUD SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT INTERIOR LOT LINES BE
ELIMINATED. MOTION BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PUD IS
CONSISTENT WITH TIlE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD,
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WILL NOT RESULT IN
A DEPRECIATION IN LAND VALUES. RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE
MOTION.
THERE WAS FUR"rI-IER DISCUSSION BY FRIE AMENDING HIS MOTION TO
ADD THAT LANDSCAPING BE UPDATED INCL,UDING TRIMMING, WEEDING,
AND REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF DEAD BRUSH AND BRANCHES.
CARLSON SECONDED THE AMENDED MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
8. Public I-Iearinl! - Consideration ofa request for concept and development stal!e planned
unit development allowinl! townhome development in the PZM zoninl! district.
Applicant: Ocello. LLC. Sha\vn Weinand
Steve Grittman provided the report adding that the developer is asking for two accesses
onto Co Rd 17 and that he needs to get proper authorization from the County to do this.
He added that since the time he wrote the report the applicant has already addressed some
of the concerns and has provided a revised site plan.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Shawn Weinand. applicant stated that they
reviewed the comments from staff and tried to address most of the concerns. Weinand
stated he was also concerned at first with the design by MFRA.. but it was stated that this
was due to safety issues. and although they may look choppy, they have taken out the
linear look. The circular design is to act as traffic control as well as a landmark, noting
that part of what is critical to the road layout is that it is basically a tlat site.
Weinand advised that in speaking with staff it was advised that \valkouts were preferred,
-7-
Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/02
so they sculptured the land to fit this request. He stated that they have not come up with a
real solution to the circulation problem and are open to suggestions. Weinand advised
that they also added trails through the project by recommendation of staff to have them
within 200 ft of each unit. Along Co Ro 17 they have added 2 to 3 foot berms enabling
them to meander the trail system through this with a nice look. Staff also suggested one
large tot lot versus the 2 that were proposed. The applicant stated they are struggling
with that because they feel that due to the size of this parcel they would like to create
neighborhoods w-ithin neighborhoods. Weinand stated that they added 2 more tot lots, 4
in total, along with the hot shot basketball court. and this puts each neighborhood within
500 ft. The builder felt that it was critical to have the ability to have smaller
neighborhoods. They designed landscaping to create these neighborhoods as well. He
also addressed the issue that they need to have all porches and decks within the 30 ft.
setback, but advised that they do not have porches, only balconies, and they are all within
the 30 ft. setback with the exception of the 3 units in the three corners of the project
Weinand also addressed the gas line and access issues, and advised that they have made
application to the County regarding county access. Weinand also supports 2 entrances
into the development. but they cannot guarantee that the county would give this to them.
The county wants passing/turning lanes as well and Weinand stated they will include this.
He added that they have narrowed the streets to 24 Ii.. but did not shorten driveways:
there arc currently 270 parking spaces, and they are still maintaining 50% green space.
Weinand stated they do not have a lot of brick on the units as they do not have large
fronts, and his recommendation would be to carry the brick up further into a design. He
also stated they arc maintenance free outsides with upgraded shingles and treads on the
decks. Starting price range is mid $130,000's up to $170,000.
Frie asked Weinand to respond to the comments regarding staff and Planning
Commission concerns with the II conditions not being resolved, vvhich he addressed. It
was noted that there is a concern with phasing, as well as outdoor recreation and Frie
asked if the Parks Commission had discussed this item. Weinand stated there is a
phasing schedule which he provided to them, but he would rather not be held to 50 units
per phase, adding that they arc projecting 3 phases now, and could possibly end up with
4. Grittman stated this as a guideline that they go by, not to have Ion units all at once,
and this has been addressed. Frie asked about the Parks Commission concerns, there was
confusion as to whether they were private or public parks, and it was stated that they will
be private. The Parks Commission has not seen the updated site plan addressing the
concerns. It was advised that the Parks Commission would rather have the dollars fiJr
park dedication for development of the Klein Farms park which is about Y2 mile away,
Frie asked if staff would require them to put in tot lots and the hot shot as well as park
dedication. O'Neill said they will have to discuss this further with the Parks Commission
as to what percentage is being accomplished with these 4 tot lots. Weinand advised that
they had previoLlsly discussed the private parks and they also have land that they would
like to leave as green space, as well as land on the Remmele piece that they could
dedicate in lieu of cash. O'Neill stated they will bring the request to the Parks
Commission showing land, grade, and more details so they can make an informed
-8-
Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/02
decision. O'Neill asked about this being a private project with private tot lots, and would
they get credit for this and Grittman stated some cities wilI credit a certain percentage.
some will not. stating that is just one of the costs of a PUD. Weinand also added that
they ran the trail system through their site so that the public has access through and he
would like to negotiate the park dedication as he felt that was the direction they were
heading, and he was not aware of the Parks Commission's concern.
Chair Frie closed the public hearing. Smith asked if Grittman felt the issues were
addressed properly and Grittman stated the biggest concern was the circulation in the
central area and that although he liked the idea of a landmark and traffic control, he had
concerns with 3 intersections right in that area with driveways accessing into that space.
and does not feel that this would be the right design, although he does understand the
strategy for slowing traffic. In regard to the way the streets take "sharp" turns versus
curves, drivers tend to cut otfturns and he is not sure they would be solving the traffic
concern. They did like the way the streets are laid out as it makes for a constantly
changing view. He feels there is a way to work the circulation out, while preserving unit
counts. Weinand stated there is quite a bit of green space behind the units and possibly
they could move them back, stating they are open to suggestions as they have no solution
at this time.
Weinand stated total finished square feet would be 1,700. These are split entry, look-outs
and wallH)uts, one bedroom on the main floor with the ability to add 2 more. Grittman
stated also that there needs to be trail connections on the northeast corner of the roadway
to the northeast corner of the site to get the internal traffic ouL but that this can be
changed easily. L1oydI-lilgart asked about the central area and could they create a cul-de-
sac to eliminate those problems. Weinand stated cui-de-sacs are Llsually not preferred.
but in that area it may be feasible, but not the best for fire trucks and snow plowing.
Weinand stated he would like to be grading in the next 2 to 3 weeks. Frie stated that
Weinand has done an excellent job in resolving the majority of the issues and asked if
staff felt comfortable with moving forward and working with the applicant. Grittman
stated he is confident that they can work out the concerns and feels they have covered
most ofthcm already.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROD DRAGSTEN TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONDITIONS AS FOLLOWS:
1. A detailed landscaping plan must be submitted that includes buffer areas. berms.
and more intensive landscaping in the rear areas to mitigate site lines as well as
the area betvveen the proposed development and the mobile homes to the south.
2. Moditications regarding circulation must be addressed. These modifications must
include alternatives to the current plan that decrease the number of conniet
intersection areas. In addition. the applicant must pursue permission for the
second access to Edmondson A venue from the County. A minimum of three
-9-
Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/02
access points are necessary for this project.
3. A detailed lighting plan must be submitted to public works and is subject to City
staff approval.
4. The applicant must resolve easement issues and receive permission from the gas
company for the second access to Edmondson with the County. The grading,
drainage. and utility plan must be approved by the City Engineer.
5. A modified parking plan must be developed that includes additional guest parking
areas. At least 13 additional parking stalls are necessary throughout the
development.
6. The applicant must provide a revised trail plan that includes internal trails that
connect to School Boulevard as well as to the southeast corner of the site at
Edmondson and the UP A easement that runs to Klein Farms. The plan should be
designed so that individual units would be within 200 feet of the trail. The
internal trail system should provide a link between the current tails on the
northeast and southeast corners of the project.
7. The applicant must redesign recreation areas away from easement areas. Staff
recommends larger recreation areas in the center of the proposed development.
8. Higher design standards that include building elevations consistent with this
report. must be developed and submitted.
9. A phasing plan must be developed and submitted to statT prior to development.
No more than 50 units shall be constructed before a second access is developed
within the project.
10. All buildings. porches, and decks. must be setback a minimum of 30 feet.
11. Further recommendations by City staff.
LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION.
THERE WAS FURTHER DISCUSSION BY ROBBIE SMITH REGARDING THE
PARKS COMMISSION'S NEED TO REVIEW FURTHER. ROD DRAGSTEN
AMENDED IIIS MOTION ADDING THAT THIS ALSO BE SUBJECT TO PARKS
COMMISSION APPROVAL. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED "fHE AMENDED
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
9. Publ ic Hearil1!.! - Consideration ora request for a preliminarv plat and a request for re-zoning
from A-O to B-3. Applicant: Melvin Wolters and Prairie Ponds LLC. Bradlev Larson
-10-
Planning Commission Minutes - 07/02/02
Steve Grittman provided the report and leffO'Neill added information regarding a potential
street connection to the Groveland residential development.
O'Neill advised that Developers of the adjacent Groveland Addition have suggested
modifying the Groveland plat and Prairie Ponds to allow a road connection from Groveland
to Prairie Ponds. This connection would provide a third access point to the Groveland
residential subdivision. O'Neill recalled that a request for this access was denied by the
Planning Commission when the preliminary plat was established. After taking a second look
at the proposal. it has gained support at stafflevel because most believe that the new access
will not become a primary route for access to the development. This proposal would result
in a reduction in park land with the Groveland Addition which would be offset by developer
paying cash in lieu of land.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Brad Larson, applicant, asked ahout the storm sewer
in the area of the School Blvd. and Highway 25 intersection and if the City was proposing
to shift any of the utilities. Grittman advised that they would not he. Larson advised that
they are looking at professional buildings on this site.
Frie asked who would provide the additional road access and O'Neill stated the applicant
would pay for this and that they may have to revise their plans as well. He also noted that
they will lose a major portion of park space if this happens and it also has not gone before
the Parks Commission. Grittman advised that they did not anticipate that park space at that
site having much activity, but wanted to have a trail connection, as long as there is a plan for
making it up in park dedication. [rie asked Larson about the extension of School Blvd. and
wouldn't they be better circumventing that by extending it to the west and if this would be
a positive for the Groveland development, it could be done without affecting the applicant's
development.
Weinand, representing the Groveland development, addressed the commission asking to
explain why Groveland would like the access to their development. He stated initially they
wanted this, but the city did not want to pay for it, stating that now Brad Larson is willing
to provide this. Weinand pointed out the Remmele property sho"'ling phase 4 of the project
and that it could still be another 5 years before the access would be connected, but that this
access could happen vvithin a year. which would bring tranic into Larson's project and take
pressure offofChclsea which would be beneficial to both properties. Weinand also stated
that "'lith the park land they v"ould be dedicating, they could combine with Weinand's other
project providing a 5 acre piece. Another option of Weinand's would be to work out
something with Larson and make this into a commercial lot but this would then eliminate
the connection. Larson stated this is the first time he has heard this discussion, but he did
feel comfortable sitting. down with Weinand to discuss and then come back to the City.
Larson stated they "'vould like to move forward on this project as they have a 12,000 sq ft
commercial building they would like to start fCJr a local business that is expanding, and it
was advised by Grittman that if they proceeded on the preliminary plat it would not hurt
Weinand's project.
-11-
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/02/02
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Dragsten questioned straightening out lot lines
on this site and questioned the angles. Larson stated this is complying with green space
and parking, and he did not see an issue. Grittman stated that sometimes in residential
cases lot lines can become an issue but not usually with commercial sites. Frie asked
Grittman about the Groveland Addition having a reduction in park land and was concerned
that the Parks Commission comment on this, advising that the City has only so much need
for dollars and the need for parks is greater. O'Neill stated that the Parks Commission has
not yet had a chance to look at this due to timing of the application being submitted and
O'Neill added that there is a large park in the Groveland development that may be more
usable. Frie advised that the Parks Commission had a concern with the Planning
Commission not looking at their recommendations or being able to comment on these
items. Carlson asked to what extent we are extending the trail system and O'Neill stated
it is very significant and that it extends the full length o1'a pond in the Groveland addition,
as well as one that cuts through to a future side walk.
Decision 1.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS FOLLOWS:
I. A detailed landscaping plan must be provided. The landscaping plan must show
a buffer yard between areas adjacent to all residential districts.
2. The grading. utilities, and drainage plan are subject to the review of the City
Engineer.
3. Access off of Wolters Way must fully align with the access to School Boulevard
to the south.
4. A lighting plan must be provided. All proposed lighting must meet City Code
guidelines.
5. Easement issues are subject to the review of City Staff.
6. Further recommendations by City staff.
RICHARD CARLSON SECONDED THE MOTION.
UNANIMOUSL Y.
MOTION CARRIED
Decision 2.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO APPROVE RE-lONING FROM
A-a TO B-3, BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. RICHARD CARLSON
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
-12-
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/02/02
10. Consideration of adoption of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Jeff 0 'Neill provided the staff report stating that staff is seeking the Planning Commission's
input regarding the proposed amendments, but that they do not have a] I the language in place
at this time. It is staffs hope that this will be addressed at the August meeting. O'Neill also
provided a summary of the joint meeting held in June.
Frie stated that he felt thejoint meeting was constructive and highlighted some of their goals.
He also felt the major topic at that meeting was acquisition of industrial land and his concern
is that the end result was designating a specific area for industrial land of200 acres. He is
in favor of acquiring industrial land, but does not feel that they should designate it or
pinpoint anyone area. He is in favor of staff putting together the language. Robbie Smith
added that he felt from the meeting that the best place for industrial land was northwest and
that would be where the city could focus on if the interchange were to be in place. He is
interested in hearing what the economics would be to pursue the interchange. It was also
advised that the Chamber agreed that the northwest area was the f(xus for industrial land.
The negative was getting the freeway interchange in place and the dollars to do that. O'Neill
added that getting utilities to this area as well would be difficult and costly, but added that
the city may be able to pursue this by assessing benefitting properties which would help to
pay the utilities. Smith asked about the city taking the 200 acres south instead, stating that
there would alrcady be utilities in place. He also asked about south being a temporary
solution, but still driving toward the northwest. Herbst also feels the city should acquire
industrial land and stated that they could re-zone land at a later time if necessary. although
he doesn't see where the city would come up with the money to purchase 200 acres at this
time. Dragsten also felt an urgency for more industrial land now rather than 10 to 15 years
from now. O'Neill stated the city is creating the same amount of industrial land as they still
have the Gold Nugget piece that could be acquired for industrial. They also stated a concern
with only one developer controlling the industrial land and O'Neill stated that this may be
good in the long term as larger industries with higher paying jobs would be more likely to
purchase the higher priced land.
Dragsten stated they should not be looking long term, but should acquire property before the
land prices go up further. Grittman added that between Chadwick, Pfeffer. Gold Nugget.
and the land across Hvvy 25. the city has about 300 acres which would support 3.2 million
industrial space. He also felt that Hwy 25 is not the right spot for industrial land and would
have a negative impact on the commercial businesses there.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY DICK FRIE DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE OR GRAPHICS SUPPORTING CONCEPTS AND GOALS
DISCUSSED AT THE JOINT MEETING, ROBBIE SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSL Y.
-13-
Planning Commission Agenda - 07/02/02
II. Introduction of developers purchasing the Jim Schultz property - development formerly
known as the --Fields of Hillside Hurst".
Jeff O'Neill advised that there had been a turnover of developers who are looking at the
preliminary plat that was previously approved, adding that there were some changes. The
developers were not present and O'Neill stated possibly they will be available at the next
meeting.
12A. Parking on School Blvd.
O'Neill stated the theory behind the parking, per John Simola, was that even though people
can park on the field side and get right out of their cars, parking on the south side provided
better visibility to see around the vehicles, Herbst asked about creating no parking on
School Blvd. and having people park in the parking lots. Frie stated he is concerned with
the City's liability with having people parking on the south side and crossing School Blvd.
12B. Garage Sales
O'Neill stated the city has sent notices to several residents, although he does not know if this
particular one was noticed, and that the ordinance states they are allowed 3 garage sales per
year. Frie's concern \vas the geographical location, stating an example ofa residence on Co
Rd 75 who seem to have continual garage sales and the danger of people crossing Co Rd 75
to get to the sale. rrie suggested that seasonally in the newsletter there should be a reminder
of the ordinance regarding garage sales.
13. Landscapinu/longevitv
Herbst stated he felt developers/builders needed to understand what the ordinance states in
regard to trees that are being planted and not surviving, but also not being replaced by the
developer/builder. Herbst added that developers should be made aware that it is their
responsibility for the plantings being taken care of.
12. Adiourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY ROBBIE SMITH TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT
10:10 PM. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSL Y.
Recorder
.14-
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday - .July 22,2002
5:30 P.M.
Members:
Dick Frie, Richard Carlson, Rod Dragsten and Lloyd Hilgart
Absent:
Robbie Smith and Council Liaison Clint Herbst
Staff:
Jeff O'Neill and John Glomski
I. Call to order.
Chair Frie called the meeting to order at 5 :30 p.m. and declared a quorum.
2. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of development staQe planned unit
development and preliminarv plat allowinl-,!: 11 single family residential units in the R-3
zoning district. Applicant: Central Minnesota Housing Partnership and the City of
Monticello
Jeff O'NeilL Deputy City Administrator, presented the report regarding CMHP's
application. He also advised that they had recently become aware of a miscalculation
which results in 3 ft setbacks on the perimeter of the development. O'Neill advised that a
3 ft. setback is not sufficient. The Planning Commission is asked to decide whether to
table the item or move it forward to the City Council. O'Neill advised that City Planner
Steve Grittman was not available to respond on this issue to advise v"hat would be an
acceptable setback.
C)'Neill provided some possible options to consider. One option was to drop the building
size to 26 ft. which gives a 12 ft. setback on the perimeter. although he stated he did not"
know if that would be acceptable as it may be too close to the lot line on Minnesota
Street. If the side yard setback was dropped to 9 ft. and the buildings were left at 28 ft.,
there would be a 7 ft. setback. If an entire unit was dropped and the buildings were left at
28 1''1.. there would be a 17 ft. setback. O'Neill advised however that this affects the
project dramatically and the City would possibly be asked to help out with cost.
O'Neill stated CMHP is looking at slab on grade with possible half basements.
Chair Frie felt that the intended purpose of the meeting "vas to come up with a home style
working within the confines of the site, and also to come up with a project that met or
exceeded the concept ()f the original project. Frie felt that this should be brought forward
-1-
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 07/22/02
so it could be presented to the City Council. O'Neill advised that the square footage of
the homes would now be 936 sq. ft. instead of the original proposal of 1,008 sq. ft. which
Dragsten stated he was not in favor of. There was discussion regarding the previous
meeting and the direction given to the Planning Commission. There was some confusion
as to the style of the units and Shari Harris, CMHP. stated they had met with contractors
to come up with alternatives and they explored ramblers with basements as well as split
levels, and went back to the slab on grade with partial basements. It was stated that slab
on grade with full crawl space may keep them at the same price without adding cost. The
other two options had pushed them over the $90,000 cap, as well as eliminated
landscaping and other amenities. Harris stated that they were proposing a 4 ft. crawl
space going the full length of the home. and all mechanical would be placed there, which
they were hoping would get them to 3 bedrooms on the main level. O'Neill stated that
once the mechanical is put down in the crawl space there would be the full 936 sq. ft.
upstairs for living space.
O'Neill questioned a previously proposed bump-out window in the units which didn't
shovv on the plan. but added that he does not know if that would add expense. Harris
stated the contractor had a concern with spacing and therefore that was not included in the
plans. O'Neill also stated that there was no window proposed in the living room and
wondered if there should be. and suggested that the Planning Commission could make a
condition to add a window to the living room side. They also discussed the height of the
window in the bedroom and it was noted that it was to code.
Chair Frie opened the public hearing. Mike Cyr, MLC Building & Remodeling, stated
concerns with making sure that the value of the homes do not detract from the
neighborhood homes \vhich are valued at around $170.000. He also stated he was not
opposed to the project but he feels the homes are small and he does not see families
moving into them. I-Ie also stated his opinion was that the 4 ft. crawl space was useless.
Frie questioned the cost di fference of full basements versus pm1ial and also the cost of
bay windows and egress. 'T'here was discussion regarding the value of the homes as weB
as a suggestion to extend the 4 ft. crawl space along the entire length of the home.
O'Neill stated that the marht is there to put in a basement and if they raise the price of
the home they will still selL but Harris cannot exceed the $126.000 cost or they lose their
funding and the people they are trying to make these homes available to will not be able
to afford them. Lloyd Hilgart stated it was his opinion that to add basements would not
add much more to the cost. Carlson felt that direction from the last meeting was that
these vvould be halfhasemcnts and O'Neill stated that it was when they still thought they
were at 28 ft.
They also discussed the possibility of twin units which would eliminate the sideyard -
issue. but Harris stated the TIF assistance they were approved for states single family
detached, but also added that was before they knew about a setback problem. It was
-2-
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 07/22/02
stated that this is a PUD and setbacks can be tlexible.
Carol Firkins. applicant for a CMHP home. concurred with O'Neill to add a window in
the living room. Harris also advised the Planning Commission on how the list of
appl icants is comprised and added that the majority of the applicants are local.
Chair Frie then closed the public hearing. Hilgart discussed the possibility of special
financing for the tirst 5 units and earmarking the remaining 6 units for a mix, some with
basements. in a variety of income level ranges. Harris stated it was a possibility. but they
are trying to stay within the $30,000 income level. She also advised that the financing is
in place for the first 5 units already. Dragsten stated his concerns with maintenance,
landscaping and irrigation, as well as his preference for the 1.008 sq. ft. homes. Carlson
agreed with Hilgart's idea ofa mix of ranges and added that the only way he would feel
comfortable with 936 sq. ft. would be with partial basements and an egress window, as
well as all landscaping and irrigation. Frie asked if the Planning Commission felt
comfortable with moving this item forward. Carlson asked if it was mandatory to do both
pre! iminary and final stage at this time and asked about condition B in the staff report
where it stated pre-tinished siding. It was clarified that it should state maintenance free
siding.
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL
OF THE PRELIMINARY STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ALLOWING
II SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED TOWN HOMES WITI..I TI-IE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
A. Establishment of home owners association or other format for assuring long term
maintenance of the PUD. The association or agreement/covenants must include
the following items.
· Snow removal.
· Mowing of common areas and maintenance of landscaping.
· Parking stalls. drive maintenance.
Regulations governing fences. storage buildings.
Maintenance of exterior of building.
B. Required use of maintenance ti'ee siding.
C. Compktion of all site improvements and home improvements as identified in the
approved plans.
D. Landscaped plantings and/or screening fence to be provided along the western
boundary of the site along with installation of landscaped plantings as shown in
the attached supporting documentation.
-3-
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 07/22/02
F Landscaping plan should include installation of an irrigation system.
F. Side yard lot lines to follow a building wall thus giving all side yard space to the
homeowner opposite of the building wall (included in latest plat update).
G. Approval of grading and drainage plans by the City Engineer.
H. Curb and gutter included with the alley.
L Removal of existing driveways.
1. No accessory buildings.
AS WELL AS THE CONDITION THAT THE UNITS BE 936 SQ. FT. WITH
PARTIAL FULL BASEMENT. EGRESS WINDOW, CRAWL SPACE ON THE
FRONT PORTION OF THE UNIT. AND ALL LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PROPOSAL. DICK FRIE SECONDED THE
MOTION.
There was further discussion by Hilgart that he preferred a full basement. not partiaL and
would be happy 'vvith a mix of units including basements. Dragsten stated he preferred
the square footage to be 1.008 per unit. and would be more supportive of a full basement.
Harris added that she would prefer they grant both preliminary and development stage
approval as they have purchased the existing homes and would like to start removing
them and move forward with the project. Carlson added that he was not in favor of the
Planning Commission presenting the ideas to the developer as he felt it should be the
other way around. Frie then asked Dragsten and Hilgart if they needed to table the item
at this time but they did not feel that was the way to proceed.
RICHARD CARLSON THEN AMENDED HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL REQUIREMENTS ARE
COtvrPLETED.
There was further discussion regarding inclusion of basements and that CMHP may find
that it would fit in their budget. Frie added that if CMHP found that a full basement 'vvas
feasible they could include it at that point. Hilgart again asked Harris to consider
proceeding 'vvith 5 units with crawl spaces for storage at special financing and add
basements to the remaining 6 units. Dragsten was not in t~lVor stating he preferred the
units to be 1.008 sq. n.
MOTION CARRIED 3 TO I WITH DRAGSTEN VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
.4~
Special Planning Commission Minutes - 07/22/02
O'Neill added that if they are trying to create a design that fits the city and the
neighborhood, possibly the City could reduce the price of the land, making a financial
contribution to make the project work. Frie asked if it was possible to bring this to the
City Council at their meeting to follow but O'Neill stated it would have to be at another
meeting with CMHP requesting a reduction in the land price, and that typically this
would be something they would present to the City Council in advance as he felt they
needed to focus on the actual plan presented at this time.
3. Adiourn
A MOTION WAS MADE BY RICHARD CARLSON TO ADJOURN THE MEETING
AT 6:50 P.M. ROD DRAGSTEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED.
Recorder
-5-
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/06/02
5. Public Hcaring - Consideration of a oreliminary plat for the Monticello Commerce
Center 6th Addition. Apolicant: Monticello Industrial Park. Inc. (10)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Monticello Industrial Park Inc. requests preliminary plat approval for the Monticello
Commerce Center 6th Addition. This request is submitted in conjunction with
development of two industrial projects - Ultra Machine Corporation and Production
Stamping.
This plat encompasses a total area of about 17 acres and is located north of the lIigh
School Campus, west of the Twin Cities Die Castings facility and south of Chelsea Road.
Undeveloped property is located to the west of the site and across Chelsea Road to the
North. Lot 2, Block 1 is the easterly lot and will be the site for Production Stamping.
This 7.25 acre parcel meets all 11 A standards. This parcel features a 50' ponding
easement along the southern boundary. Lot 1, Block 1 is the site for Ultra Machine
Corporation. This 10 acre parcel meets all II A standards and includes a ponding area at
the southern edge.
Both the Production Stamping and Ultra Machine Corporation developments are allowed
as permitted uses, therefore the Planning Commission will not be reviewing the site plans
unless a conditional use permit (for outside storage) or a variance is needed. It is not
expected that either a CUP or variance will be needed.
No public improvements will be needed with this development.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
I. Motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for the Monticello
Commerce Center Sixth Addition. Motion contingent on final review by the City
Engineer.
2. Motion to recommend that the request for approval of the preliminary plat for the
Monticello Commerce Center Sixth Addition be denied.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends al ternati ve 1. The plat appears to meet or exceed the minimum
platting requirements for industrial sites, theref()re staff recommends alternative 1.
SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of Preliminary Plat.
~
~
~
z
~
Uz
~o
U~
rY ~t
0 ~Q
LL
t- ~Q
<:(
....J ~<r:
D-
r O~
n::
<:(
z U~
S1
::J OX
w
n::
(L ,.-=I~
,.-=ICfl
~
U
~
~
Z
0
~
~ !~~
ll~ J~d~-
dIM J~.~
It!. U~j~
h~J 3m~
!N
-tl i:J~
fr:fi~ i
)!.fie
iih!j
Sii 1-.
~~j~)l
~:ld8t
ijr;~
;iI'H
!I;lll
~~fd;
!i f'll
!,r'~d
':Sll'l
II U 'f
lil!lh
hJ"fjj
!& Kiln
-
J
i u
i ~~ ~
./. - I
. # I
i tt I
. ~g ~
J J.: j
~ 3~3 ~
&'
o
~
o
...J
...J
W .
u>-
i=f-
zz
~6<i
Uf-
"-f-O
O:r:t]
>-0z
S~~
~
~
fi ~ i~
. ~ i ~
i~!i1i~~ i;
iii S~~~~Olm
;Ie~~ ~
h~d.:.:
mi~
~~i~~
~~li;l~
~;ml
1~~!~1
_~Mj
~Jlj i
1111,
I.
1
i I ·
.. 1 ! 1.
. t~
. i ! 1 !~
~:li; U
, t t i )11
I i 1 ~ !,
~
~ ]
ffi ~ ~
~ ~ l
o
SZIlIV4
---- ~~--l
: g>'L 111g~
!d 1>1 lJ!:t If~l>t-
(L I ~ II (f)
>- I I
t- I ~j,
L____ ~__
S~IHV4
~
,
1
j
I
~
!
I
Ii
l~
--? ~
133C11S
-----T-i
'. I
y~-~ ~l' I
a~L~',,"'.todD~
'" """... p"" 0'0\
,(~ 1OuI11QQ .10 A'1~ lJj.~~""~ I
" I
II I
, f
I
I::':
I,',
~(;'.:
Q
~;i
al
I ~~ :
:..,
0':'
.....
- ----=-= '_L,i'l.Jll _--::-::::: _:-:-:-_ _
..>:l ,91>.00 N .......1
~,
------,
I
; /
I
I
...
,
't'~..~ ~1 "-
h~~'~.IM),\
'~'~~:~IJ;l::~~~.S1:. '
:~MQ~.iIWAO \
,5
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/06/02
6. Public Hearing: Consideration of a reQuest to rezone land from R-3, Multiple Familv
Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development to accommodate a recreation center
and commercial development. Ap~licant: Silver Creek Development. (NAC)
A. Reference and Background.
Silver Creek Development is seeking a Planned Unit Development rezoning on vacant
land between West Th Street and 1-94 to accommodate the development of a recreation
center and commercial development. The land is currently zoned R-3, Multiple Family
Residential. and is owned by the City of Monticello. The recreation center would consist
of a "bubble" covered soccer field and an indoor ice arena with approximately 600 seats.
Future development of a second ice sheet is also planned for in the concept. The City
Council has endorsed the idea of working with the developers toward this objective.
"lhe second component of the project would be conversion of the remainder of the parcel
from planned residential to a commercial use. The applicant has talked about a restaurant
as the primary commercial user. The concept plan accompanying the rezoning request
shows the recreation center along the west side of the site, abutting County Highway 39,
and the commercial portion occupying the east 1/3 of the property. The City has also
planned to construct a stormwater pond on the easterly 2 acres (:t) of this parcel.
The primary land LIse issue presented by the proposal is the impact of the uses on the
single family residential neighborhood to the north oCthe site. This neighborhood does
not utilize Th Street for access, but the deep back yards of several homes would be
exposed to the project area. Because these types of uses can have different impacts than
multiple family residential. the City will need to consider how those impacts might be
mitigated.
West 7'h Street is proposed to be a collector street that will carry traffic between County
Highway 39 on the west, through this area to Trunk Highway 25. and eventually all the
way to County Highway 1 g on the east. Moreover, thc planned land use of multiple
family residential would add a significant level of traffic to the road, and activity to the
currently vacant site. The proposed uses would also add traffic, although peak activity
periods would be during high school hockey games or weekend tournaments. Practice
times or other activities are likely to create less traffic.
The commercial site could add significant traffic to the east end of the property. In the
case of both commercial and recreational uses, parking lot lighting and headlights may
create the greatest annoyance to the neighbors. It would be possible to screen these
impacts if properly designed. Although landscape screening on the development side of
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/06/02
the project is the most common application, benning is effective as well. In addition, the
City may wish to consider some screening along the north side of]lh Street to mitigate
the increased traffic levels along the roadway.
The applicant has discussed the additional screening, and is working on an updated
concept plan for presentation at the Planning Commission meeting. No specific site
planning has been done for the commercial portion at this time.
B. Alternative Actions.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from R-3 to PUD, based on a
finding that with appropriate screening, the proposed uses (recreation and
commercial) can be made to be compatible with the residential neighborhood.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the rezoning, based on a finding that the current
designation of R-3 would provide the most appropriate land use fi.)r this area.
C. Staff Recommendation.
Stall recommends approval of the rezoning, based on the general concept sketches
provided at this time. Because the neighborhood across Th Street does not utilize that
street for direct access, the traflic issues are greatly reduced. By focusing on screening of
the site (particularly the parking lot areas) from the residential area, the overall impact of
the project should be reduced, even from that of a multiple family residential project (as
the site is currently zoned). Follow-up review will require more complete site and
building plans of both the recreation and commercial portions of the project before a final
PUD permit can be considered.
D. Supporting Data.
1. Concept PUD Site Plan
2
~
~e/~-
(r ~~'.., /,' ..' _<::~:,,:_:,..___
,. 0> 'I .-.......:
. . - /1 I \\
~7'.-" ;~C~~....~...=I_*,}.;:-....~;.-L.\-
.', \. "7\ l:~\----7r
rn ~: p/, ~~j.~c~/
--j -r--- r1V.
~ - ~ ~-i ~'-r n
---
ij
~~
l"'W' .
F'tELJt'1uJ~ -:;m: 1'W-J
~~~
IUff-WO. ~.OIJt_OI Ie.!u--Y=
o
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/06/02
7. Public Hearilll!: Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit allowing
installation of a telecommunications roof mounted antenna. Aoplicant: Voicestream
Minneapolis. Inc. (.JG)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROlJND:
V oicestream Minneapolis Inc. is requesting approval of a conditional use permit which
would allow them to install a roof-mounted antenna atop a building owned by Steve and
Candace Johnson. The site, located at 121 West Broadway, is in the CCD district, which
allows telecommunication antennas and support structures subject to a conditional use
permit and compliance with the conditions listed in section 3-12[ AB 1 of the ordinance.
Voicestream seeks to expand its network coverage in order to provide "in building"
coverage within the City of Monticello. Currently, coverage characteristics are such that
a user cannot maintain a phone call of good quality, initiated outside a building, and carry
the call into the building. With the installation atop this building, a stronger signal
strength and "in building' coverage will be attained in the heart of Monticello.
With the increase in cellular use and the need for good connections to and from wireless
devices, cellular antennas are popping up at a record pace and will continue to do so. The
main purpose of our ordinance is to provide for the appropriate location and development
of antennas and antenna support structures to serve the residents and businesses within
the city while minimizing the adverse visual effects the structures have on the
community. A method for doing this is maximizing the use of existing and approved
antenna support structures and buildings to accommodate new antennas in order to reduce
the number of antenna support structures needed to serve the community.
The proposed antenna platform is 7' in height and approximately 270 sq. ft. in horizontal
area. This meets all of the ordinance conditions as shown in exhibit Z as well as satisfies
the objectives described in 3-12 IAA].
Proposed to be located in the downtown ceo District, OAT will be reviewing the
aesthetics of the structure and its affect upon the downtown prior to the planning
commission meeting. 1 will provide the planning commission with their input and
recommendation.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit allowing
Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. to install a telecommunication antenna on the roof
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/06/02
of the building located at 121 West Broadway subject to the conditions listed in
exhibit Z, based on the finding that it is in compliance with the objectives of the
ordinance.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit based on findings
discussed at the public hearing.
3. Motion to table action on the Conditional Use Permit, subject to additional
information.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Voicestream Minneapolis
Inc. The plans submitted comply with city code and the installation of a
telecommunication antenna atop an existing huilding maximizes the use of existing
structures while providing the community with their communication needs.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
Exhibit A - Site location
Exhibit B - Exiting building
Exhibit C - Antenna platform example
Exhibit D - West Elevation Map
Exhibit Z - Conditions of Approval
2
, .
~~~'~,~ t ~ \;
,,*",1 ,,", "
-;'F,~T -. :r^-t.(l
~
.,
,'/
/
./
(--I (
I \ .,,,/
I ,-"....-----....
Fyh :b,'+- b
<:
'A)cs+ ~18(/a-.f-i0Y1
OJ
LU ___
.....J
LU....J
cz:::;!
::>
f- .
::>'
lL..e
.... <(
Z Z
.... LU Z
z :::E LU .
LU e.. f-O
::;; 5 zO
CL <(I"i
=:J o=: ::;;<..:l
LUa:
of/) :;:t.o cz:::~
UJf- 1-<'..)
:::ELU cd: (1)<(
cz:::~ tn::s >l.J...
f-CD >~
(I)<C
>u
- ---
<(<
ZO
ZO
LUf""l
f-(;l
Zz
<c_
u
::!;<c
cz:::lL..
f-
(I)
>
<( ..--..
zo..
z~
UJ_
f-
Z(;l
<cz
::iEZ
e:::W
f-W
f/)CZ:::
>u
(Il
<Cb
Zo
Zf""l
w
....(;l
Zz
<c_
u
::!;<c
a::u..
I-
Vl
:>
)
J
)
)
e:::we:::"-'
Wt.:)o::Ol
0<(<(1.0
ouuti
:5>-I~
1-0::.....
'"'=wwco
"""'u..f-
0:::<((/).....,
I-(Il<(
Vl,:::E1-
>~uo::
:::E<c
---- e..
>-..-.
we..
z~
~-
:I:..-.
UO
W
(.;)z
zo
f=O
lI1Z
x;;!;
f
f
(i
'\)
\.
CQ
-r-T..,-r-.,-..,-r-,....,-
I I I I I I I I I
_L....J......J_I......L.~_L.....L.~_
1
.,-..,-r-"T",-
I I I I I I
..L....J_I.....l-...J_
rib
Exhibit Z
General Requirements for all Communication Antennas and support structures.
L
Location:
2:
Yards:
3.
Height:
4.
Security:
5.
Screening:
Antennas shall be located on existing buildings and structures, if possible.
Antennas located upon a public building or structure shall require the
processing of an administrative permit issued in compliance with the
procedures established by the City Council.
Where an antenna support structure is used to support antennas, the
installation of more than one antenna support structure per property shall
require the approval of a conditional use permit.
Minimum setback requirements for antennas and antenna support
structures shall in all zoning districts be the same as those permitted
accessory buildings, uses and equipment.
Antennas shall not extend more than ten feet above the highest part of
the building or structure to which they are attached no more than ten feet
above the highest roof elevation.
Antennas support structures shall be constructed, fenced, or secured in
Such a manner as to prevent unauthorized climbing. No barbed wire, razor
ribbon, or the like shall be used for this purpose.
Transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment shall be housed within an
existing structure or screened from view from any public street.
6. Neighboring Progerty Impact: Antenna and antenna support structures shall be
designed and located such that in the event of structural failure, neither
the antenna nor the antenna support structure will fall on adjoining
property.
7.
Design:
The use of guyed antenna support structures is prohibited. The design and
installation of new antenna support structures must utilize an open
framework or monopole configuration. Permanent platforms or structures
accessory to the antenna support structure or antenna that increase
visibility or prohibited. No part of the antenna support structure shall
exceed 500 square feet in horizontal area.
8. Color/Content: Antennas and antenna support structures shall be constructed of
A corrosion resistant material or be painted a neutral color, and shall not be
painted with scenes or contain letters or messages which qualifY as a sign.
'1
9. Illumination: Antennas and antenna support structures shall not be artificially illuminated
unless required by law or by a governmental agency to protect public
health and safety.
10. Compliance: Antennas, antenna support structures, electrical equipment and connections
shall be designed, installed, and operated in conformance with all applicable
federal, state, and local laws.
· personal wireless communications service antennas, are only permitted as conditional
uses and must meet the conditions in 1 through 10 above as well as the following
additional conditions:
1. Antenna support structures for personal wireless communication systems shall be allowed
as conditional uses provided:
A. Minimum spacing between personal wireless communications service antenna
support structures shall be 1/4 mile
B. All new antenna support structures for personal wireless communication system
antennas shall be a single ground mounted metal, concrete, or plastic composite
(i.e., fiberglass, graphite fiber, etc.) pole. Such antenna support structures shall
not exceed seventy-five feet in height in agricultural-open space (AO), Residential
(R-l, R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-PUD), Performance Zone (pZR and PZM), and
Business (B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4) zoning districts, and shall not exceed one hundred
sixty-five (165) feet in height in Industrial (I-I, I-IA, and 1-2) zoning districts.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/06/02
8. Public Aearine - Consideration of a concept stal!C planned unit development to
allow for expansion of a drive-in bankine facilitv and coordinated commercial
development within the Central Communitv District. Applicant: Wells Fanw Bank,
N.A. (NAC/JO)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Following is a concept Planned Unit Development Proposal involving the Wells Fargo
Bank/Library area. This site plan shows an expansion of the existing bank
building/larger drive thru, along with demolition of the Library and the addition of a
eommercial/retail building along Walnut Street. Development of this site as proposed is
contingent on completion of an exchange between the Bank and City whereby the City
would acquire the Marquette Bank building (future library) in exchange for providing the
Library property to Wells Fargo. Part of the preliminary "deal" requires that Wells Fargo
provide a commercial retail development site along Walnut Street following standards
identified in the redevelopment plan for the New Main Street.
The site features preservation of the oak trees creating a pocket park in the middle of the
new main street. It also includes development of parking on the south side of the site
which will be used jointly by the Wells Fargo development and the Towne Centre site.
A full site plan review was not available at the time of preparation of the Planning
COlnmission packet because we received the site plan late in the review cycle, however a
detailed review will be provided at your meeting on Tuesday. lIere are a few points to
think about as you examine the site plan.
Preliminary analysis of the parking provided shows that there are sufficient stalls on site.
In fact, there is capacity to increase the size of the retail space as long as there is full cross
easement parking allowed on site. More detail to be provided at the meeting.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to recommend approval of a development stage planned unit
development. Motion subject to possible conditions identified in Planner's report
to be provided atthe Design Advisory and Planning Commission meetings.
Motion based on the finding that the commercial PUD is consistent with the
comprehensive plan and consistent with the character of the Walnut Street
Corridor.
2. Motion to deny approval of the concept stage PUD.
Planning Commission Agenda - 08/06/02
STAFf RECOMMENDATION
Staff is supportive of approval of the concept PUD with conditions to be determined by
the DA T/Planning Commission after additional information is provided at the meeting by
the City Planner.
SUPPORTING DATA
Copy of Site Plan
2
~
;J
U
1!
:.E
u
5
Q)~~~E H~ ~ 6
Q) "NO
~::g~~l! ~sL . 00 .... ... ~ 12 ....
z ....
~bcg.E ... ~
"Z~~Q. C)..... z ..... ~
5::E~~5 ~ij ! 0::..... z W:E
C h~t <W :e 6
z
.~ OJ ~~..."..." OJ ~l~~:e l.&-~ 0 ...a..
-0 d
Q) .~ c: <nO" lt g i :p~ en'" ... U')..... z
o Q) C ..c o.:g .. ! ~ .....Z ... w 1;; ~
tOO~.o .....0 ... ~
o Q) E '" 4i Q. 0 <1.>..c'E ~ ~ "~~h ~ ~:E u ~ g 1;; Iil ill
'<:; ,!; o 0 Cl ;J Z C Q. ,- !;j 1= z
Q) OJ o 0 0 e UN.!; ~ U ~ lih U 5 j z !H c ~ ~ ~ g ~
+- C rJ llv~~ ~ ~ :J: 0
Cw a::I ::2 > '" .S<.. gj ~,,~.E "". '" ~ u u
< G- o ,0,:" .
.' .
0:
W
z
3::
0:0
Z O~
LLa:
;:; coW
o a:CL
~_.. <3b-
(f) _ W
(f) ~,,~
a:: ......~co
<t: CO a: z
o ~go
....... :::>I~
LO ..J Cl .-
C\I 0-......
~ ~~+
': :, i \ \l.i.l.ll-llll.lJ.[I'.ljlW'[nljwn~jIIUm.lmli~.mill~ ~ml.[illml1ill~.ml].~mJ]]]]]]1t[illill1]]]1t1t~1t[1lIt"
O'v'Ol:Jll'v'l:J NI:J3H1I:JON N010NIlI:JnS
~
I
,"'JII::~'!. "'or I:~, " ~ "
.--
,j:,
fh
~,
.
.
.
Planning COllllllission Agenda - 08/06/02
9.
Public Aearin!!: Consideration of an Update to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant: City of Monticello. (NAC)
A. Reference and Background.
Attached is a revised draft of the update to the City's Comprehensive Plan. As noted in
the text section of the attachment, the plan is intended to supplement, rather than replace,
the existing plan. Comments from the various meetings and workshops held on the plan
have been considered and the text and map have been adjusted to address those
comments.
H. Alternative Actions.
1. Motion to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, based on
a finding that land use planning for the extra-territorial areas needs to be
addressed prior to the consumption of the City's available development land.
2. Motion to recommend denial of the amendment, based on findings to be
developed at the hearing.
C. Stall Recommendation.
Staff recommends approval of the plan amendments. The issues have been discussed in
several forums, and the plan has been adjusted to take those discussions into
consideration. At this time, the following items should be considered specifically, based
on comments that have been received throughout the process:
a. I-imits of growth to the east.
b. Limits of growth to the southeast.
c. Inclusion of the Urban Mixed Use designation in the southeast area.
d. Discussion of industrial uses in the Gold Nugget area.
e. Provision of buffer open space along major highway corridors.
f. Inclusion of the Urban Mixed Use designation in the southwest area.
g. Discussion of allowable industrial uses in the West area.
h. Provision of other industrial land designation in the Highway 25 corridor.
1. Focus on the interchange recommendation for Orchard Road.
D. Supporting Data.
Comprehensive Plan Update and Map
Monticello Extraterritorial Growth Plan - 8/06/-02 Draft
. Background and Purpose
This document serves as narrative support for the land use mapping being considered
as a part of the Comprehensive Plan update. The City of Monticello has developed a
proposed land use plan for an extraterritorial area that includes land far beyond the
foreseeable period. The purpose of this exercise is to develop a basis for projecting
roadway and other infrastructure needs, and to protect corridors for those needs to
accommodate the future City boundary. This update is developed as an addendum to
the previous 1995 Plan, adding or adjusting in the extraterritorial areas, but leaving the
bulk of the current Plan in place.
Often, a land use plan uses a 20 year time horizon as its planning framework.
However, the limitations of this period can be seen in the conflicts created when the
interest in annexation and extension of utility services does not exactly match the
demands for growth in either pace or location. A longer planning period is also
suggested by the expected lifespan of infrastructure development - usually forty years
and often much longer.
.
This longer time frame also reflects the previous Orderly Annexation Area that was
established about thirty years ago. At that time, the OM boundary line was placed well
out from the foreseeable growth boundary. The advantage of this strategy allowed the
City and Township to work together on growth issues without an immediately pressing
deadline on saturation of the available development land. This plan follows the same
strategy. It should be noted that this update is not seen as promoting any particular
annexation strategy. Regardless of the annexation path followed by the City and
Township, this Plan is intended to establish the land use pattern for development once
annexation occurs.
Goals of the Plan Update
To address these growth issues, the City intends, through this document, to establish
an extraterritorial growth line that incorporates planning and land use objectives of the
City far out into the future. The graphic plans that this document supports are
developed around the following goals:
1.
Allocate land uses in a way that supports all types of growth, with the
opportunities for the City to maintain a long-term balance of land use
demand, land supply, and housing choice.
.
This goal is intended to ensure that the City has provided
adequate land and growth area, in locations that are
appropriate for each particular land use, for a full range of
commercial, industrial, public, and residential development.
Page 1
.
.
.
An undersupply of any category can have impacts on the
market, and on the long term growth of the community.
Because all land uses are interrelated, it is not possible to
grow in one category, but ignore another. Moreover, each
type of land use requires certain physical landscape and
locational factors that help to create successful, sustainable
development. The City needs to plan for adequate land
area, infrastructure that can efficiently meet capacity needs,
and locations that are compatible with the requirements of
the development in each land use category.
2.
Develop a transportation system that supports the growth of the City, and
protects transportation corridors in areas now to avoid later conflict over
corridor expansion.
Critical to any growth plan, more than any other factor, is
convenient, accessible transportation opportunity. In
Monticello's Comprehensive Plan Update, this goal will
primarily refer to roadway planning, although transit is not to
ignored as time and market justify. Central to the strategy
behind this plan is the ability to define its primary
transportation corridors at an early stage in the City's
growth. This identification will help the City plan for both the
location and physical layout of all types of development
without later compromising the quality or quantity of
development as the community, and the traffic levels, grow.
3.
Preserve, to the extent possible, a visual connection to the rural areas of
the surrounding township land, and maintain the small-town physical
environment, even as the community grows into a regional center.
One of the most common concerns heard from members of
the community when discussing future growth plans is the
fear that the growth will result in a loss of the small-town
environment. It is also recognized that this environment is
one of the very factors that fuels residential growth in the
area. To combat this problem, the City plans to limit growth
adjacent to the major road corridors, preserving views of the
countryside even while more remote areas may be
absorbing significant urban growth.
4.
Provide for an opportunity to protect future urban areas from interim
encroachment by non-urban uses.
Inherent in planning for long-range land use is the need to
Page 2
.
.
.
create a system that effectively avoids development of the
area prior to the availability of urban services, including
roadways, sewer treatment, and water supply. The City and
Township have historically accomplished this through the
use of an Orderly Annexation Area, and the operation of a
joint planning board that regulated land use and
development in the OAA. Regardless of the form of
regulatory oversight for future land use, the City and
Township will need to work together to avoid short-term
conflicts with the Plan. Such a cooperative effort is beyond
the scope of this Update, although it is anticipated that this
Plan will establish the groundwork for any agreement into
which the two governmental bodies enter.
5.
Facilitate opportunity for land owners to recoup increasing land values in
ways that complement the City's growth boundaries.
This goal statement acknowledges that land use planning
can have differential impacts on prospective property values,
particularly where the City seeks to permit development in
some areas, and preserve open space views in others. One
of the objectives of the City's planning efforts is to seek
ways in which owners of land that are preserved for open
space can realize some of the anticipated value increases
that accompany urbanization.
6.
Provide a framework to identify major infrastructure needs early to support
the City's land use planning and growth demands.
This goal may state the central purpose in development of
the plan at this time. Because the City has seen significant
growth in the past ten years, planning for current
development is including consideration of the needs for
infrastructure (including streets) in areas that are outside the
boundaries of the previous planning area. Delaying
decisions relating to future growth and land use patterns will
have detrimental effects on the costs of providing services to
the community in the future.
7.
Communicate the desire to grow in an orderly, contiguous fashion, and
set a foundation on which a renewed relationship with the township can
be based.
As noted in previous statements, this Plan is not an
annexation plan or implementation strategy, it is a land use
Page 3
.
plan. This plan can form the foundation for other efforts,
however, including planning for infrastructure, and
cooperative efforts between the City and Township. At the
heart of this plan is the objective of providing an orderly
growth plan for the City of Monticello that provides adequate
area for long-term City development, and also provides
assurance to the Township that the City seeks orderly
growth and not undisciplined territorial expansion. The
terms of the City's previous Orderly Annexation Agreement
with the Township provided for annexation as the City
needed to accommodate land, contiguous to the City
boundaries, and that was likely to be served and developed
in the near term. This plan extends the endorsement of
those themes because of the efficiency they lead to in the
provision of services requested by private landowners.
Land Use Patterns
.
The land use plan focuses on extraterritorial areas, generally. However, there are
certain locations within the current City boundaries that merit some attention. As a rule,
areas within the City are expected to continue their historical land use pattern. The
most notable exception would be the County Highway 18/lnterstate 94 area. This area
has been planned primarily for industrial land uses on both sides of 1-94, with limited
areas of commercial land use. With an expectation that a full interchange will soon be
constructed at this location, however, commercial uses are now more viable.
There will be only limited impact on the south side of the freeway, but the north side
should support the opportunity for larger-scale commercial land uses. In discussing this
issue with affected landowners and developers, the interchange design has been
developed to reflect the most intense commercial development in the northwest
quadrant of the interchange. Ramps would occupy the northeast and southeast
quadrants. The southwest quadrant is already zoned for commercial uses.
Land use planning in the extraterritorial areas include the following:
a.
Northeast Area. This area includes land that is adjacent to both City and
Township residential areas, and in some places borders the freeway. This area
is guided in the plan for low density residential land uses, although there is an
expectation that in larger areas, some examples of medium density housing
styles will be considered when the overall density in no greater than three units
per gross acre. The City will apply a two-pronged density standard when
considering attached housing styles. As noted, no more than three units per
gross residential acre will be considered. In addition, a standard of no more than
four units per net developable residential acre will also apply. Finally, the City
.
Page 4
.
.
.
will consider attached housing in low density areas at its discretion - the
predominant (and sometimes sole) land use pattern is expected to be single
family homes.
The northeast area is able to be served by City utility services, but the plan
intends to limit growth in this direction to preserve utility capacity for downstream
relief, and to encourage a growth pattern that is more westerly in direction.
Some utility improvements being planned, and while arguably increasing
capacity to this area, they are primarily intended to add reserve capacity in areas
where bottlenecks already exist in the system. It is anticipated that rural
residential uses would be reasonable beyond the boundaries of this planning
district. Expected zoning districts to be incorporated into the development of this
area include R-1, R-2, and R-2A districts. R-1A has not been programmed here
at this time due to proximity and exposure to the freeway of most of the
developable land.
A final issue in this area is the anticipated expansion of the Interstate 94 corridor,
and MnDOT's realignment of the curved overpass over the Burlington Northern
Railroad line. These projects will affect a portion of the lands north of the
freeway, and the City expects to work with the developers and MnDOT toward a
reasonable plan that accommodates the needs of the highway system.
b.
East Area. South of the freeway, the limitations of sewer service, existing
development and other factors create another natural edge for urban expansion.
Some areas include well-wooded land and hillside areas that lend themselves to
higher-end housing opportunities. Other areas would be expected to be entry-
level to mid-range in housing costs. An emphasis on natural feature
preservation will be important in this area, including capitalizing on view
opportunities where they are available. Expected zoning in this area would be R-
1, R-1A, R-2, and R-2A. Density levels would be below three units per gross
acre, as calculated above. Again, no guarantee of attached housing, or the
maximum density, is made under any designation.
One of the aspects of development in this area will be preservation of a natural
landscape view from County Highway 18. New development in this corridor will
be expected to be setback and screened with a natural landscape buffer to
minimize the impression of urbanization in this area (as described in Goal 3
above).
c.
Southeast Area. The southeast portion of the planning area lies between the
Monti Club Hill and Pelican Lake. County Highway 37 borders the north shore of
the lake, and would serve as the primary south boundary for the planning area.
Much of this area is designated "Future Growth Area", and does not have a
density or land use label attached. However, it is expected that the bulk of these
areas would be dominated by low-density residential development. One of the
Page 5
.
.
.
primary issues will be enhanced protection of Pelican Lake, both in water quality
and preservation of a natural edge to the shoreline. Development in this area
will need to accommodate an added level of stormwater and landscape
management into any urbanization design.
An exception to the land use designation is the area around the intersection of
County Highway 37 and Fenning Avenue. This area is seen as a higher-density
development area, perhaps with a mixed pattern of townhouses, some
commercial, and mixed use buildings. As noted above, a broad band of open
space should be incorporated into the plan to protect the shoreline of Pelican
Lake. Density in the district is not designated at this time, due to the long period
of time before this area would become urbanized, however, typical suburban
single family home development would not be expected in the core of this area.
With regard to zoning, this area would lend itself to a more classic use of
Planned Unit Development under a common design. Rather than break the area
up into several sub-districts, an integrated planning approach to the entire mixed
use area would enable the City to consider the site as a single project, and
evaluate the sum total of the impacts, rather than parcel-by-parcel. As a result,
subdivision approval to smaller tracts should be only be considered when they
can be justified under a common development scheme. Without this plan, such
subdivisions may be considered premature.
d.
South Area. The land south of the current City limits includes the "Gold Nugget"
property and other land between 85th Street and County Highway 37. The Gold
Nugget property is guided for a combination of one third office-industrial, and two
thirds residential. The residential portion is seen as a mixed density project, with
overall densities at three units per gross acre. The office-industrial area is
projected to be a mix of lower-impact manufacturing, office, office-warehouse,
office-showroom and other similar land uses. To support the transportation
network in this area, an extension of Cedar Street is planned to continue south
from School Boulevard to connect to 85th Street through this area. This roadway
may take the form of a frontage road, or a service road serving development on
both sides, depending on engineering and routing issues.
South of 85th Street, the plan has designated the area for Future Growth, without
listing a specific land use pattern or density. One of the features of this area is
that urban development is intended to be buffered from Highway 25 by up to one
half mile or more on both sides. The actual buffer distance may vary based on
the sight distances from the highway, the practicality of maintaining farm or open
space in particular areas, property boundaries, and other factors appropriate to
the location. This concept is intended to reinforce the feeling that Monticello
retains a connection to the rural areas surrounding it, and to help make the
community feel smaller than it is or will be. A system of development rights and
credits could be established to compensate land owners in this area for the
Page 6
.
.
.
plan's prohibition of development in the Highway 25 corridor.
A similar plan is proposed west of Highway 25, with an office-industrial area
mirroring the Gold Nugget development, and residential uses expected
elsewhere. A buffer zone is planned south of County Road 106 as well, keeping
the Future Growth Area one half mile from the Highway corridor.
There has been some interest in establishing an area for a City-owned industrial
development south of County Highway 106 in the "Future Growth Area". The
Land Use Plan reflects the proposal that the majority of new industrial is focused
to the west along Chelsea Road and its future extension. The advantages to the
establishment of industrial in the south area as suggested primarily relates to the
ability of the City to purchase and develop the area using existing road
infrastructure, although several roadway improvements would be necessary to
accomplish the project. Such a project would also require an extension of
sanitary sewer and water lines, currently about a half mile away or more.
Disadvantages to this location, as with others in the Highway 25 corridor, relate
to the loading of new industrial trucking traffic in what is programmed to be the
primary commercial corridor to the interstate. In addition to traffic conflicts in the
corridor itself, large levels of new truck traffic will continue to increase traffic
problems at the Trunk Highway 25/lnterstate 94 interchange which already
experiences significant congestion.
e.
Southwest Area. The southwest area is a region of significant changes in land
cover and a mix of existing development, agricultural uses, and natural features.
The plan anticipates a preservation of the natural areas, using them as amenities
for both private development and public view. Some public recreation would be
programmed for areas that are encumbered by utility easements. The City
intends to develop a community park with athletic fields in this area, taking
advantage of the utility corridors to accommodate the need for parking and
support activities for the park uses.
An area of higher density mixed use development is shown in this plan around
the intersection of 90th Street and the extension of School Boulevard. This land
use would be similar to that described for the County 37/Fenning Avenue area in
sub-section c. above. Other land uses include attached residential housing, and
limited commercial. Zoning districts in this area could include all of the City's
residential districts and a mixed use district to be established. Residential
density would likely range between six and fifteen units per acre in the attached
housing and mixed use areas, with densities below four units per acre in the
remainder of the area.
f.
West Area. Extending Chelsea Road to the west and north is the feature of this
area, creating a parallel south collector street. Chelsea would serve primarily
higher intensity uses, including commercial and industrial uses. North of County
Page 7
.
.
Highway 39, Chelsea Road would serve as a dividing boundary between
residential uses along the border of Silver Springs Golf Course, and industrial
uses along the interstate highway. The plan discourages residential uses along
the highway where possible. Broad green spaces and landscaping buffers are
programmed to help separate existing residential areas.
The City is considering an allowance for limited levels of commercial
development to occur along 1~94, south of County 39. Because of the increased
commercial activity along Chelsea Road, demand for expansion of this use may
exist. However, the City has also invested in protecting the Highway 25 corridor
for commercial uses, and any expansion of commercial in this area should be
considered as to its impact on other areas.
g.
Northwest Area. This area is dominated by industrial uses that would be
developed in concert with an interchange at Orchard Road. This area would
take advantage of both the freeway exposure and the natural tree cover to
create a higher end commercial/industrial park. A new interchange in this area
will minimize truck traffic impacts on either the existing developed areas or the
traffic conditions at Chelsea Road and Highway 25.
From an implementation strategy perspective, the City has been considering the
acquisition of land for a City-owned industrial park. An alternative economic
development option for consideration would be an aggressive capital plan to
fund the construction of the Orchard Road interchange. The location has
recently been included in MnDOT's plan for 1-94 (albeit without funding or
schedule). However, it is possible that a plan for the construction of this
interchange over the next several years (as other privately owned industrial land
is absorbed) will payoff in better access to the interstate, more valuable land due
to that access, and a supply of industrial land that could not be duplicated in any
other corridor in the City ~ particularly without the disruption other industrial areas
would create for commercial areas, schools, and residential neighborhoods.
h.
"Permanent" Rural Areas. Outside the boundaries of the planning area, the land
use is proposed to be labeled "Permanent Rural Use". Although it is anticipated
that at some point in the future, the boundaries of the City's planning area will
need to be reevaluated, any development in the Permanent Rural area would be
well beyond the foresight of this plan. The proposed planning area, in fact,
encompasses much more land than the City's utility services are able to treat.
As a result, other major infrastructure changes will be necessary even to serve
the identified districts.
Summary
.
The proposed plan is established to help establish roadway needs and issues, and to
create a framework under which both the City and the Township might work, with the
Page 8
.
.
.
goal being that orderly planned growth can occur without Township fear that land will be
annexed before it is needed, and without City fear that administrative opposition will
interfere with the timing and process of development and growth. The City and the
Township would need to work together to protect the areas for future development
shown on the plan.
Page 9
~
1l at""
ill
Q~ 1-0=
'-'- -
~- ==I
T;
r:-
. r~)
rv
\~
MONTICELLO
LONG RANGE LAND USE
~.c.c""> _
- -~--~~>
-~.,,..-'
c
~
f
'k~L
,~~lll
~~71~
.........../"t ~
~~
~...,~
N
W*E
s
"--I r
1-, 1 '
~ <,l: I~' ~'5..'1:R '\ . ",,,,...,>~ Ul!~H:=J'-~
~~J~ Bj ..,,- w~" ~~~ ~~~r'1l
Ik ll- -=-~I rP '" .......~ Sohool~=~ >- ="
H- _JJ ~_ fjg' ,_1- ~!"Oo [ r Pf N~P- --- == b- ---
r--c '''IN. "- ~ tl-
~f-..o 6,-, H-.. r: Eo-f--' "' \) [I'\, ~1l "lij ii f- ~-
~ffr~-~~' I J, Fi t~~- ~"A ~ ~'~Ul
~- ;p ~ = II I~ b ~fr- )~ ..."",~ ,~ I I~~,
- -:r\? \) ~ ~'~ J ~ -1 r- H ~ ,I' t '\ ~~
",~ rJ ~ 1- JV ~"t::-p (J I . - 8:," .... .... ~ If 1 I~lsl, ,,1:
-L ~ jgJ :..A. 51 Y r=~, -- rf' \':, '>7 f--"':l h '
k-1 __li-",,-= ~/ bf~ p~ D'-~ L'\
~ m- I ~llr~_v ~rnl ~ 3 D~'illIl"" ,\
t-L~~ - J fOf; ~ "! ""' ifr- \ _ J7 ~ (t~ r I --- · rl
.
[2]
CJ
CJ
..
c=J
..
..
..
~
Low Density Residential
Expansion Area
Low Density Residential (R-1)
Future Land Use Objectives:
Low Density Residential (R-1A)
Medium Density (attached hsg.)
11 Allow for a mix of land uses
11 Preserve and protect natural resources
11 Provide road system to support growth
11 Retain rural character and a small town feel
11 Use existing amenities (i.e. views, lakes, trees)
to enhance development
11 Prevent sprawl by encouraging compact
development pattern
Urban Mixed.Use
Commercial
Industrial
Open Space
Mobile Home Park
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/06/02
10.
Consideration to adopt a resolution finding that a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No.1 and the
TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-31 conform to the 2eneral plans for the development
and redevelooment ofthe city. (O.K.)
A. Reference and baekl!round:
The Planning Commission is asked to adopt the attached resolution stating it finds the
proposed Tlf District No. l-J 1 Plan conforms with the comprehensive plan of the city.
Proposed TIF District No. 1-31, an Economic District, being established to assist Ultra
Machining Company (UMe), the developer, with land acquisition write-down.
UMC has hired Ed Sorgatz, Olson General Contractors, as their gencral contractor. They
plan to construct a 60,000 sq tt office and manufacturing facility along Chelsea Road East
on I A1t 1, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Ccnter, Sixth Addition (Public Hearing and
preliminary plat approval appears early on the Planning Commission Agenda). UMC
will relocate it's current 76 employecs from Corcoran to Monticello and plans to hire an
additional 30 within two years. See attached job and wage leve/s. Plans include
construction to commence by September 30, 2002. The Contract Jor Private
Development bctween lJMC. the liRA, and thc City states thc development must comply
with state. regional. and local ordinance, zoning, construction regulations to receive Tlf
assistance.
For this agenda item, thc Planning Commission is stating the TIF Plan fix Economic
District No. 1 ~J 1 confi:mlls with the Comprehensive Plan: Land use and zoning. The City
Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing and adopt the TIF Plan Jor District No. 1-31
on August 12, 2002.
B. Alternative Action:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution finding that a modification to the Redevelopment
Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment project No. 1 and the TI F Plan for
'1'1 F District No. 1-31 confl.)t"!11 to the general plans fl.)r the development and
redevelopment of the city.
2. A rnotion to deny adoption of a resolution finding ..............................................
J. A motion to table any action.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/06/02
.
c.
Recommendation:
Recommendation is Alternative No.1.
D. Supporting Data:
Resolution for adoption, summary of TIF Plan, and job and wage level.
.
.
2
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINN.E:SOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THAT THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND
THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-31 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.1
(the "Redevelopment Plan") and a Tax Increlnent Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-31 (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan arc referred to collectively
herein at 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 COlllmission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the general
plans for the developlllent and redevelopment of the City as descrihed 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 of the City as a whole.
Dated: August 6, 2002
---"".-..-..-."...-....,.-...,
Chair
ArrEST:
Secretary
.
.
.
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Tax Increment Financing District Overview
City of Monticello - Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-31
The following summary contains an overview of the basic elements of the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for TI F District No. 1-31. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete
TIF Plan.
Proposed action:
Establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-31 and the
adoption of a Tax Incremcnt Financing Plan.
Redevelopment Project:
Adoption of a Redevelopment Plan Modification for the Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I. (The Modification is to
include the project activities anticipated in Tax Increment District No.
1-31.)
Type of TI F District:
An Econom ic Development District
Parcel NUlnber:
A portion of 155-011-000171
Proposed Development:
The District is being created to facilitate construction of a 60,000 s.f.
ofticehnanufacturing facility for Ultra Machining Company.
Maximum duration:
The duration of District No. 1-31 will be 8 years from the date of
receipt of the first increlnent (9 ycars of increnlent). The date of receipt
of the first tax increment will be approximately 2004. Thus, it is
estimated that District No. 1-31, including any modifications of the
Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would term inate after
2012, or when the Plan is satisfied.
Estimated annual tax
increment:
Proposed uses:
lJp to $70,012
'fhe '1"1 F Plan contains [he following budget:
1 _and/Bui Iding Acquisition ...... ............. ................ ............ $395,000
Site Improvements/Preparation... ................ .................... ..... $5,000
Publ ic Util ities. .... ...... ........... ........................... .... ............... $50,000
Park ing Faci I ities, .......... ....... ................. ..... ........................ $50,000
Interest.......... .......... ........... .................... ..... ............... ....... $175,000
Adm in istrative Costs (up to 10%).. ........ ............ ........... ..... $75,000
TOTAL PRO.lECT COSTS ..........................................$750,000
See Subsection 2- I 0, page 2-6 of the TI F Plan for the fu II budget
authorization. Additional uses of funds are authorized which include
inter-fund loans and transfers and bonded indebtedness.
.
.
.
TIF District Overview
Form of financing:
Financing will be primarily through a $395,000 pay-as-you-go note.
Administrative fee:
Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs arc justified.
The 200 I Legislature eliminated the provisions for a reduction in state
tax increment financing aid (RISTIF A) or the alternative qualifying
local contribution.
LGA/HACA penalty:
Interfund Loan Requirement:
If the City wants to pay for administrative expenditures from a tax
increment fund, a resolution authorizing a loan from another fund must
be passed PRiOR to the issuance of the check.
3 Year Activity Rule
(1'"469. /76 5'uhd. la)
At least one of the following activities must take place in the District
within 3 years from the date of certification:
· Bonds have been issued
· The authority has acquired property within the district
· The authority has constructed or caused to be constructed
public illlprovements within the district
· The estimated date whereby this activity must take place is
August, 2005.
4 Year Activity Rule
(I" 469.176 Suhd 6)
Aller four years from the date of certification of the District one of the
following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the
District:
. Demolition
. Rehabilitation
. Renovation
· Other site preparation (not including utility services such as
sewer and water)
. If the activity has not been started by the approximately
August, 2006, no additional tax increment may be taken from
that parcel until the commencement of a qualifying activity.
Page 2
.
.
.
TIF District Overview
5 Year Rule
(~' 469./763 Suhd 3)
Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments
must be expended or obligated to be expended. Tax increments are
considered to have been expended on an activity within the District if
one of the following occurs:
· The revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to
the activity
· Bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the
activity, are issued and sold to a third party, the revenues are
spent to repay the bonds, and the proceeds of the bonds either
are reasonably expected to be spent before the end of the later
of (i) the five year period, or (ii) a reasonable temporary period
with in the meaning of the use of that term under s. 148( c)( I ) of
the Internal Revenue Code, or are deposited in a reasonably
required reserve or replacement fund
· Binding contracts with a third party are entered into for
performance of the activity and the revenues are spent under
the contractual obligation
· Costs with respect to the activity are paid and the revenues are
spent to reimburse for payment of the costs, including interest
on unreimbursed costs.
. Any obligations in the Tax Increment District made after
approximately August, 2007, will not be eligible for repayment
froln tax increlnents.
Page 3
TIF District Overview
.
BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I
AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-3\
.
Page 4
.
.
.
memo:
Planners · Designers · Builders
To: Ollie
From: Ed Sorgatz
Date: 8-01-02
Subject: Plans and Renderings - UMC/Monticello
Ollie ----------- Enclosed please find:
. 11x17 (reduced scale) plan sets.
. 11x17 black and white copies of renderings.
. 11x17 color copies of renderings.
Please keep in mind that our goal is to complete the project as currently shown on
plans, however, we have yet to bid the project and thereby confirm pricing. It is
possible that adjustments may have to be made to ultimately meet the budget
objective. Such adjustments might be:
- Modifications to the entry canopy.
- Reduce the quantity of curb/gutter and paving by initially building only the
required number of parking spaces. (Plan currently accommodates future
expansion.)
_ Redesign the diagonal upper story corners which currently exist at the N.E. and
N.W. building corners.
- Marginally reduce building dimensions (Eliminate a degree of the "future
expansion space" which exists within current design.
Even if adjustments have to be made, the net effect should be little different from
that represented in the current plans.
Call if you have any followup questions.
. Ed Sorgatz
Olson General Contractors Inc. - 5010 Hillsboro Ave. No., New Hope, MN, - Ph. 763-535-1481, Fx. 763-535-1484
/
/
(
\0 "___- _
't ____
'\..-- - -
\
\
\
'---
-.....~"'"">
II
~-'"""
/
/
/
I
I
I
J.......................,......... ............................
/1 ............_..__ .....................
/ I
/ I
/ I
I
I
,/
,/
,/
-I
~ ~
-,
- \
/
/ /
/
/
/
/
(
I
I
)
/
/Ii
'f
)
-'
I II Ilii!ll~ ~
III hllil I! !
· ,I .. I 0
!: i II
I (J>
.
~
N
N"V'1d 3d"V':::>9CN"V'1
CNOd 3t:)"V'NI"V'~C
T---
I
I
l I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I I
,
I I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I ClOg
I
I
I
I
I
'XI
W p61S9 6lIJIl:?.Id
99l:?J6 tJOY9
l:? Yt I m l:?61J l:? p6161g
'XI
I.U pS619 SlIJIl:?Jd
99l:?Jf3 tJOY9
l:? Ytlm l:?61Jl:? pssg
',(9 G!lG!IYQ~
NOI9~dXl!!l
/)<> (>
....:::::.::.:.: ;/,(: /)
(:)
,..
.
.
.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/06/02
11.
Consideration to adopt a resolution findin!! that a modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment Proiect No.1 and the
TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-32 conform to the !!eneral olans for the development
and redevelopment of the city. (O.K.)
A. Reference and background:
The Planning Commission is asked to adopt the attached resolution stating it finds the
proposed TIF District No. 1-32 Plan conforms with the comprehensive plan of the city.
Proposed TIF District No. 1-32, an Economic District, being estahlished to assist
Production Stamping, Inc., the developer, with land acquisition write-down.
Production Stamping has hired Grady Kinghorn, The Kinghorn Company, as their
general contractor. They plan to construct a 60,000 sq ft office and manufacturing
facility along Chelsea Road East on Lot 2, Block 1, Monticello Commerce Center, Sixth
Addition (Public I-fearing and preliminary plat approval appears early on the Planning
Commission Agenda). Production Stamping will relocate it's current 35 employees from
Rogers to Monticello and plans to hire an additional 20 within two years. See attached
joh and wage levels. Plans include construction to commence (grading and footings) this
t~lll. The Contract for Private Development between Production Stamping, the I IRA,
and the City states the development must comply with state, regional, and local
ordinance, zoning, construction regulations to receive TIF assistance.
For this agenda item, the Planning Commission is stating the TIF Plan for Economic
District No. 1-32 conforms with the Comprehensive Plan: Land use and zoning. The City
Council is scheduled to hold a puhlic hearing and adopt the TIF Plan for District No. 1-32
on August 12, 2002.
B. Alternative Action:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution finding that a modification to the Redevelopment
Plan for Central Monticello Redevelopment project No. I and the TIF Plan flJr
TIF District No. 1-32 conform to the general plans for the development and
redevelopment of the city.
2. ^ motion to deny adoption of a resolution finding ..............................................
3. A motion tt) table any action.
Planning Commission Agenda - 8/06/02
.
c.
Recommendation:
Recommendation is Alternative No.1.
D. Supporting Data:
Resolution for adoption, summary ofTlF Plan, and job and wage level.
.
.
2
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING TIIA T THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I AND
THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT
FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-32 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 fix Central Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I
(the "Redevelopment Plan") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District
No. 1-32 (the "TIF Plan") therefor (the Redevelopment Plan and the TlF Plan are referred to collectively
herein at 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 COlnm ission has reviewed the Plans to detenn ine their conform ity 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 COlnmission that the Plans conform with the
general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole.
Dated: August 6,2002
Chair
^ TTEST:
Secretary
.
.
.
Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Tax Increment Financing District Overview
City of Monticello - Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-32
The following sUllllllary contains an overview of the basic elelllents of the Tax Increment Financing Plan
for TIF District No. 1-32. More detailed information on each of these topics can be found in the complete
TIF Plan.
Proposed action:
Establishmcnt of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-32 and the
adoption of a Tax Increment Financing Plan.
Redevelopment Project:
Adoption of a Redevelopment Plan Modification for the Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project No. I. (fhe Modification is to
include the project activities anticipated in Tax Increlllent District No.
1-32.)
Type of TI F District:
An Fconom ic Development District
Parcel Nurnber:
A portion of 155-011-000171
Proposed Developlnent:
The District is being created to facilitate construction of a 60,000 s.f.
office/manufacturing filcility fl.)!" Production Stamping Company.
Maximum duration:
The duration of District No. 1-32 will be 8 years from the date of
receipt of the first increment (9 years of increment). The date of receipt
of the first tax increment will be approximately 2004. Thus, it is
estinlated that District No. 1-32, including any modifications of the
Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after
2012, or when the Plan is satisfied.
Estimated annual tax
increment:
Proposed uses:
Up to $91,898
The TIF Plan contains the following budget:
Land/Sui Iding Acqu isition .... .................. ......................... $295,000
Site Improvements/Preparation .............................. ............ $50,000
Publ ic Uti I ities.............................................................. ...... $50,000
Park ing Faci lities....... ....... ............. ..................................... $50,000
Interest.............................................................................. $2 7 5,000
Administrative Costs (up to 10%) ......................................$80,OQO
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS ..........................................$800,000
See Subsection 2-\ 0, page 2-6 of the TI F Plan for the full budget
authorization. Additional uses of funds arc authorized which include
inter-fund loans and transfers and bonded indebtedness.
.
.
.
TIF District Overview
Form of financing:
Financing will bc primarily through a $295,000 pay-as-you-go note.
Adm in istrative fee:
Up to 10% of annual increment, if costs are justified.
LGA/HACA penalty:
The 2001 Legislature eliminated the provisions for a reduction in state
tax increment financing aid (RISTIF A) or the alternative qualifying
local contribution.
Interfund Loan Requirement:
If the City wants to pay flx adrninistrative expenditures from a tax
increment fund, a resolution authorizing a loan from another fund must
be passed PRIOR to the issuance of the check.
3 Year Activity Rule
(SI'469. f 70 Suhd. f 0)
At least one of the following activities must take place in the District
within 3 years from the datc of ccrtification:
. Ronds havc been issued
. The authority has acquired property within the district
. The authority has constructed or caused to be constructed
public improvements within the district
. The estimated date whereby this activity must take place is
August, 2005.
4 Year Activity Rule
(II' 469. f 76 Suhd 0)
After four years from the datc of certification of the District one of the
following activities must have been commenced on each parcel in the
District:
. Demolition
. Rehabi I itation
. Renovation
. Other site preparation (not including utility services such as
sewer and water)
. If the activity has not been started by the approxinlately
August, 2006, no additional tax increment may be taken from
that parcel until the commencernent of a qualifying activity.
Page 2
.
.
.
TIF District Overview
5 Year Rule
(\\' 469./763 Suhd 3)
Within 5 years of certification revenues derived from tax increments
must be expended or obligated to be expended. Tax increments are
considered to have been expended on an activity within the District if
one of the following occurs:
· The revenues are actually paid to a third party with respect to
the activity
· Bonds, the proceeds of which must be used to finance the
activity, arc issued and sold to a third party, the revenues are
spent to repay the bonds, and the proceeds of the bonds either
are reasonably expected to be spent before the end of the later
of (i) the five year period, or (ii) a reasonable temporary period
within the meaning ofthe use of that term under 9. 148(e)( I) of
the Internal Revenue Code, or are deposited in a reasonably
required reserve or replacement fund
· Binding contracts with a third party are entered into for
performance of the activity and the revenues are spent under
the contractual obi igation
· Costs with respect to the activity are paid and the revenues arc
spent to reimburse for payment of the costs, including interest
on unreimbursecl costs.
· Any obligations in the Tax Increment District made after
approximately August, 2007, will not be eligible for repayment
from tax increnlents.
Page 3
TIF District Overview
.
BOUNDARY MAPS OF CENTRAL MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO.1
AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-32
.
Page 4
.
dl
18102 MON 09: 15
i: RPR 04 '02
"
'.\.
..~..'..'.'.....
~t
r
i~
FAX 612 428 8339 PRODUCTION STAMPING
lZ:13PM CITY OF MONTICELLO
004/004
P.2/3
003/00
....3
GOALS OF BUSINESS RECEIVING ASSISTANCE
EXISTING JOBS
Please iodicate l'lumber of current employees at each level and il1dicate the correspondinf1 b~nefit
level. These jobs you expect to retain with relocation.
J oh Creation Hourlv Wa'!.e Hourlv V alue ~
Leve.l ofVoluntatY.
Benefit'i (5)
Full-time part-time (Excl. benefits)
Less than $7.00
$7.00 to $7.99
$8.00 to $9.99
1/ $10.00 to $11.99 ,.),30 I)"~ I}IJ
J $12.00 to $13.99
L $14.00 to $15.99
6 $16.00 to $17.99
/ $18,00 to $19.99
$20,00 to $21.99
S $22.00 and higher
'OS
M 04/08/02 MON 09:15 FAX 612 428 8339 PRODUCTION STAMPING
APR 04 '02 12: 13PM CITY OF MONTICELLO
:...-
I
..
~_........
-
-
---
.....
-
-
-
-
~
.....
-
--
----
=-
----
',.-
:-.
---
~
-
-
GOALS OF BUSINESS REC}:lVING ASSISTANCE
NEW JOBS
~ 003/004
P.3/3
PIC~::it': indici'ltll: nl.ln'lber of additional employees at each level and indicate the corresponding
bendit level. Number of neW jobs created over lhe first two years of relocation.
Job Creation
Full~time
01.0
Hourlv Wage
Level
Part-time
(Exc!. benefits)
Less than $7.00
$7.00 to $7.99
$8.00 to $9_99
$10-00 to $11. 99
$12.00 to $13.99
$14.00 to $15_99
$16.00 to $17.99
$18.00 to $19.99
$20.001:0 $21.99
$22.00 and higher
Hourlv Value
ofVoJunrarv
Benefits (5)
d. 30 IlVq'