Loading...
City Council Agenda Packet 11-12-1985AGENDA FOR THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, November 12, 1985 - 7:30 p.m. Mayor: Arve A. Grimsmo Council Members: Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blanigen. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes of the Regular Meeting Hold October 28, 1985. 3. Citizens Commento/Petit ions, Requests and Complaints. Old Business 0. Consideration of Adopting a Tax Increment Finance Plan and District Approval - Raindance Properties. 5. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Sale of Tax Increment Finance Bonds - Raindance Properties Project. 6. Consideration of Making Final Payment to Greg Vetsch Construction for City Hall Reroofing. Now Business 7. Consideration of waiving 30 -day waiting Period for Issuance of Bingo License - Legion Club. 8. Consideration of Resolution Setting a Public Hearing on Redevelopment Plan Modification, Tax Increment District 02 Modification, and the Proposed Tax Increment District 67. 9. Consideration of Setting a Special Meeting to Discuss Salary Negotiations and Policy. 10. Consideration of Acquiring Lot 1, Block 12 (Piro Hall Site). 11. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow a Duplex Addition to an Existing House - Applicant, Kan Larson. 12. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to allow Open and Outdoor Storage and Rental Equipment in a B-3 (highway Business) Zone - Applicant, Suburban Gas. 13. Consideration of a Request for Rezoning and Proliminary Plot Approval - Applicant, John Sandberg. 14. Department Head Reports. _ 15. Adjournment. NOT13: The Council mooting will be hold on Tuesday. .'j• MINUTES l� REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday, October 28, 1985 Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: Fran Fair. 2. Approval of Minutes. A motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting hold October 15, 1985. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions/Requests. Mr. Ken Larson appeared before the Council to again request that the Counci 1 overrule the Planning Commission's action to table his conditional use request regarding a proposed duplex addition to his home on 4th and Washington Street. The Planning Commission at their last meeting delayed action on the request duo to lack of sufficient parking information, but Mr. Larson requested that the City Council act on his request duo to limited time for construction this season. It has boon the Chairman of the Planning Commission's opinion that the Planning Commission again hold a public hearing regarding this matter since there were neighbors opposed to the request and it was also recommended by the City Administrator that proper procedures be followed because of the opposition. AS a result, it. was the unanimous concenoue of the Council that the Planning Commission should first hold a public hearing and make recommendations to the City Council prior to the Council's discussion on the item. 4. Public [fearing on a Proposal for a Tax Increment Finance Plan - Project Raindanco Partnorahip. The Monticello HRA has recently approved a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Raindanco Partnership who plan to construct a retail grocery store on land owned by the City of Monticello and Wilbur Eck. Aa part of the State requirements, the City Council hold a public hearing regarding the Tax Increment Financing planned for thio proposal and hoard no comments from the general public. Formal adoption by the City Council will follow the completion of nogotiation o and the execution of a dovolopers agreement • between the HRJiand the developer. In regard to the Tax Increment Plan, motion wan made by Maxwell, seconded by Bill Fair and unanimously carried to acccopt the HRA -0 offer Of $90,000.00 for the purchase, by the HRA, of the City'a proporty that will become part of thio project. R -1- /l/.�%ll/ Council Minutes - 10/28/85 It has boon recommended by the Public Works Director that the council establish a time schedule under which the plane and specifications should be completed by the engineer by January 14, 1986, no that bids can be received in sufficient time in early February to allow for early spring construction of the sower lino. The City Engineer indicated that the piano could be completed by January 13, 1986, and after review by the City Council, bids on the project could be returnable February 14, 1986, with awarding of the contract scheduled for February 24, 1986. Motion was made by Dill Fair, seconded by Dlonigan, and unanimously carried to accept the Public Works Diroctor'o rocommondation of establishing a doadlino of January 13, 1986, as a completion date for the piano and specifications for tho interceptor Ccower line proposed. -2- 5. Consideration of a Resolution Ordering the Preparation oP Plans and Specifications for the Improvement of West County Road 39. Previously, the City Council approved the upgrading of West County Road 39 from Elm Street to I-94 with a rural type design that would widen the road and this project would be included with Wright County Highway Department's proposed County Road 39 improvement scheduled for 1986. Wright County has requested that the city prepare the necessary plan documents to be included with the County's plans for that segment of County Road 39 in the City limits. For this preliminary engineering, the County will reimburse the City up to 5% of the contract bid price. The expected cost to the City of Monticello for the County Road 39 improvement has been estimated at $47,100.00 construction cost, which is 30% of the estimated total cost plus the engineering cost exceeding the 58 reimbursement. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Dan Blo_nigen, and unanimously carried to adopt Resolution ordering the preparation of plans and specifications for the improvement of West County Road 39 by the consulting City Engineer, OSM, to be completed by January 15, 1986. 6. Consideration of Establishing a Schedule/Deadlins for the Completion of Plans and Specifications and the Ordering or the Improvement of the Sower Interceptor Line. At the last Council meeting, the City authorized the consulting engineer to prepare plane and specifications for the entire proposed interceptor cower lino from Washington Street to Elm Street. It has boon recommended by the Public Works Director that the council establish a time schedule under which the plane and specifications should be completed by the engineer by January 14, 1986, no that bids can be received in sufficient time in early February to allow for early spring construction of the sower lino. The City Engineer indicated that the piano could be completed by January 13, 1986, and after review by the City Council, bids on the project could be returnable February 14, 1986, with awarding of the contract scheduled for February 24, 1986. Motion was made by Dill Fair, seconded by Dlonigan, and unanimously carried to accept the Public Works Diroctor'o rocommondation of establishing a doadlino of January 13, 1986, as a completion date for the piano and specifications for tho interceptor Ccower line proposed. -2- Council Minutes - 10/28/85 7. Consideration of Entering an Agreement with Monticello Township: For the Continued Payment of Funds from the City to the Township. As part of the 1974 annexation of the 1luelear Plant, the Minnesota Municipal Board issued an order of annexation that included a formula that was to be used for issuing payments from the City to the Township for lost revenues becauseof the annexation. The formula, and the resulting payments was based primarily on the amount of local government aids and revenue sharing aids that were received by the City and Monticello Township. The Municipal Board included a provision in the agreement that stated the Board could retain jurisdiction on changes in the formula in the event of unforeseen extraordinary circumstances arose. Because of recent State changes in the amount of local government aid that Townships now receive, the formula suddenly required the City of Monticello to pay approximately $72,000.00 in 1984 and $78,000.00 in 1985 to the Monticello Township. The City of Monticello has not made these payments and has asked the Municipal Board to review the formula because of this change in state aide that affected the amount the City would be required to pay to the Township. Prior to a Municipal Board ruling, negotiations have boon �j taking place between attorneys representing both the City and the Township and a new agreement has been prepared that would call for a $36,000.00 payment for each year of 1984 and 1985 to Monticello Township and thereafter $27,500.00 per year until the year 1995 at which time the agreement would terminate. City Attorney Gary Pringle informed the Council that the now agreement results in a lower dollar payment par year to the Township than what the current agreement calls for and felt that the annual dollar amount indicated in the now agreement would be juatifiablo. The payments by the City are intended i to be used by the Township to provide for services and maintenance 1 of the orderly annexation area that is likely to be annexed into the City in the future. Council member Maxwell questioned why the City is making payments at all to the Township if the Township's mill rates are currently 13 mills lower than the City's and questioned whether the City of Monticello should be taxing its rooidonto to subsidize the Townohip's taxes. Councilman Bill Fair questioned whether action ohould be taken on this now agreement at the present time since an annexation study of the OAA area in in the process of being completed by the City Planner and City Engineer. Mr. Fair felt that if the study shows that annexation should occur, the agreement to pay money to the Township to provide services for the annexation area would be a mute point. CA -3- Council Minutes - 10/28/85 City Attorney Pringle noted that even if this new agreement �- is approved, provisions are made within the agreement that if annexation of the OAA area or a part of it does occur in the near future, the formula and payments would be adjusted accordingly. After discussion on whether a full Council should be present to decide on this matter, motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen to accept the agreement as presented that would result in City payments of $72,000.00 for the years 1984 and 1985 and $27,500.00 each year thereafter through 1995. Voting in favor was Maxwell, Blonigen and Grimsmo. Opposed was Bill Fair. 8. Consideration of Authorizing the Preparation of a Request for Proposals for the Purpose of Soliciting Proposals from Private Enterprise to Operate and Maintain the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Facility. Informal discussion has been hold on numerous occasions by the City staff and Council with respect to investigating the possibility of contracting out the operation of the City's sewer plant. Public Works Director John Simola suggested that the City staff prepare its own request for proposals that could be later reviewed by the Council to determined if actual bids will be sought in regards to the possibility of contracting out the operation of the sower plant. Mr. Simola noted that sample contracts can be obtained from other communities and the staff can assemble all of the necessary data on those areas of operation and maintenance that would most effectively be contracted out. The assembled information could than be reviewed at a later Hata by the Council in detail. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to authorize the Public Works Director to prepare a request for proposal for the sower plant operations and maintenance contract. 9. Quarterly Department Head Reports. Quarterly Department Head Reports were discussed with various department heads. Public works Director John Simola and Piro Chief Willard Farnick reviewed with the Council the present status of Burlington Northern Railroad -o request for the Firs Department to burn down the depot in MontiC011o. Mr. Simola noted that the State Piro Morohall-o Office would not give an opinion one way or the other and that the Pollution Control Agency did not have a record of any permit being issued to the Piro Dopartmont to burn down the depot. As a roault if the Piro Department wan to proceed in the near futuro, they would have to reapply for a now permit which the PCA indicated may not bo iasuod an Stato Statutes do not allow Piro Department@ to burn down ( I buildings in liou of demolition. -4- G) I Council Minutes - 10/28/85 Burlington Northern Railroad has indicated they thought they had a good faith agreement with the City's Fire Department to burn down the building and if a permit can not be gotten from the PCA to burn the building, the Railroad would be able to get a crew to demolish the building but requested that the City pay for the land fill charges estimated cit 51-2,000.00 if the building has to be hauled to a land fill. Councilmen Blonigen and Maxwell felt the building should possibly be demolished by Burlington Northern Railroad and the debris hauled to a different site and than burned rather than burning the facility in a dangerous area. After further discussion, it was suggested by the Council that the Fire Chief reapply for a burning permit from the PCA to see if the State will allow burning of the depot at the present site and if not if a permit can be obtained for burning the debris at a different site away from a populated area. 10. Approval of Bills Motion was made by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of October as presented. 11. Consideration of Change Order #2 -Fire Hall Construction Project. Fire Hall Building Committee member, John Simola, roviowed with the Council a potential drainage problem within the now parking lot at the Fire Hall. Mr. Simola noted that their recently installed curb elevation may cause some small ponding problems within the parking lot and suggested that the curb be lowered to provide for more adequate drainage to the street. The contractor has indicated if the City is willing to tear out the existing curb, they would be able to ropleace the curb at a cost of approximately $500.00. It was the conoenouo of the City Council that Change Order 02 be executed in the amount of $500.00 to lower the curb to provide for better drainago of the parking lot. Rick aolfateflor Assistant Administrator _g_ Council Agenda - 11/12/85 4. Consideration of Adopting a Tax Increment Finance Plan and District Approval - Raindance Properties. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: At the last regular Council meeting, you conducted a public hearing on the proposed adoption and issuance of bonds to do the Raindance Properties Project. I indicated to you at that time that the formal adoption of the Tax Increment Plan and request to certify the district could not occur until a development agreement had been entered into between the HRA and the developers. The HRA and the developer have met on the development agreement and have agreed to execute the document. As of this writing, I am making the assumption that the document will be fully executed by Tuesday evening. (The HRA is meeting later tonight.) Assuming that this is executed, the only action required by the Council is to adopt the resolution requesting certification of the plan. The following agenda item addresses the financial aspect of this plan. Mc A brief summary of the entire operation is as follows: Raindance Properties has entered a development agreement to construct a 33,000 sq. ft. retail center, 25,000 sq. ft. of which will be the new home of Maus Foods. The remaining 8,000 sq. ft. will be available for other commorical and retail enterprise. Upon certification of the plan, the City Council will soil tax increment bonds in the amount of $350000.00 and make the proceeds of those bonds available to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority. With those monies, the HRA shall acquire all of Block 15 from the City of Monticello and Wilbur Eck in the total amount of $229,000.00. The HRA will also request the City Council to order the improvement of Sixth Street and pay for that construction. The HRA shall then sell the land to Raindanco Properties for the sum of 562,000.00. Raindanco Properties will than make site and coil corrections and construct the building with full parking facilities and landscaping. Commencing in 1988, the HRA will collect approximately S41,500.00 in tax increment, which will then be pledged to the City Council in order to pay the annual payment on the $350,000.00 bond issue. The development agreement further stipulates that in any year that the tax increment falls short of the required payment on the bonds, the developers shall pay to the HRA an amount sufficient to make the necessary payment so that the City Council will not have to levy oven one dollar to moot its debt obligations. At the and of the bond period, the debt will be fully retired by tax increment, and the increased taxable conics will than be made available in full to all taxing jurisdictions. This is a redevelopment district and can live for 25 years. The expense catimated for smile corcaction is the issue that allows uo to moat the "but for" clause. But for the assistance of tax increment financing, it is financially unfeasible for private development to acquire this land, make the necessary corrections, and construct facilities. Upon adoption of the resolution, we will request certification from the County Auditor the following day. Mc X1 C Council Agenda - 11/12/85 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution - this keeps the project going, and we should anticipate construction in 1986. 2. Do not adopt the resolution - this essentially ends the project. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the adoption of the resolution adopting the plan and ordering the certification to the County Auditor. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the resolution for adoption. -2- RESOLUTION 1985 # A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 06 PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 273.71 to 273.78 INCLUSIVE, AND ADOPTING A FINANCE PLAN FOR SAID TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota has determined that it is necessary to create a tax increment financing district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive, within the existing redevelopment project created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.411 at seq., the Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota finds that the tax increment district to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 10 and that the project will provide additional jobs, increase the tax base and prevent commerce and industry from leaving the State; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has received a copy of the proposed tax increment financing plan and has bean given the opportunity to review and comment upon said tax increment financing plan and the tax increment financing district; and WHEREAS, the City of Monticello has informed the members of the Local School Board of the Independent School District and the Board of Commieaionars of Wright County of the fiscal and economic implications of the proposed tax increment financing district and invited said School Board members and County Commissioners to the public hearing. WHEREAS, a public hearing was hold on October 28, 1985, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. before the City Council in the Council Chambers in the City Hall, in Monticello. Minnesota, notice of which has boon published onto in the official newspaper for the City, not loan than ton, nor more than thirty days prior to October 28, 1985; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing all persons and parties were given full opportunity to present written or oral testimony, comments, objections, ouggoationo, and other matters, all of which were duly considered by the Council; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TUE CITY OF MONTICELLO. (1) That the tax increment district to be established is a redevelopment district pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.73, Subdivision 10 and will result in increased employment in the City and in the preservation and enhancement of the tax baso of the City. Cyd Resolution 1985 k Page 2 i� (2) That the proposed development would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonable foreseeable future and, therefore, the use of tax increment financing is deemed necessary. (3) That the Planning Commission has reviewed the tax increment financing plan and it conforms to the general plan for the development of the municipality as a whole. (4) That the proposed redevelopment involves a substantial commitment of private investment and in conjunction with tax increments as identified in the tax increment financing plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with sound needs of the City for the economic development of the project by private enterprise. The City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota does hereby approve the tax increment financing plan and the creation of a tax increment financing district as described in said tax increment financing plan. Adopted by the City Council this 12th day of November, 1985. ATTEST : Thomas A. Eidam City Administrator C Arva A. Grimemo, Mayor RESOLUTION 1985 # A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTY AUDITOR TO CERTIFY THE ORIGINAL ASSESSED VALUE OF THE REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE MONTICELL40 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT #6 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monticello has determined that it is necessary and desirable and in the public interest to designate, establish, develop, and administer a tax increment financing redevelopment district pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.71 to 273.78 inclusive; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. MINNESOTA that the Wright County Auditor is hereby requested to certify the assessed value of all real property within the boundaries of the tax increment redevelopment district as described in the attached tax increment financing plan as of the date of the last equalized assessment, and each year hereafter to certify the amount by which the assessed value has increased or decreased from the original assessed value and also to certify the proportion which any increase or decrease bears to the total assessed value for the real property in said tax increment financing district for that year. Adopted this 12th day of November, 1985. ATTEST: Thomas A. Eidom City Adminlatrator I Arve A. Grimamo, Mayor Council Agenda - 11/12/05 5. Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing the Sale of Tax Increment Finance Bonds - Raindance Properties Project. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In light of the adoption of the Tax Increment Finance Plan and request to certify the district, it is now essential to execute a resolution setting a time for the sale of tax increment bonds. Springsted, Inc., will be present at the Council meeting to present the resolution and the form in which the bide will go out. The amount estimated for sale is $350,000.00, and consequently requires a public sale. It is estimated that the bids will go out the day after the Council meeting and will be returned to the City Council on December 9 for final sale. Again as noted above, the proceeds of this bond issue will be turned over to the HRA so that they may acquire Block 15 from the City Council and from Wilbur Eck so that they may construct Sixth Street and pay for all administrative, contingency, legal, and capitalized interest costs. The debt incurred by the City shall be paid by the tax increment generated from the project. On or before December 9, the City Council and the HRA shall execute a pledge agreement as we have done in the pest. Basically, this is where the NRA pledges the proceeds of the tax increment to the City Council for the retirement of the bond debt. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Assuming that the tax increment plan has been adopted, the only alternative is to order the preparation of bond documents by Springeted. Without the money, the project cannot be completed. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendation is evident. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Springsted will be bringing along the resolution required for adoption. Council Agenda - 11/12/85 6. Consideration of Making Final Payment to Greg Vatech Construction for City Hall Reroofing. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Several meetings ago, you instructed staff to hand the City Hall roof matter over to City Attorney Pringle in an effort to finally resolve the matter. At an interim meeting, Mr. Vetsch appeared before the City Council and requested final payment and stated his aide of the issue. The Council at that time stated that they could not respond since it was in the hands of their attorney. Mr. Pringle has since contacted me and feels that the City should deal directly with Mr. Vetsch. Mr. Votsch's attorney, John Gries, has submitted a letter indicating that a proposal made by Pringle to drop our litigation in exchange for ,nonpayment of the final amount was rejected. Mr. Gries has asked that a representative from the City Council, along with myself, be officially appointed by the Council to sit down with Mr. Vatech and himself to finally resolve the matter. I think this may be the most expeditious way to resolve it. Gary Pringle has indicated that the legal aspects involved in this issue are so nebulous that the City might not prevail in litigation, consequently having legal face, construction costa as per the bid, as wall as the property loss from the rain storm. It is his professional recommendation that the City not pursue litigation on this issue, but rather sit down with Votsch and try to resolve the issue. I have gone over the accounts of this incident numerous times, and cannot resolve the discrepancy in the various stories. I think, based upon Pringle'o recommendation, it would be boot to have a Council appointed representative sit in on a mooting with myself, Grog Votach, John Grins, and Gary Anderson. we may want to have Gary Pringle present at this particular meeting. The purpose of tho meeting would be to arrive at a final resolution of this issue. I think to pursue this matter any further would servo only to damage the City and its employ, as wall as the contractor and his reputation. Regardless of the cause, we had property damage duo to heavy rainfall, and we now have to recover from that incident and got on with City business. It would aoom to me that going into a final negotiating meeting would be beneficial in sorting out the events and the accounts of what happened prior to the rain storm, finally arriving at an agreed upon settlement. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Select a Council delegate and authorize the power to make a oottlomont with Votach Construction. 2. Return the entire matter to City Attorney Pringle and ordor litigation. 7. Authorize final payment to Votach Construction and close the Issue. -4- Council Agenda - 11/12/85 LC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As Administrator, I am recommending that the Council select a negotiating delegate who can sit in on a meeting to resolve this final issue, even if it means making full and final payment as per the original contract. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. t -5- Council Agenda - 11/12/85 7. Consideration of Waiving 30 -day Waiting Period for Issuance of Bingo License - Legion Club. (R.W.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The American Legion Club has previously been granted a Class B Gambling License allowing for such activities as pull tabs, tip boards, and paddle wheels, etc., by the State Charitable Gambling Board. The Club has recently contacted the Charitable Gambling Board regarding the upgrading of the license to a Class A, which would also allow bingo operations, which the Club intends to operate on Monday evenings weekly. The bingo operation would be held at the Legion Club but would be primarily manned by the Monticello Softball Association. The State Charitable Gambling Board has indicated that the license request could be upgraded to allow for bingo operations provided the City Council does not have any objections to the issuance of the bingo license and would agree to waive its 30 -day waiting period. The State Statutes do not allow the Gambling Board to issue a bingo license or any typo of gambling license for at least 30 days after the initial application to allow the City the opportunity to present its objection if it has any. `-1 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. If the City Council has no objections to the Legion Club having a bingo license, the Council may authorize a letter to be written to the Charitable Gambling Board indicating no opposition to the license and waiving its 30 -day waiting period to allow the license to be issued immediately. 2. Oppose the issuance of the bingo license and inform the Gambling Board of the City'o opposition. It should be noted that even if the bingo license application in opposed by the City Council, the State Charitable Gambling Board has final authority and may still grant the license but would wait the 30 days as required by State Statutes. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is the staff's recommendation that the City Council approve the issuance of the bingo license for the Legion Club and waive the 30 -day waiting period. The same procedure wan used when St. Nonry'a Church applied for a bingo license for its Fall Festival. D. SUPPORTING DATA: None. Council Agenda - 11/12/85 8. Consideration of Resolution SettinV a Public Hearing on Redevelopment Plan Modification, Tax Increment District q2 Modification, and the Proposed Tax Increment District V. (O.K.) Redevelopment Plan Modification A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Under Minnesota Statute 462 is the Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan. Presently, the area consists of the yellow outlined area (see map). Immediate modification of the Redevelopment Plan would alter the boundaries to include Blocks 38 and 39, Lower Monticello (See map - red outline), which is zoned Residential Business with a housing land acquisition, therefore, zoning ordinance acceptable. Rehabilitation of the present Nursing Home is a proposed plan by Bergstad Properties (refer to Proposed Tax Increment District 07)'. Said modification would allow Tax Increment Financing (TIF) availability for rehabilitation of the present Nursing Homo site. Future modification would include black area of map to provide possible financing, if requested, for a Rand Mansion restoration or to the Little Mountain Settlement. On November 7, 1985, the HAA adopted to modify the Redevelopment Plan or Project Area. Action at this time by the City Council is to sot a public hearing for November 25, 1985. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution setting a public hearing and ordering published notice - considering the HRA adopted the modification, it would seem appropriate to proceed in this manner. 2. Do not adopt the resolution - if previous action by HRA wan not to adopt the resolution. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the resolution setting a public hearing for the Redevelopment Plan Modification on November 25, 1985. and ordering published notice. Staff rocommands adoption of the resolution because the Tax Increment District oust be within the boundaries of r -ho Central Monticello Redevelopment Plan in order to qualify for Tax Incromont Financing (TIP). I believe the Borgatad Proportion Nursing Homo Rehabilitation Proposal is worthy of Tax Increment Financing. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Map. -7- N. now toU%BNRI ,iZi!F'`�� !r e�+'ate'• ^�u7 •:`.1 4��;i1 [•(jJi7 T"V,+7 ',',;1 +1, «f! 1 _ ' r _ - "' NI , . "'•�'�:.1 ""`�� •s,, r ' r .;1 �"^�� i; • �� 1, 1 f .fl; j -. 1, � ,;�,� 8'•,1 .. `�1 `�', , • .•.,-; ' �� a a a ; r?r••+".:,•;�r„'"r••. � \ t f�•, ,'l �°5: , ��;�J.± :' r i,1 " '"L.L,:,,r i'+)y-;ti' �c -�,� . u � a.!y; r: � 17 • j w_ : �, 1 i�+`• < • + HIGHWAY Council Agenda - 11/12/85 TTax Increment District 02 Modification A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Tax Increment District 02 currently consists of the following ten parcels (see map - blue) : a. 155-010-050010 (Hass) b. 155-010-050011 (Teslow) c. 155-010-050081 (Metcalf & Larson) d. 155-010-050082 (Capps, CD from Lindberg) e. 155-010-050100 (Metcalf & Larson) f. 155-010-051010 (Monticello Ford) g. 155-010-051011 (Jones) h. 155-010-051020 (Monticello Ford) 1. 155-010-051040 (O'Connor) J. 155-010-050101 (City of Monticello) Modification of Tax Increment District 12 would add the following four parcels (ace map - orange): k. 155-010-050111 (Hollartback) Map Section K 1. 155-010-051050 (Stalton) Map Section L m. 155-010-051111 (Gustafson) Map Section M n. 155-010-051130 (MHRA) Map Section N Under Minnesota Statute, 273, a Tax Increment District may be modified If 70% of the additional parcels consist of buildings and 201 of additional parcels consist of blighted land or buildings. Parcole K. L, and M consist of building structures and is 751 of the additional parcels. Parcel L qualif lee by Federal Regulations as a blighted area and is 251 of the additional parcels, therefore mooting both roquiromantB. Modification of District #2 would provide an added incentive for future HAA projects. Secondly, it would capitalize on the tax increment of the proposed Elderly Project (Metcalf & Larson), thoroforc granting assistance to othor projects: Present Motcalf/Laroon Building, Monticello Ford, and Hasa parcels. Action at this time by the City Council is to act a public haaring for November 25, 1985. D. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the ro colution setting a public hearing and ordering published notice - considering the HRA adopted the Modification. 2. Do not adopt the roaolution - if previous action by HRA wan not to adopt the resolution. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff rocommonde adoption of the resolution setting a public hearing for the Tax Increment District 02 Modification on November 25, 1985, C % and ordering published notice. Staff recommends adoption of the roaolution -B- Council Agenda - 11/12/85 because it provides added incentives for future HRA projects and the increment capitalized on the Elderly Project would help retire the indebtedness on the Metcalf/Larson Building. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Map. .g- 15FRONT —f 10 6 10 6I 9 "I 9 7 n io 10 6 iQo > / 6656 i 00 5-o -1 66 60 66 m 5T 1 5- 21 5i0 36 60• 66 66 80 66 66 60 66 80 66 bb 80 66 I1� X15 IIS 015 io N m iu !I') 0 1 33 3 33 3 BO C 0. HWY. 75 ) !3 33 6 15 6 15 6 15 6 In 66 64 ��.0 66 sae e6 66 60 60 i6 80 66 60 08 6� n10 3r 10 6 10 6 e --3 i m in T e 5 1� 3 I s" I 5, 'n 66 '66 66 66 ' 66 66 6 10 ,i6 66 6 10 1 66 166 6 10 66 -4 6 10 WS WWI 10, 6. 221 ,8e •q. .ne Council Agenda - 11/12/85 CProposed Tax Increment District #7 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: John B. Bargstad of Bergatad Properties, Hopkins, Minnesota, present owner of Cedar Crest Apartments, proposes to rehabilitate the present Monticello Nursing Home (Block 39, Lower Monticello) now owned by the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District. Plana aro for an approximate 25 one -bedroom intermediate care rental unit for, persons of ages 75-85. Plans include an attached 2 -story expansion of the present structure to the west. Socialized areas within the present home would remain, with food (one meal per day) and laundry services provided by the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital. This is not subsidized housing. As of January 1, 1986, Tax Increment Financing and bonding will no longer be available. Tax Increment Finance was originally designed to help in the rehabilitation of vacated buildings of which this project qualifies. On November 7, 1985, the Monticello HRA adopted the ,concept plan and the use of Tax Increment Finance for the Bergstad Properties Nursing Home Rehabilitation Project. At a special meeting November 12, 1985, the Monticello HRA will adopt or not adopt the proposed Tax Increment Plan and the Tax Increment Finance Plan for the said project. Presuming the HRA will adopt the project plane and finance plans, therefore they request for the City Council to act a public hearing for November 25, 1985. Proper notice will then bo published am that the plan will become available for public roviewal. The Tax Increment Finance Plan was not available in time for said agenda preparation. Site piano and finance plana will be presented at the Council meeting. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Adopt the resolution setting a public hearing for proposed Tax Increment District 17 - considering HRA has granted approval of the project. 2. Do not adopt the resolution,- if reasons to believe the HRA acted improperly. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the adoption of the resolution setting a public hearing for the proposed Tax Increment District 47 on November 25, 1985, and ordering published notice. This recommendation made prematurely, before action by the LIRA, assuming adequate project coat, the proposed plan is a perfect project for the use of Tax Increment Financing (TIP) and allows for the continued use of a soon -to -bo vacated building. It is the staff's hope that the City Council will cooperate and act in order to allow this projoct the use of Tax Increment Finance and moot the January 1 deadline. Intermediate elderly housing is needed in our area. National projections aro for the elderly (ago 75 and up) to be the factent growing population in the next 20 years. Wright County -a 1980 Conouo otatoo a projection growth of 19.42% for males C;s and projection growth of 17.56% for females 85 years of ago. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Presented at City Council Mooting - Project costo and proposed site plans. &M Council Agenda - 11/12/85 ` r 9. Consideration of Setting a Special Meeting to Discuss Salary `+i_.- Negotiations and Policy. (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: For the last couple of years, the Council has met with me in closed session to determine a salary negotiation strategy 'and dollar pool from which I can grant salary increases. The Council has then granted me the latitude to award the salary increases provided I bring them back for Council ratification in December. If we wish to continue with this policy, it is essential that I meet with the Council fairly soon so that I can begin the one on one negotiations with the non—union people. By the way, the union negotiations will not come up until spring. Bill Fair made a comment earlier this year with respect to the comparable worth study. The study is,proceoding and should be complete by December 15, but certainly no later than December 31. Ona alternative the Council has is to dispense with the special salary meeting at this time, wait for the resulto of comparable worth, and then not the individual salaries accordingly. This conceivably could take until sometime in 1986, but the salaries would be made retroactive, to January 1. I guess that I actually prefer the latter position so that we can tako immediate action based upon the results of the comparable worth study. If for some reason the entire comparable worth study is challenged in court or somehow invalidated, we could still progress with our usual salary process, providing the rotroactivity is put into affect. If we delay action to wait for the comparable worth results, then onto ealariao are established, there should be no need for mid-term adjustments based on the findings of that study. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Schodulo a special salary mooting - this would indicate that wo wish to go ahead with setting 1986 salaries regardless of the comparable worth study. 2. Delay setting a salary mooting in order to wait for the comparable worth study rasulta - this would indicate that there is no desire to make adjustments, and I will put out information to all employees affactod to lot them know what the Council docision So. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that we, do wait for our comparable worth rosulto; and if noc canary, adopt a now calory schedule in 1986 being retroactive to•January I. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Nona. 17- Council Agenda - 11/12/85 1 10. Consideration of Acquiring Lot 1, Block 12 (Fire Hall Site). (T.E.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In order to construct the new Fire Hall, the City acquired Lots 2-5, Block 12, from Jean Brouillard. Lot 1 was discussed as suitable for acquisition, but having been divided was in the ownership of two other property owners separate from Mr. Brouillard. The advantage to owning Lot 1 has solely to do with the elimination of encroachment or with private property holdings immediately abutting the Fire Hall. It could conceivably be utilized for open space or even additional parking in the future, but these advantages are not considered essential to construction. It should be noted that there is no genuine need for owning Lot 1, only a basic desire to make the Fire Hall site autonomous. When this block was decided upon as the site for the Fire Hall, we ware nearing the end of 1984; and Mr. Brouillard's desire to sell the land included'a closing prior to December 31, 1984. Being that we were working under time constraints, we on staff did not even pursue the other owners to investigate the possibility of buying Lot 1. We did, however, elect to investigate the possibility of acquiring this property after the project was wall underway. Lot 1 is divided between the north and south half. The north half of the lot is occupied by a tin shad. The south half of the lot is occupied by a small pink rental house. On the want side of Lot 1 is platted Linn Street, which as yet in undeveloped as a street. In contacting the two owners, we did receive offers to sell. Mr. John Mayor, owner of the north half of Lot 1, has offered hie parcel for $12,500.00. Mr. Dave Anderson, owner of the south half of Lot 1, estimates the value of hie property to be approximately $38,000.00. Staff is bringing this matter to the Council to make a final determination on direction, not on action. It is the opinion of staff that the amount of money in question is totally unacceptable, but the acquisition of the land still has some merit. We do not, however, wish to pursue this matter any further if the Council has no interest in acquiring the land. If the interest is still there, than we are requesting that the City Council direct staff in what action to pursue, whether it be ordering an appraisal, preparing a counter offer, or both. Staff, at this point, has made no preferential determination, nor have we developed any notions on proper value for the site should we pursue it. Ono additional item should be noted. Tho construction of the interceptor sower an laid out is planned to go under Linn Street, as wall as under 5% Street abutting this property. It is concoivablo that we would be faced with acquiring temporary easement rights from this property. while acquiring ouch casement rights is not anticipated to be expensive, that expanse could be eliminated if the City owned the property. The expense of the easement certainly would not offset acquisition costs, but it could be applied against the total coat thereby reducing the not land coat. -13- 3 B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: t Council Agenda — 11/12/85 1. Agree upon a counter offer to the two proposals, and direct staff to make such counter offer. 2. Order an appraisal of the property involved and request that a report be returned to the City Council. 3. Dispense with the idea of acquiring Lot 1, Block 12, and direct staff to contact the owners that the City has no further interest at this time. There is no staff recommendation, nor supporting data for this item. -14- Council Agenda - 11/12/85 11. Consideration of a Conditional Use Rectueat to Allow a Duplex Addition to an Existing House - Apolicant, Ken Larson. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. Ken Larson will be at the Planning Commission meeting prior to your meeting with his revised site plan showing the parking requirements needed for his proposed duplex addition. As you will note on both site plans enclosed, minimum parking requirements are addressed for his existing house, his proposed duplex addition, and also his existing carpet business in a shop portion of his garage. As the site plane indicate, Mr. Larson meats the minimum requirements for setbacks of the proposed duplex addition and the minimum requirements for off-street and, enclosed parking spaces. Ar part of an additional requirement, if he is going to have the off-street parking lot to the rear of his existing garage, we would like the area on the south and west sides of hie parking lot screened with overlapped plantings of trees, a screening fence, or a combination of both. Also, we would like to have some type of small tree or shrub plantings in front of his carpet business shop which faces Third Street. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the conditional use request to allow a duplex addition �) to be built onto an existing house. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow a duplex addition to be built onto an existing house. 3. Allow the duplex addition to be built onto the existing house with the following additional conditions: a. A solid screening fence or an opaque planting of trees around the perimeter of the proposed parking lot to the roar of his garage on the south and wont oidoo. b. A planting of omall trees or shrubs in the front area of hie carpet business shop facing Third Street. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Larson -a Oita plane an submitted do moot the minimum requirements of the Ordinance. we aro, however, suggesting additional conditions be applied to this conditional use. If he io going to have a parking lot to the roar of his garage, the area on the south and west aides of this parking lot be screened with an opaque planting of small trees, a solid screening fence, or a combination of both. We would also like coma planting of small trees or chruba in the area in front of his carpet business shop facing Third Street. C D. SUPPORTING DATA: i Copy of the propocod location of the duplex addition; Copy of both Oita plans for his duplex addition. fii.-M t to Allow 1 e 4 gteobe alt Vs to o• Com JOY Y.x891 'j.0%% 110 �o�aos+ R I - - - - > a °p onto aA tcs N "'� �� • � .i i+fit., �(`� a��t �. �i�.•' .l ro. lfrrl:I �1 r ^'�•i'' �t .f t ,r "v'� •N-c•iJ �' t � ' J�i� / .!" .!+:'i,�.'' •�J t•�ij-', I "_�r/�r�-�rrr'`"f''`�•�.. �±.l t' � r / "'••• • t ;N,.,fura�1 }. a.. t, �r�,'.jj ff i t { i%r�'."`h..; t •'F_•;y;!"� ' 1�) ` .1�; ` �l�,�;:;.�`'x..`��"��..t•....f�c"`��1..,'w �%1�(��7 �'�/.° .��1j• ? i ,/ �.ys6' t�„L.. "+4/� .i "�..,`L(.�,'•Y�r ,- iM f`' )!/j � •i �irr. �•:� f f�• �!r•t `, ^.�- :�""1..�;�u � i.i',i"/���(i�,�.j�,j,.���_y y i. � o•. : �• ti„` ,��" I t t ,� r+. /((�� ��y •.• . ! /.`'=' ' . \\ L\++,1 yutt'••+c.47• �,• `� . �. 'ate' �\�.r,f�_,r, I:...•. •',, :'t� '., '���' t : r, �Ci•5 1 � � . s.,, l t, tom.''•'{` {'�'J �N.� 41GHWAY ..�• , �• i i / ��% t , r l.t� y ,I"'. H0. 94 i PERMIT WJMUR IIEGALl MOCK 50. FT. Or SITE AREA $0. M. Or MOC CA C : UP I ED BY St . JILOING 31 40 jMSTRUi:TIOMS TO APPLICANT THIS 1PORK NCC* NOT 09 U3CO W"C" PLOT PLANS DRAWN To SCALL AMC rILCD WITH TUC ocamly APPLICATION. TOR NCV 80, Lo lHoa 0 PROVI at THC fW101,1101I"r**NATIO"l LOCATION Or PROPOSCO CONSTRUCTION AND CZISTING im#PROVCNCNTS. SHOW BUILDING 3ITC AND Be TOACK a IMCM31CM3. SHOW CRSMCHT3. rIMISH CONTOURS OR ORAIMACC, _3T VLOOR CI. CV'T IONS' oy*CCT CLEVATION AND SXWC* C%.CVATIOM. SHOW LOCATION Or WATER, StWA, CAB, CLCCTR IC AL Be c VI C LINCS. SHOW LOCATIONS or 3u*vcv PINS. SPECIrY THC U39 Or CACH BUILDING .NO CA . CH MAJOR PG:Tt*t TMCRCGP. • INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE I EACH GRAPH S2UARE EQUALS 101.0" BY 101-0" 3 1 7 .� . I _I _I I I (M dimmion 4Md N 9~ IRISH# $14 IfUl MCI Osfvt —11 IN, mod* "llhoul ."Clauts molowavol. ... ......... ....... ....... 00 ... 0 ............... ON CITY Us: OMLTI lLNEO A0010110vto ay OATC 0 p FIM I T MMR GRES, 8LOCX 3,2 ACOITIC 'LEGAL N so. rT. Or 3 1 E AREA IRA SO 50, rt. of AREA OCUPIED BY SUILDIM INSTR6MONS To APPLICANT Tmt3 rosm mCCZ NOT CC U3CO WM" P%,QT PLAJ�3 Vft*� To :CALC LOCAL MCD V1 rAt PCR�IT APPLICATION. TOAS m to I T ra tv suMosmos. P*avizc Tmc roLLow1wo lmrc�,Tfc I La A . Of PROPOIC2 C4M3TAUC.j4N ANO CX13.INC ,"Iftov C,,C"T3;CMOV a.11111. .1111 A.. -MAC. CAC-11., .. CAI {MALL. '. I AST /LOOK ,.,AT I ON=, 'STMCXT 9%,CV 'It 4" &"* 3ccQ CLC-71C.. $NOW LOCATION Of .11ta. 3C.CR, 0,1, %NO CLEC-111CAL. SCRV ICL LILACS. SNOW LOCATIC-3 of 3upv1y P1.3. -PcCiry rmc usc or cAcu cuiLow.c .No 1ACM MAJOR PORTION TNCAL]/. i JNOICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE 1 EAE.4 GRAPH SCUARE r6WALS 10f-Z' By 101-3- j- MIN 1w. 1IM01thol ths 000116"d CMAMr.if--ff -1111M 40 t?-# aIANAIlaR1 me wo" woMM..M L"St patmemes -dt fit .0. Alcolam.. ..0.69-0...... It .......... Appf4vco ey OATC, Council Agenda - 11/12/85 12. Consideration of a Conditional Use Request to Allow Open and Outdoor Storage and Rental Equipment in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone - Applicant, Suburban Gas. (G.A.) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Suburban Gas is proposing to rent trucks and/or trailers and U -Haul equipment from their existing facility. In looking at the existing site, we as City staff feel this is a very visible point while driving along Highway 25. with the proposed redevelopment of the area immediately across Highway 25 to the east of this existing property, we feel some additional conditions should be considered before allowing this conditional use at this site. We would like an opaque planting of trees along the current fence enclosure on the east and north aides. Also, the current site does not have hard surfacing for the parking area. we would like to have them put in the hard surfacing for their parking lot at this time. Also, if we wore to allow the outside storage of these vehicles, they all must be within the existing fence enclosure. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor storage and rental equipment in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone. 2. Deny the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor storage and rental equipment in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone. 3. Approve the conditional use request to allow open and outdoor storage and rental equipment in a B-3 (Highway Business) Zone with the following conditions: a. Around the perimeter of the existing fence on the north and east oidoo there be a continuous planting of opaque troop for screening. b. The existing parking lot be hard surfaced. c. Outoido storage of any vehicles and/or equipment be within the confines of the existing fence ancloauro. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional uao request to allow open and outdoor storage and rental equipment at thin site. No do, however, realize the high visual impact of thio area; and we would like to have a screening of opaque trees along the oxiating fence on the oast and north oidoo. We would also like to have the parking lot hard ourfacod at thio time. Also, any outdoor storage of vehicles or equipment should be within the existing fence enclosure. D. SUPPORTING DATA: C' Copy of the location of the proposed conditional use roquost; Copy of the oito plan for the proposed conditional uao request. -16- R"yoat t ellov 0 t it, a iyional 1360eA tertB Gas yam,^ -,a; ConB �t ®tor e9 sban outd .9 yon icprs. tr b "`W C/11/J .r:,;, '�"1J'uLY �: ,' .�l ; 1, � '� � "r ,j)� •" - - ' `r. "� ��•{ -' � lar �t �""' r "�"".+ • � t J t r : "'-w' I • � "�.� • ! l �' 7, iYA674 / a•J j' , �� j` (/( • = �'�'�•+"', / {; , '`t„u „� ill, f� • a� "ti`s-%`�aC .. q _ ��^``.:7 i • i yl�"i e' '""^tl • C '`+a �� -e.�s••'1 .t -L'1f7!] �"'�"`a„`.::xaa `.,K-:•�,�.,,+ �� tom, f •�Ir• ;±.J•��'�l/�"`ter HIGHWAY N0. FIT OT PI -Ai LORE55 ✓ •`i'-i�•I "• ' � PERN{T M64BER L+'GAL CRIPTION LOT A BLOCK ADDITION 50, FT. OF 31TE ARCL�00 50. FT. OF AREA OCCLPIED BY BUILDING INSTRL+CTICNS TO kOPL'CANT i INIs PORN NCCO NOT OC V3C0 WHEN PLOT PLANO "DRAWN TO ]CAL[ ARC PILED WITH THE PCR'✓IT APPLICATION. 1 %OR NCL OV ILOING3. PROVIDE THE POLLOWINO INPORNATIONI LOCATION Or PROPO3CO CONSTRUCTION ANO C'ISTING I rP ROVCN[MT 3. 3NOW OV/101 NG 31 T[ AND aETOACR Df.•[N3I ON3. SMOV LASNCNTa. P{NI SN CONTOUR] OR 11 —cc. •"i R3T PLOOR CLCVATION3. aT.[CT CL[V AT ION AND SCVCR CLCV ATIOR. $h �v LOCATION OP -✓ATC R, 3C'✓CR, CA3, 'N0 [LCCTRICAL 3CRV ICL LINES. 3NOV LDCATION3 OP ]VPv[T 1IN3. ]P:CIrl TN! USC CP CAC. OUILCIUC .ND CAC N NADOR PORTION THERxaP. '�QEf >��ii+�u.� :. _ : ---..._-ga t j tosid ?mocks 5ceePAI;V INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE CAH GRAG4 S'UARE E7UAL5 1014" BY {CI -0" i �% -1--I-i-I'-I- I -I-I•- -I4- I I- I t I ...L_f__� I I# N ►- c -i-i-4-1 -I i I AR Er I I77 77 i I I I I�Ilillllli�� I � ��iill ttw. <.•x�tT Incl fNa a,a0aaa0 nnrtruel,an w.R wn+e.m ea fn. a,m.+.vaNa Ani ua.a an„�- .Rw. ve sn.s Pa sNAwan w..I n. ,NNN+.+Haul ................a...a...a..a.....aa..a...a....a....................a..r....................r... Y.......,... {+oR sITV USE S.uv) 2 -.NCO APPROVCD OT DATE Council Agenda - 11/12/85 13. Consideration of a Request for Rezoning and Preliminary Plat Approval - Applicant. John Sandberg. (G.A. ) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Mr. John Sandberg is proposing to rezone and r eplat portions of existing blocks and lots in The Meadows Addition. we have received comments from our Consulting Planner and Consulting Engineering Firm in regarde to hie request. we have not at this time reviewed Mr. Sandborg-s request in its entirety, as it has not been submitted to us with all the appropriate information. However, Mr. Sandberg is proposing to meet with City staff on Tuesday with his request addressing all of the concerns of the Consulting Engineer and Consulting Planner. If Mr. Sandberg does meet with City staff on Tuesday, we will have a formal recommendation to give to Council members. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Approve the rezoning request to rezone from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential), and R-2 (Single and Two -Family Residential) to R-3 (Medium Density Residential). Approve the request to rapt at existing R-1 and R-2 lots into R-3 lots. 2. Deny the rezoning request to rezone from R-1 (Single Family Residential) to R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) and R-2 (Single and Two Family Residential) to R-3 (Medium Donaity Residential), and deny the request to repl at existing R-1 and R-2 lots into R-3 Iota. 3. If Mr. Sandberg has all of his information to us and we feel it is sufficient, we will have a rocommand ation for Council members to hoar his request. 11owovor, if his information is incomplete, we will ask you to acknowledge his request but not hoar anything further on this. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff has no recommendation at this time, as we do not have sufficient information to give you a recommendation. 11owovar, Mr. Sandberg has indicated he would like to moot with us on Tuesday. If we have sufficient information on Tuesday, we will have a recommendation for you at that time. Howavar, if the information hoc not boon received and it is sufficient to pace on to City Council members, wo will auk that you not hoar his requests at the mooting. D. SUPPORTING DATA: Copy of the location of the proposed rozoning and replotting request; !( Copy of comments from Consulting Engineering Firm and Consulting Planning Firm. -19- r I 1 1 4TL ---------------------- Rezoning request to rezoning from R-1 to �\ R-2, and R-2 to R-3. Request to repiat existing R-1, R-2 lots into R-3 lots. i o Applicant, Salm Sandberg r ` r I , i I a l i 4 -nom,,,___ � *. ^ 'moi � 1 • � • t,: �i • � �1"... Q Consultinq Planners One Groveland Terrace (612)377•;1536 Minneapolis Minnesota 55403 Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban/Incorporated MEMORANDUM DATE: 24 October 1985 TO: Monticello Planning Commission FROM: C. John U ban, Principal Planner RE: Review of Kealy Heights 1. The proposed plat and rezoning involves approximately 15 acres of R-1 zoned land which was previously platted for single family lots. The proposed plan shows single family lots along the railroad right-of-way to the north and along the park land to the• east, as well as single family off Prairie Road to the south. The undeveloped land to the west is zoned R-1. Interior to the development are seven proposed multiple family buildings with an additional eighth building at the entrance off Nest River Street. The plan does not indicate any type of architecture for the buildings, does not show parking arrangements or garages, and it does not show circulation or landscaping, all which are necessary to review multiple family development. 2. The buildings, as illustrated, are not adequately separated from the adjacent single family lots. Often times the buildings are as close within 30 feet to the roadway, directly in front of other single family lots. There is no common space or circulation shown here to illustrate how this development would work. 3. The plan overall looks ill-conceived and shows a great deal of insensitivity in trying to blend single family and multiple family together in a single plat. All traffic going to and from the units will have to go through what is otherwise a single family neighborhood, allowing then a poor integration of traffic throughout the whole plat. L. The plan does not illustrate any overriding factors of the C , site or of surrounding circumstances that might require rezoning. A change to the comprehensive plan would also have to be made in completing this project. IREVIEW OF KEALY HEIGHTS Page 2 5. A total of 194 units is being proposed on 12.26 acres for a density of 15.82 units per acre. The previous plat showed 34 single family lots. This is nearly a six fold increase in density. 6. The plan is inconsistent with the existing zoning, comprehensive plan, and the surrounding land uses. It is our opinion that this proposed plan would have detrimental effect on the adjacent properties because of its design, density, circulation, and lack of appropriate details necessary to review such a project. O�!� L ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON &ASSOCIATES, INC. Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors October 28, 1985 City of Monticello 250 East Broadway Street Monticello, Minnesota 55362 Attn: Mr. Gary Anderson Zoning Administrator Re: Kealy Heights Plat Dear Gary: The preliminary plat of Kealy Heights, a re -plat of a portion of the Meadows Ci plat, has been received and reviewed by my staff. We offer the following comments for your consideration. A copy of the preliminary plat indicating our notations and comments is also enclosed for your review. The plat description as shown is not complete in that it does not contain the description of the existing platted streets to be vacated. •Also, there is not a description of the parcel of land outside of the northwest corner of the Meadows plat that is being included in the Kealy Heights plat. We have shown in orange on the enclosed plan those streets being vacated. The City Council will need to take action to vacate these streets prior to plat recording, and also to vacate the existing easements along and at the front property lines of the existing platted lots. These "to be vacated" easements are shown in pink on the enclosed print of the preliminary plat. The sequence for re -zoning is questioned. If the re -zoning takes place prior to re -platting the Meadows plat as Kealy Heights, then the descriptions as shown are incomplete. We have noted in red additional descriptions that will be needed. if the re -zoning is accomplished after the Kealy Heights plat is recorded, then the descriptions will again be different. The lot area per unit seems to be in order. The lot frontage for Lots 3, 4. 9, and l0.may need a variance from Subdivision Ordinance 10-2-2 (Definitions) Lot Frontage if the lot width definition in Ordinance 10-3-4 (A) are one in the same. See also Section 11-5-2 (B). �3 2021 East Hennepin Avenue - Suite 238 - Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 - 6121331- 8660 Page Two Mr. Gary Anderson October 28, 1985 Further referring to Subdivision Ordinance 11-4-1, other items such as sanitary sewer and water layout, drainage plan, grading plan, soil survey and topographic data needs to be submitted for review. At this time the preliminary plat layout is feasible and we would recommend approval providing all of the other required data is submitted for our review. Yours very truly, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON 8 ASSOCIATES, NCINC.• 1 M-6 w ohnP. Badalicn, P.E. ity Engineer JPB:min enclosure cc: Meyer-Rohlin, Inc. G D rj