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