Planning Commission Agenda 08-06-2020 (Joint Meeting)AGENDA
SPECIAL/JOINT MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY
COUNCIL
Tuesday, August 6th, 2019 - 4:45 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Sam Murdoff, John Alstad, Marc Simpson, Alison Zimpfer, Paul Konsor
City Council: Brian Stumpf, Jim Davidson, Bill Fair, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Jacob Thunander, Ron
Hackenmueller
1. Call to Order
2. Concept Stage Planned Unit Development proposal for a 4 story, 80 unit residential
multi-family apartment complex
Applicant: Kent Kj ellberg
3 . Adj ournment
������li�d� ��r�����1��� 4����Oi�4A���dh ���t
4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Angela Schumann
Mayor Stumpf and Monticello City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM: Stephen Grittman
DATE: July 29, 2019
RE: Monticello — Kjellberg/Firm Ground Multi Family Project—
Concept PUD Review
NAC FILE NO: 191.07 — 19.12
PLANNING CASE NO:
PROPERTY ID: 155-221-100-0010
Application and Proiect Description. This memorandum reviews the elements of a
proposed concept plan for a Planned Unit Development on the parcel bound by School
Boulevard and commercial buildings to the north, townhomes to the east, Walmart to
the west and a vacant lot/power lines (owned by Walmart) to the south. The parcel
currently has some development upon it. An insurance company has a portion of the
northeast corner of the parcel of approximately .8 acres, and a veterinary clinic occupies
a separate parcel in the northwest corner. The total PUD (including both commercial
lots) is approximately 4.4 acres in size. Access to future development on the property is
provided from School Boulevard via an internal private drive.
The proposed project consists of an 80 unit multi-family building in the south portion of
the property. The site plan shows one access point from School Boulevard that would
be shared between the apartment complex, the insurance company and the veterinary
hospital to minimize road connections.
The proposal is made by Kent Kjellberg, the property owner, and Tom Wasmoen,
representing architect Firm Ground.
The property is currently zoned B-4 Regional Business District. It was originally
developed to be a multi-building commercial PUD, expecting a future commercial
building to occupy the south portion of the site. However, the developers are asking for
the parcel to be rezoned to PUD, Planned Unit Development District, utilizing the R-4,
Medium-High Residence District as the baseline zoning for comparative purposes.
Approximately two-thirds of an acre (out of the 3.6 acres owned by the applicants) will
continue to be used for commercial purposes within the amended PUD for the existing
insurance company.
As stated, the housing portion of the project consists of a general market apartment
building of 80 units total. The apartment complex will have a variety of studio, one
bedroom and two bedroom options.
The other portion of this project consists of parking and open space, along with a
redesign of the existing parking for the adjacent businesses. The applicant is proposing
to remove the current parking stalls and modify them to have a common central drive
area between the two parking spaces for a more direct access route to the apartment
building.
Parking for the adjoining businesses would consist of 35 stalls for the office building and
30 stalls for the pet hospital. Parking requirements for the two commercial sites result in
some limited concerns. The original plan for the PUD provided parking for office space
at a rate of one space per 200 square feet of net floor space. The office building is
approximately 10,600 square feet in floor area above grade with a 2,760 square foot
basement that is utilized for various activities. At one parking space per 300 square
feet, the office building would be expected to require 35 spaces plus an additional 9
spaces for the basement use. The existing conditions show 44 parking spaces along
the front of the office building.
For the veterinary clinic, the ordinance requires one space per 250 square feet. The
building has approximately 6,960 square feet above grade, plus a mezzanine and some
basement space. The requirement for space above grade would be approximately 31
spaces. The allotted 30 spaces are close to this standard, and would reasonably
account for non-productive floor space such as mechanical rooms and restrooms.
The multi-family housing project would provide 82 uncovered, on grade parking stalls,
26 indoor, at-grade parking stalls on the west side of the building and 74 underground,
below grade parking stalls on the east side of the building.
The city's zoning ordinance states a density for the R-4 district of 10-25 units per acre.
With the parcel size of approximately 3.6 acres, the residential density is approximately
22 units per acre. However, because a portion of this parcel also provides land for an
existing commercial building and its associated parking, it is estimated that only 2.8
acres of land are solely for R-4 purposes (apartment building, greenspace, parking and
including the entire access driveway). With this size in mind, the residential density is at
least 28 units per acre, and would be more if the area of the main driveway is not
included in the residential density.
For the project to proceed, there are a series of City approvals that will be required:
o PUD Concept Review (the subject of this report). The project requires a PUD as
it proposes to develop a combination of separate land parcels and a mix of land
uses that will share access to School Boulevard. In addition, certain aspects of
site design may require flexibility.
Further approvals would include the following:
o Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendment reguiding the proposed residential
parcel from "Places to Shop" to "Places to Live";
o Preliminary and Final Plats incorporating the residential and commercial parcels,
dedicating the appropriate right of way, and subdividing the property for the
proposed commercial and residential uses;
o Rezoning to R-4, Medium and High Density Residential District;
The current proposal is for a PUD Concept Plan review, which is not a formal zoning
application, but is intended to provide the applicant an opportunity to get City feedback
on a potential development proposal prior to more formal zoning review and the
extensive supporting materials that such reviews require. The Planning Commission
and City Council will have the opportunity to review the project, ask questions of the
proposer, and provide comment as to the issues and elements raised by the project.
The neighboring property owners have been notified of the meeting, but it is not a
formal public hearing. This memorandum provides an overview of the project and will
serve as an outline for the discussion. No formal approval or denial is offered for a
Concept Review.
However, it is vital that Planning Commission and City Council members engage in a
frank and open discussion of the project benefits and potential issues. The Concept
Review process is most valuable when the applicants have the opportunity to
understand how the City is likely to look at the project and the potential issues it
presents. In this way, the subsequent land use and development details can be more
finely tuned to address City policy elements.
PUD Concept Review Criteria. The first stage consists of an informal Concept Plan
review which is separate from the formal PUD application which will follow the Concept
Review step. The Ordinance identifies the purpose of Planned Unit Development as
follows:
(1) Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district is to
provide greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and non-
residential areas in order to maximize public values and achieve more
creative development outcomes while remaining economically viable and
2
marketable. This is achieved by undertaking a process that results in a
development outcome exceeding that which is typically achievable
through the conventional zoning district. The City reserves the right to
deny the PUD rezoning and direct the developer to re-apply under the
standard applicable zoning district.
PUD Concept reviews are to proceed as follows:
(a) PUD Concept Proposal
Prior to submitting formal development stage PUD, preliminary plat
(as applicable) and rezoning applications for the proposed
development, the applicant may, at its option, prepare an informal
concept plan and present it to the Planning Commission and City
Council at a concurrent work session, as scheduled by the
Community Development Department. The purpose of the Concept
Proposal is to:
1. Provide preliminary feedback on the concept plan in
collaboration between the applicant, general public, Planning
Commission, and City Council;
2. Provide a forum for public comment on the PUD prior to a
requirement for extensive engineering and other plans.
3. Provide a forum to identify potential issues and benefits of the
proposal which can be addressed at succeeding stages of PUD
design and review.
The intent of Concept Proposal review is to consider the general acceptability of
the proposed land use, and identify potential issues that may guide the City's
later consideration of a full PUD application. The City Council and Planning
Commission meet in joint session to provide feedback to the developer, and may
include an opportunity for informal public comment as they deem appropriate.
Staff Preliminarv Comments and Issues. For this proposal, the primary
considerations evident at this point in the process include the following elements:
Land Use. As stated above, the proposed land use is currently zoned B-4
Regional Business District, and guided "Places to Shop" (Commercial). The
property is a component of what was originally envisioned to provide land for
commercial buildings in addition to the two that have been constructed. The
applicants propose the parcel to be reguided to accommodate a mixed
commercial/residential category that would support a multiple family
development. Monticello's code states that B-4 property can be rezoned if it
is not in a prime commercial area.
This aspect is the key issue for City officials. As the south portion of the
property does not have direct visibility to a major roadway (School Boulevard
3
in this case), does the City consider this site an important component of its
commercial land inventory? If not, multiple family residential may be
considered a reasonable use given the mix of other uses in the immediate
area, including townhomes to the east, and mobile home park to the south.
While the real estate market had significantly slowed during the last several
years, commercial development continued in some measure, occurring
almost exclusively in more highly exposed areas. The proposed site would
appear to be a reasonable candidate for non-commercial uses. City officials
need to determine if they consider this property non-prime commercial area in
order to be amended.
Parking and Circulation. While the initial concept plan appears to provide
adequate parking for all uses, there is a concern over circulation in and
around the entry area for the residential building. Access is indirect at best,
and delivery vehicles would likely have difficulty navigating the many turns
necessary to get access to the entry and/or service locations on the site.
Moreover, the circuitous driveway path through the residential parking lot
reduces the visual impression of the use — it would make a visitor feel as if the
building were merely tucked behind a somewhat randomly organized parking
lot. A recommended change would be to eliminate the parking directly in front
of the building entrance and create a more unified landscaped space — a
circular drive would be one possibility. Parking lost to this amenity would
need to relocated to the sides of the project. However, this change would
place the building as the principal focus of the site, rather than the parking lot.
One of the objectives of the R-4 district was to reduce the visual impact of
large multi-family parking lots along the main access road. In this case,
because the main access road is a significant distance from the building,
recreating this visual open space amenity should be addressed — the concept
noted above is one suggestion to accomplish this objective.
iii. Building Height and Architecture. The applicants have provided preliminary
details relating to building design at this stage. Staff would note that the R-4
zoning district encourages certain specific elements related to roof line,
building materials, and overall design. With regard to roofline, the R-4 code
requires 5:12 pitch roof and to avoid a single continuous ridgeline.
The applicant is asking for flexibility with the roof line, as they are not
proposing a 5:12 roof. The applicant is proposing a flat roof to achieve the
aesthetic they have envisioned. This design has become a common
architectural style for multiple family projects, and can be accommodated
through the PUD. Indeed, staff has discussed amending this requirement to
avoid the need for PUD flexibility.
0
The proposed building is 4 stories, which would be expected to rise to
approximately 50 feet in height. On the west side of the building, the at-grade
floor includes parking garage, increasing covered parking (in addition to the
underground parking level) to the quantities noted above, consistent with the
intent of the R-4 District standards. The central portion of the building would
include common areas, and the east portion of the first level would contain
apartment units.
Building materials are conceptually illustrated in this submission, but should
eventually be specified to include a mixture of masonry and composition
siding, rather than vinyl. In addition, PUD design is expected to exceed the
basic district standards in exchange for the flexibility offered under the PUD
process.
iv. Site Planning. A preliminary site plan is provided as a part of the PUD
Concept plan. Staff notes that specific requirements for open space and
extensive setback regulations apply in the R-4 District. If the applicants
propose to vary from the base zoning standards, they should provide
rationale that supports the variation, and note the additional amenities or
elements of the site plan that balance the proposed flexibility.
a. The zoning requirements for the setback standards need to be taken into
consideration. The setback standards are as follows:
40 feet, corner side
30 feet, interior side
40 feet, rear
100 feet, front
Clear open space from
Clear open space from
ROW - 60 feet,
property line - 40 feet.
b. The site plan does not identify the setbacks. Estimating from the scale on
the site plan, all setbacks appear to be consistent with the required
amount. As noted, however, the front setback is somewhat misleading as
it applies to this site, given the mixed-use nature of the overall project site.
v. Open Space. Based on the site plan and concept narrative provided by the
applicant, the amount of open space was not detailed, although the plan
shows open common space in the courtyard on the south side of the building,
and the site abuts a large powerline corridor that will remain open, although
this area has limited use, and is owned by the adjoining Walmart property.
To meet the zoning standards, the applicant must propose at least 500
square feet of common open space per dwelling unit. The high amount of
impervious surface (driveways, parking, sidewalks and principal buildings)
appears to limit usable green space available to future residents of the
project. Maximizing the utility and attractiveness of the open space on the
site would be an important design consideration as the project moves
5
forward, both as a component of residential environment and to meet the
City's intended amenities requirement under a PUD option.
a. Trails. The addition of trails on the property will require further review.
Trail locations will be important internal to the project, as well as along the
major roadways serving the project. Various trail connections should be
considered. The applicant should explore working with the townhome
property owner to the east to provide a cross connection to their trail which
extends out to the sidewalk on School Boulevard and east to Edmonson
Avenue.
Connecting the multi-family residential apartment to the trail along the
main roadway of School Boulevard should be the first priority since it has
a major connection to the rest of the city and the nearby parks. Another
connection to consider would be a short trail connecting the property to
Walmart's parking lot for convenience of using the city's commercial
amenities.
The third possible connection to contemplate would be a connection to the
south which would join to Kjellberg Court and then to another trail that
connects to 89t" street, which leads to another nearby park, Featherstone
Park. This southern option would need to be explored as it would go
under power lines.
b. Sidewalks. The applicant's proposed total sidewalk area was not
mentioned. The site plan shows sidewalks leading from the parking area
to the front of the principal building and two other sidewalks leading to
each side of the principal building.
c. Landscaping and Buffering. The project will be subject to a buffer
requirement between the commercial and residential properties, requiring
specific additional setbacks and landscaping to screen and buffer the
differing land uses. This requirement is likely to result in additional
setback and landscaping beyond that shown on the Concept plan.
Landscaping is recommended along the west property line to screen from
the adjacent Walmart, as well as along the southern property line to
provide a buffer to the power lines.
vi. The City Engineer has provided additional comment per the attached letter
dated July 24t", 2019.
Summary. As noted, the Planning Commission and City Council provide comment and
feedback to the developer at the Concept Review level. City officials should identify any
areas of concern that would require amendment to avoid the potential for eventual
denial, as well as any elements of the concept that the City would find essential for
eventual approval.
0
Specific comment should address the following potential issues:
1. Overall Land Use — is the site appropriate to change from commercial to
residential?
2. Density — Calculation of density on the available site is complicated, given the
mixed uses and shared aspect of the main driveway.
3. Building Design — Are there aspects of the concept sketches that warrant
comment at this point?
4. Parking Supply, and the access locations of the covered parking garages — are
they functional? How does parking supply impact the commercial uses in the
PUD?
5. Building Materials and Architecture — Preliminary at this point.
6. Landscaping, green space, setbacks, and other site plan improvements — How
adequately does the plan provide access to trails and open space?
7. Circulation and Access — Consider conceptual changes to the front entry drives
to refocus on the building, rather than on parking.
8. Internal private street design and circulation.
9. Engineering comments and recommendations.
The notes listed above acknowledge that a significant amount of detail will be added as
the project proceeds to a more advanced stage of review.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Aerial Image Subject Site
B. Concept Narrative
C. Concept Site Plan
D. Concept Elevations
E. City Engineer's Letter
F. Official Zoning Map
G. Excerpts, R-4 Zoning Ordinance
H. Excerpts, Comprehensive Plan — Land Use
I. 2017 Housing Study
7
o � .�. . - _ .
� " ,. '�� � ... � � r~� ` � � h y ' S�f�`i� . * .r�' � . .. � �� � .-
C •�• � , __. � �y ���Gi�� � ' %' r i.r� � :� '� �
O '-�i„"�� `�..�,: • � 4r..' , � � � � Y � � s ," � . �� r -;::
� �^ _ � - r � � *� �'� f ..,., Ss-. � '.. � � �P . .. � '1 ``s r N
p , ' i� , � . �-;� �
. . � - . . r .-�r . � �c,+ , r �:'. s�
fi�
� 4 + � f A�, �.. s . .• �, .::
, � � 1, ��* {w� ` •'�" { } � ,' I � � i`J.
r {
U � �^. � �i� C+ �+ yy� , � ,�. I C'
� 13 3�.`J'd3 � v W" � � r�'v. s�"v' .a. .�' ` � �� ,�
� � � .�� a.� e� 6' -, � � �,���.� ., � �.. ;. .� � �
,.
� , r.
, , � : ':
� � ' � IF�a� t; s�'}.. � �� �i �� �u�7�� �i'" � ',..�!. � r� r � �
L � �, u7-. u7 ,
U . . . . . . • • � . . . . , � . T - � ' . � �
�
3N 311t1�Nc�5N�Wf73
� _ �� * �; �
-`� � �
� 1 . � 2i 1� a�I trH ��l �] r"' �`'"�
� /j �
� � � � � , 4v � ,,� /,� �. � I
�" . �, �� 3
, � , ��-; � . � ��n� 1� - . ,r��. � �� ��
I. - M � : g^� � i � � % ' . - . . �
�- �.i t. �, � ' I I I� � 1 11'
k f W.
"� ' :�(r�`�.. '�. �� I �I f._ � ' '�,�.
�--� � � • .� , z
� � . �: � . �1� Q�bN�2i0 � � y �' � �1 . , _�
� y�, — . ' . ! .. � • �. ,� _ �;
Q C+ N" r � �j '� r..
� i,
p r � . 0� �.H 7 ° - . r-- .' � ' t, � v `�"�. � ..�.
r k
� !
� F w ����� j ����.� ��' , ' �.r
a � , ,� :f �' �, '
-.�/'� i.
F! _ ' r
, r
� -� �'=_- � a�' � r . .� . � �_.- _ a
�;, � �t ,�, � �' ;�
� • ,, ��,� � '� ` "� ,�... ��� j , ' � °
� ��� r• -.�,h ' � r -:�3E. ';.,y - - .
_i t . r ,.r- ,'ir , , � J- w
� ` .'�� N � �--^
� � e' ��a: � f �'�'�f^- � i� .
�
•.
� � - � P �� � � f
. t
.
�
� _� _ LK� ~��-: .` . �,� �ii �� .
1.'
" 5� ��.: f � � .
�, i
� � ��� e _ ��� � R \ �r. s F � � � h
��11 � ���. � �V , �F ' P�; ��k'� c� 3�` � �.'. �n.,t � , '
W L lC} �7\.,! r� � • 'y.:. .t , .�.t y, }.� �.� •
� N l,[7 `V� � �. � • � � �ls�� 'a��� :
� � � v ��
c � °� � Da ' 1 � ' ' `�`' �� '� ��`.�'-�� �-,'�'i
U � ' �' '' ` '
Q � - �C� ^ v y� ` ,�� � . _ �,.F'' `,�.
v' 'r J � ' I +
� a� ,:-' � � - : � . ,'.�"'� .
V � . � f�. 4 E; '�' ya P.'��// �;.�ti. - r y ,��A,
� •� � .� G � _ . � v 1 � ` ���i I�r ��;•�
� � 's�. � .t � � . .' S } �: t ��
0 m � z r M N - �� -""��- ��
U � . . �, - ' ,�„ : � �'�- Y;/' « � `/. ... �
L a� � � _" ' _. ` ,��''. , �, ,��_,�. � �� � � � _. , �a
O� ■� +*f r -r �R + ._ T '� � F�• � � ���r��F�Q� t�'..r_"...+, �
� . - _ � _. 4' u�Yp � `iV � a? l,['f
�
N � � � � ~ ' � E' � � ' n� '• . W �1�" � � �
�
� �F`'� ' '� , W � �. � ���''r ��' I F � ��
� Q - �n f ' i"�'"
� +, � _ ,�y ,.. '- .. "'_ +� ' � �,�i° F'
� p -e� _� r M1� ` .. e ` . ' f ,�• ' f .� . � _-�, �I '�•' �'
L.L � 4r � �' r� ,` � +` � �, A � . . �+!'w : " a , ",� i .
� � �}•" . t C] � � _, �. I � �.�' �;, . /A'� '+�' *'S"` .
� _ ,,� . .. � • 'i -; � . `• � � , M � �'! . .'' ��
� O , �`� �::.,�.,�, �t� � ���'b- � � Q '�5 � ' � � `. �� �' � �� ��. � �* ��.+ �
� Q �. �.-.,,�^ . lC7l: �r �r� �`• tV �7'Q � - _r �°" � J` +�, _ w� _ �•� . _ .
, , . . .
— O ` � � �z ��' ' ,.� i- �a`+' J' , �;+��° = :
_ • ,
O .. � . .� ,
� r
� •,_, � � .� � • ,�.. _ � ' ,�°`' � _ . �{F �� •�'�,.. / . � i `
� O • yrti ,+�� iri 4 ��.. . C] ' +�". ... s:` .� �z w <w `" ' * w
�
,"��, � r , o ' ,; �'' C ,�,� 1E: �', �
Y N w 7�`► °" "`� ., :r " '�►i. '�' ` * � ! - „ ' . F:� _�I ° M
� �� �,_ . .
P'�
� N �{ `" `- N , w` � `; ^_ � � ��� = �. i�,.
� ". � � � .. �
� ,S '��• `�� �,- r .--~-' ' f'`_
� � . � � Z�`.�`��� _ .. . ` �:.� _ M, , ��,^ �� � �„� ,_ :�..
..�
C� FIRM GROUN�
� ���� ,:,��_ �uv��� r�.;��.� �. �r��� ���� ����m���.�. ���� � .����� .���;����
July 8, 2019
City of Monticello Community Development
Attn: Angela Schumann
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Angela,
For your review are Firm Ground's application items for the PUD Concept Proposal of the property
described in the attached Land Use Application form. The checklist item description is copied in bold
with Firm Ground's response written below.
• A listing of contact information including name(s), address(es) and phone number(s) of: the
owner of record, authorized agents or representatives, engineer, surveyor, and any other
relevant associates
Owner of record:
Kirk Kjellberg
1000 Kjellberg's Park
Monticello, MN 55362
Phone: 763-295-2931
Email: Kjellber�spark(cr�,�mail.com
Owner's Development Consultant:
Christopher Haas
2680 Sneling Ave N, Suite 100
Roseville, MN 55113
Phone: 612-810-4227
Email: c.haas(a�kwcommercial.com
Owner's representative (Architect)
Tom Wasmoen
275 Market Street, Suite 368
Minneapolis, MN 55405
Phone: 612-819-183 5
Email: twasmoen(cr�,firm�roundae.com
Once we move to the second PUD phase, a Civil Engineer/surveyor will be added to the proj ect team.
Firm Ground Architects & Engineers Inc. 612.819.1835 I
275 Market Street, Suite 368 info@firmgroundae.cor
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 www.firmgroundae.cor ho z;.�
�� FIRM GROUN�
A listing of the following site data: Address, current zoning, parcel size in acres and square
feet and current legal description(s);
o Address: site does not have a street address; it is located on School Boulevard
immediately east of the Walmart located at 9320 Cedar Street. The Parcel ID is
155221000010
o Current zoning: B-4
o Parcel size: 152,151.33 square feet, 3.49 acres
o Current partial legal description: Sect-14 Twp-121 Range-025 MONTICELLO
BUSINESS CENTER 6TH OUTLOT A
• A narrative explaining the applicant's proposed objectives for the PUD amendment, and
public values that the applicant believes may be achieved by the project
The applicant seeks to build an 80-unit apartment building that offers a modern, comfortable and
convenient lifestyle for renters in Monticello. With the consistently full occupancy of the nearby
Monticello Crossings, we believe that another multi family development of this scale would be a benefit
to the community as another distinctive living option.
We are proposing a mix of studios, 1 bedroom, and 2-bedroom units. Most units will either be 1
bedroom or 2 bedrooms. Main access to the building will occur at the main entrance under a covered
drop off that faces north. This is accessed from a driveway from School Boulevard to the north that also
serves the existing businesses in the parcels on the interior borders of the property in question. The site
access between these two parcels (which are also owned by Mr. Kjellberg) and the proposed
development will be designed to maximize ease of access and efficiency. Ramp access to the below
grade parking level is located on the eastern half of the building while covered on grade parking will be
provided in the western wing on the first floor. Further surface parking will also be provided to meet
requirements. Pedestrian pathways will be provided across the site to connect all the entrances as well
as outdoor amenity space. This site design will facilitate a distinguished and attractive living destination
while also accommodating and strengthening the adjacent businesses.
The design intent of the new building is to apply the latest technology, materials and trends in lifestyle
housing in an appealing combination that will capture a certain timelessness and be fresh and attractive
for years to come. Materials will be selected for their durability, constructability and textural appeal. A
combination of brick, glass, and fiber cement siding will create an interesting fa�ade and low
Firm Ground Architects & Engineers Inc.
275 Market Street, Suite 368
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405
612.819.1835
info@firmgroundae. cor
www.firmgroundae. cor
�� FIRM GROUN�
maintenance exterior finishes. The proposed material palette is both contemporary and dignified. Dark
grey brick and rhythmic white paneling are accented by areas of the warmer sandstone-textured fiber
cement and sleek vertical ribbed fiber cement. It is important to create a dynamic and balanced fa�ade
with the way in which the materials accent each other.
80 units in the proj ect allow us to dedicate space to a club room and lounge for social activities to
support the creation of a sense of community. These rooms will provide comfy and cozy space, filled
with natural light and a hearth to create a focal point and sense of place.
The mailboxes will be incorporated into the area to further create opportunities for spontaneous social
interactions and tables, chairs and a coffee server will be located in this area to give people a reason to
tarry in the space a bit longer and enj oy the company of their neighbors.
Exterior space will include a patio with built in BBQ grills, trellis or other space defining elements that
make the patio both attractive and useful. This space is envisioned as another bustling social gathering
space for residents and friends to unwind and relax with one another. With an attractive contemporary
building and units design, this proposed project has the potential to be a popular addition to Monticello's
renter housing market. We believe it will enhance Monticello's businesses by attracting younger renters
and families to the community who seek modern housing amenities in a growing and charming
community near the Twin Cities.
• A listing of general information including the number of proposed residential units,
commercial and industrial land uses by category of use, public use areas including a
description of proposed use, and any other land use proposed as part of the PUD
0 80 proposed residential uses
o The sole proposed use for this site is the 80 unit apartment building with associated
resident amenities and parking. We are also proposing re-calibrating parking for the
existing businesses on the north part of the land to work concurrently with our site
circulation and access.
• Calculation of the proposed density of the project and the potential density under standard
zoning regulations, including both gross density and net density, accounting for
Firm Ground Architects & Engineers Inc.
275 Market Street, Suite 368
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405
612.819.1835
info@firmgroundae. cor
www.firmgroundae. cor
�� FIRM GROUN�
developable and undevelopable land. Undevelopable land shall include all wetlands,
floodplains, sensitive ecological areas identified in the Natural Resource Inventory, slopes
greater than 18%, poor soils and areas of concentrated woodlands
o While a survey or soil borings has not yet been completed at this stage, we do not
anticipate any undevelopable land on the parcel
o The parcel area of 3.49 acres provides a unit density of 22.92 units/acre, which is under
the R-4 maximum density of 25
• Outline a conceptual development schedule indicating the approximate date when
construction of the project, or stages of the same, can be expected to begin and be
completed (including the proposed phasing of construction of public improvements and
recreational and common space areas)
o Ideally, we'd be looking for a late fall (2019) or early spring (2020) construction start
assuming final City approvals happen at the September 23 City Council meeting.
Typically for a proj ect of this size, we' d expect a 12 month construction timeframe.
• A listing of the areas of flexibility from the standard zoning sought through the use of PUD
design.
o Following the R-4 zoning standards, we believe we will meet building setback, design,
parking and density standards.
o We would be seeking flexibility regarding roof design- it is our understanding that a
pitched 5:12 roof is required. To achieve the aesthetic we have envisioned, we would ask
for flexibility to have a flat roof with parapets.
o Once we engage with a civil engineer to prepare a formal site plan, we may seek
flexibility for parking setbacks depending on what the City will require.
Firm Ground Architects & Engineers Inc. 612.819.1835 I
275 Market Street, Suite 368 info@firmgroundae.cor
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 www.firmgroundae.cor ho z;.�
Z
O
��w e ��=
p�s0=
z � ��
� �� - �<= e ` o.
_ �a
�
--a vS v_
�.. � �--w� Em:
� �c €awo E�
n� =an�,
Z
O
a� o O'_
z � ��
� �� - �<= e ` o.
_ �a
— ..i �� ^� ^ _^ -
� ��.��. -- —_ —�_ --- �—� -
:�;�,.�� .. o� � � � � � � � � n = -
1 =a1 �� 1
� � t ■
.�.� V�i V�i i�., �.,i �J nF i
� ■�■
�I � r. i�., �., i�� i�F �.�.,.
�I � IL`J � �J L'JI �
- + � �i �
,� ..:�� I�I � � _ _ 1
�
mo � � m° �
n o
� 9�� o�e � ❑❑
o —
a o
0 0 � � e
�
o�r z��" ���
� �
� �m �
�� .e ,oe .e ,oe .e ,oe
�
Z
O
a� o O��
z � ��
� �� - �<= e ` o.
_ �a
,IO
,I�
��:
1�:
�
�
�
�
■
�
-
�
— �
-- — � -
- = � =
_ -'� � � 1
�
. -- -- --
�''���1'� , . �Ik FA ���, �
��- ,�
���
,�
�:,. ,
� � ��
�P
,�
<}
�
wr .�}�;
:#�
QN
L
Z�
A � �
O�
�
w/ �
IL�
V N
U
�N
;;� � U
:.�} � �
I
:4 —
s�
;�
I
�., , � ,
� .si � y;��„;
�� � ti�`r
�� ��
� , �,��
�' '��:.
� ��~- I � :r`.i
"� ! �i ^'
. �,';
�' � � ��� ', ;��x,
z
, r � �,�'
�" � � ' � � f r�t-,
`/. v
. �'. � r S✓�f � S / i 7`�
ij '�l� ����f�_.
. '/ i /.'.;..
+� � j � �� ; � �l % .
I. �, 1
�
0
U
c�
z
W
m
�
�
z
�
�
J
0
a
Q
w
z
z
�
�
W
�
z
w
>
a
a
z
w
X
0
�
ws k�
July 24, 2019
Matt Leonard
City Engineer/Public Works Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Kjellberg Firm Ground Apartments
Concept Stage PUD Plan Review
City Project No. 2019-027
WSB Project No. R-014468-000
Dear Mr. Leonard:
We have reviewed the conceptual site plan received on July 8, 2019 and offer the following
comments:
The site plan shows the access from School Blvd shifted to the west. It is recommended
to not shift the access and utilize the existing access location in order to maintain the
existing right turn and left turn lane configurations from School Blvd and to maintain
adequate access spacing along School Blvd. Shifting the access to the west would
require construction modifications of the existing concrete medians on School Blvd and
would shorten the eastbound right turn lane length. These modifications don't appear to
be feasible and would be at the applicants cost.
2. The applicant shall provide an estimate of the average daily traffic and peak hour traffic
generated from the entire site as developed.
3. A minimum 6-foot green area should be provided between curb line of the new access
drive to the modified curb lines of the parking areas/drive aisles serving the existing
buildings.
4. Dimensions of the access road, parking areas and drive aisles should be provided.
5. The proposed sidewalk from the proposed building should extend along the new access
drive to the existing sidewalk along School Blvd.
6. The proposed development is part of a Common Plan of Development as defined by the
MPCA and 1 or more acres of impervious surface is proposed, therefore permanent
stormwater treatment is required. Volume control/water quality (i.e. infiltration), including
pre-treatment measures, is required priorto discharging to this pond. The infiltration
basin shall be designed to accommodate the entire existing and proposed drainage that
enters the existing storm sewer outfall for the site.
7. The site drains to an existing pond to the south via an existing storm sewer that was
constructed with the initial phase of the development. The capacity of the existing pond
and any needed improvements is being reviewed with the City's water resource
K:\014468-000\Admin\Docs\Ltr-m-leonard Kellberg-072419.docx
Kjellberg Firm Ground Apartments
July 24, 2019
Page 2
management plan update. Any additional improvements needed will be further reviewed
when the applicant submits civil plans and a stormwater management report with the plat
submittal for the project. The easement limits of the pond will also be reviewed.
8. An NPDES/SDS Construction Storm Water General Permit (CSWGP) shall be provided
with the grading permit or with the building permit application for review, prior to
construction commencing.
9. A utility plan shall be provided showing the existing and proposed sanitary sewer,
watermain and storm sewer serving the site.
10. Sanitary sewer and watermain mains are extended to the existing developed area. These
mains should be extended to serve proposed site. The watermain should be looped
within site.
11. The building department will review required fire hydrant location(s) and emergency
vehicle access/circulation.
12. Underground parking is proposed forthe site. A positive drainage outlet is recommended
such that the garage area will not be at risk of frequent flooding. Once a grading plan is
developed, this will be reviewed.
13. The City's Wellhead Protection Plan identifies this site within the "low vulnerability"
DWSMA, but it is outside of the Emergency Response Area (ERA), therefore infiltration is
allowed. Residential uses typically do not pose a risk of potential contaminants and will
be reviewed at the time of proposed development submittal.
14. A revised preliminary and final plat shall be submitted. The proposed site is currently
platted as Outlot A, Monticello Business Center 6th Addition plat, which includes a blanket
drainage and utility easement over the Outlot. The easements will need to be vacated
with required easements forthe utilities dedicated on the final plat.
15. A more detailed review of the development plans will be completed when the applicant
submits complete civil plans and a stormwater management report.
Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Please
give me a call at 612-360-1304 if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
WSB
.
� ,�', �ss�
Shibani K. Bisson, PE
Senior Project Manager
�. �
_:at"EIQIIII �:�,a;k
� �,£
�,eI��M6 , `II�I � —
����� � _ .' . _-- ` _ _.�-
�� �u
�� ti , ��
--�v ,-- _ _ �l �•
�r
/,
_'�' . —
�° �"�� �i „� �
■ �:.� �� +��
; � . ���L �� �
�.
_ � k�� Ililr� �°a� I�I f _ �,
— �
-- = --_ � � � �
car�r o�
� � rl l �
�tC��
Prepared for
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
(763) 295-2711
Project No. 2596-34
�
WSB
�
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank everyone who participated in the development of the
Monticello Housing Study, including the Monticello City staff, Wright County
Assessor's Office and the various realtors in the community.
Completed in coordination with:
�
� WSB & Associates, Inc.
l��age �
� � Montic;ello WSB
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF RESEARCH
Housing is an important component of all communities. Housing quality, availability, affordability and diversity
enhances the quality of life, supports economic development, and contributes to a community's sense of place.
WSB & Associates, Inc. was engaged by the City of Monticello to conduct a Housing Study to assess the housing
market conditions and provide recommendations for housing needs within the City of Monticello. The market
analysis focused on the housing needs within the City of Monticello including market rate, subsidized, and move-
up housing for various age categories including owner-occupied and renter occupied housing options.
Monticello's Housing Market Study ("Study") should be used as a reference to guide planning efforts, financial
initiatives and strategies, and provide direction to the City regarding the approach it should take; the types of
housing opportunities the City should promote, and the roles in providing those opportunities. This Study is
intended to be flexible to meet unforeseen housing needs and future land use decisions. It should be noted that the
findings presented in this report should not be used to determine the market feasibility of any single development
or project; rather, it is designed to be a broad analysis of the entire Monticello housing market and is intended to
guide planning efforts, especially as they relate to future land use designations.
The Study contains data from both primary and secondary research. Primary research includes interviews with
local officials, and the real estate community. Secondary research data includes data from the US Census,
American Community Survey, Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), Wright County,
Business Analyst', and other local planning agencies. Secondary research is always used as a basis for analysis
and is carefully reviewed along with other factors that may impact projections. All the information on pending
developments was gathered by WSB & Associates, Inc. and is accurate to the best of our knowledge.
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
�� i�-����:� r��r� c�r��������r���Tl��
This section looks at the demographic characteristics that underlie the need for various types of housing in
Monticello. The U.S. Census and Business Analyst served as the primary sources forthe demographic
overview. While population projections are an effective planning tool when used correctly, their accuracy
is dependent on several factors including assumptions for birth rates, death rates, migration, and economic
conditions. Assumptions are based on past trends and the best information available at the time, but
assumptions do not always remain true, and unexpected changes can occur. Therefore, Monticello should
use the population projections presented in this Market Study as a general guide and not as an absolute
certainty. Moreover, the City should periodically review and update the population projections based
upon new conditions.
WSB & Associates, Inc. determined the Study Area to be used as comparison points. The area was based
on geographic and man-made boundaries, community orientation, our knowledge of the area, and the
dictates of the proposaL Considering these factors, we determined a Study Area to include the cities of
Monticello, Big Lake, Buffalo, Elk River, Becker, and Rogers. In addition, Wright County and the State
' Business Analyst is a data processing service that uses ESRI technology, U.S. Census data, and American Community Survey data.
2I ��c��� �
� � MOTItIC;el10 WSB
of Minnesota are also included as part of the analysis in the report. Though outside the scope of this
report, it is important to note that surrounding communities' populations and available housing stock may
affect Monticello's housing market.
Figure 1: City of Monticello, MN
�,
� ,.,,�..�
�
HISTORIC P(�PLILATION CHANG�
�
The total population of Monticello has grown substantially since the 1980s. Between 1980 and 2010, the
City has grown by 597% adding 10,929 new residents, accounting for 18% of the study areas total
growth. During the last U.S. Census period (2000-2010), Monticello saw a 38% growth with the addition
of 4,891 new residents. Please refer to Table 1 A for further details.
3���age �
� � Montic;ello WSB
�
Place 1980
Monticello N 1,830
Big Lake 2,210
Buffalo 4,560
Elk River 6,785
Becker 601
Rogers 652
Study Area 16,638
Total
Wright County 58,681
Minnesota 3,806,10
3
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Table 1-A: POPULATION CHANGE 1980-2010
US Census
1990 2000
4,941 7,868
3,113 6,063
6,856 10,097
11,143 16,447
902 2,673
698 3,588
27,653 46,736
2010
12,759
10,060
15,453
22,974
4,538
11,197
76,981
1980-1990
No. %
3,111 170.0%
903 40.9%
2,296 50.4%
4,358 64.2%
301 50.1 %
46 7.1 %
11,015 66.2%
Change
1990-2000 2000-2010
No. % No. %
2,927 59.2% 4,891 62.2%
2,950 94.8% 3,997 65.9%
3,241 47.3% 5,356 53.0%
5,304 47.6% 6,527 39.7%
1,771 196.3% 1,865 69.8%
2,890 414.0% 7,609 212.1
%
19,083 69.0% 30,245 64.7%
68,710 89,986 124,700 10,029 17.10% 21,276 30.90% 34,714 38.50
%
4,075,907 4,375,09 4,919,47 269,804 7.10% 299,19 7.30% 544,38 12.40
9 9 2 0 %
Monticello's age distribution has remained relatively consistent from 2000 to 2010 with the largest age
group being 25 to 34 in both census periods. The percentage of people 19 and younger decreased from
33.7% to 32.8% while the percentage of those 65 and older increased from 8.9% to 9.8%. Keeping with
national trends, the median age increased in Monticello from 2000 to 2010 from 29.8 to 31.6. Please refer
to Table 2-A for further details.
Total Population
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 34 years
35 to 44 years
45 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75 to 84 years
85 years and over
Median age (years)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Table 2-A: MONTICELLO HISTORIC AGE DEMOGRAPHICS 2000-2010
Number
7,868
799
725
610
511
547
1,571
1,215
719
271
202
316
260
122
29.8
2000
�
�
�
%
100.0
10.2
9.2
7.8
6.5
7
20
15.4
9.1
3.4
2.6
4
3.3
1.6
(X)
■
�
�
�
Number
12759
1292
1101
969
823
731
2255
1991
1505
490
395
584
394
229
31.4
2010
�
%
100.0
10.1
8.6
7.6
6.5
5.7
17.7
15.6
11.8
7.0
3.1
5.0
3.0
1.8
(X)
4��'age �
�� Monticello WSB
AA. dl. ��� �i � dl. � � .FJ �� AA. I.@���'�v A_i b> i�l �..IA_.e� l. l.�'4..^r"R.�.Fd ��i.r�.�. .:. 4�
Population projections are an effective planning tool when used correctly. They are based upon
assumptions for birth rates, death rates, migration, and economic conditions. In 2010, the U.S. Census
reported Monticello's population as 12,759. Monticello's estimated population was 13,568 in 2016, and is
projected to increase to 14,383 in 2021. Again, it is impossible to know with certainty what Monticello's
future population will be, but it is reasonable to believe that any future population increases resulting
from new housing development or redevelopment in Monticello will be offset (to some extent) by
population trends resulting from an aging population and diminishing household size. However, based on
available data, Monticello's population will likely see a continued increase through year 202 L It is
anticipated that Monticello will account for 18.8% of the Study Area's population growth between 2016
and 202 L Monticello's expected rate of population change is roughly equal to the County and double the
State. Refer to Table 1-B: Projected Population Change: 2010-2021 for additional information.
Place
Monticello
Big Lake
Buffalo
Elk River
Becker
Rogers
Study Area Total
2010
12,759
10,060
15,453
22,974
4,538
11,197
76,981
TABLE 1-B: PROJECTED POPULATION CHANGE: 2010-2021
Change
U.S. Census Bureau 2010-2016
2016 2021 No. %
13,568 14,383 809 6.3%
10,629 11,080 569 5.7%
16,093 16,699 640 4.1 %
23,984 24,891 1,010 4.4%
4,858 5,253 320 7.1 %
12,675 13,844 1,478 13.2%
81,807 86,150 4,826 6.3%
No.
815
451
606
907
395
1,169
4,343
2016-2021
Wright County 124,700 132,801 140,895 8,101 6.5% 8,094
Minnesota 4,919,479 5,541,669 5,720,647 622,190 12.6% 178,978
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts
%
6.0 %
4.2 %
3.8%
3.8%
8.1 %
9.2 %
5.3%
6.1 %
3.2 %
The City of Monticello has developed its own projections based on building permits and certificates of
occupancy over the past two years. The Minnesota State Demographer's 2015 Annual estimate was
utilized as base reference point. It indicated the City had 13,311 residents at the end of 2014. During the
2015-2016 time-frame, the City issued permits for 307 additional housing units. Using ESRI's estimated
household size of 2.72, this yields an estimated population of 14,146 at the end of 2016. In recognition of
the trend of increasing household size and the moderate pace of new residential development and
household formation in the City, the projections for the 2017-2021 period indicate an increase of 893
people (2.74 persons per 326 new units or 65 +/- units per year). The annual population increase of 179 is
si�teen (16) people higherthan ESRI's annual projections based on U.S. Census Bureau data estimates.
Again, ESRI's figures appear to have under-accounted for the sizeable number of new units in the
community during 2015-2016. Basically, ESRI does not factor in the steady recovery in building permit
issuance in this period and applies its projections to a lower beginning population figure than a more
realistic number. Refer to Tables 1-C and 2-C for more information.
S���age �
� � Montic;ello WSB
Year:
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Total
TABLE 1-C: MONTICELLO HOUSING PERMITS & POPULATION FORECAST CALCULATIONS
Single-Family
Detached
2
2
22
49
70
38
61
244
Single-Family Multifamily
Attached
0 0
0 � 0 �
0 0
= 3 = 0 �
3 0
= 6 = 136 T
0 66
12 202
POPULATION FORECAST CALCULATIONS
Time-Frame "' New Housing Average HH Size New Residents
Units (Permits x HH Size)
2015 - 2016 307 2.72 835
Time-Frame New Housing Average HH Size New Residents
Units (Permits x HH Size)
2017 - 2021 � 326 (65.2 x 5) 2.74 893
Source: City of Monticello, Minnesota State Demographer
TABLE 2-C: POPULATION PROJECTION DIFFERENCE
City of Monticello
ESRI
Difference
Source: ESRI forecasts, The City of Monticello
2016
14,146
13,568
578
2021
15,039
14,383
656
Total
2
2
22
52
73
180
127
458
2014 Pop
13,311
2016 Pop
14,146
I���J���J��� �,�II-� ��,�� I�TJ�� t��� � E�I����9
Average
65.2 peryear
End of 2016 Pop
14,146
End of 2021 Pop
15,039
Annual Growth
179
163
16
In 2010, the US Census reported 4,693 households in Monticello and 3,164 families. A household refers
to a housing unit occupied by at least one person. A household can involve a family living in a housing
unit or it can involve unrelated people sharing an apartment or housing unit. A family refers to a
household consisting of a householder and one or more other people related to the householder by birth,
marriage, or adoption. In the future, it is likely that the percentage of married couples without children
living with them will increase. The percentage of single parent households will also increase. Family
households with no spouse present accounted for approximately 30% of the family households in
Monticello in 2010.
The average household size in Monticello in 2000 was 2.64 persons compared to 2.68 in 2010 according
to the U.S. Census Bureau. These figures were projected to increase, according to ESRI, to 2.72 in 2016
and 2.74 by 2021. According to the American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Monticello has seen
a decrease in family households, a decrease in households with children under the age of 18, and an
increase in non-family households (see Table 1-D: Household Occupancy Characteristics for further
details). These trends held true from 2009-2014 aside from an outlying year (2014 - highlighted in gray
on Table 1-D) when there was an increase in family households, an increase in families with children, and
a decrease in nonfamily households. This may have been caused by an increased availability of single-
family housing units. These trends have implications for the demand of future housing types in
Monticello. Since the average household size is projected to decrease and the trend of family households
has been decreasing, a shift in demand will likely occur less for 3-4 bedroom, single-family homes and
more for smaller housing units, and multi-family units.
6�Y�age �
�� Monticello WSB
TABLE 1-D: HOUSEHOLD OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTICS - 2009-2014
�Family Familywith Children Nonfamily
2009 72.2% 47.0% 27.8%
2010 69.6% 46.4% 30.4%
2011 �� 68.5% 45.3% 31.5%
2012 66.8% 43.8% 33.2%
2013 66.2% 42.3% 33.8%
2014 68.8% 43.8% 31.2%
Source: American Community Survey 5-year Estimates
1-person
22.0%
25.1 %
25.8%
26.5%
27.0%
24.9%
2-person
29.8%
25.8%
26.9%
25.3%
27.0%
29.0%
3-person
18.8%
18.6%
16.9%
19.1%
16.4%
13.7%
4-or-more-person �
29.4%
30.6%
30.9% �
29.1 %
29.6%
32.4% �
Between 2010 and 2016, the number of new households (4,693 and 4,936 respectively) has grown
proportionally to the increase in population (12,759 and 13,568 respectively) suggesting stability in
household size (see Table 1-E: Historic and Projected Households: 2010-2021). The number of
households in Monticello is projected to increase by 5.3% by 2021 accounting for 182% of the study
area's projected household growth.
Place
Monticello
Big Lake
Buffalo
Elk River
Becker
Rogers
Study Area Total
TABLE 1-E: HISTORIC AND PROJECTED HOUSEHOLDS: 2010-2021
� US Census
2010
4,693
3,377
5,700
8,080
1,526
3,748
27,124
2016
5,136*
3,566
5,872
8,452
1,635
4,232
28,893
2021
5,399
3,720
6,058
8,780
1,772
4,610
30,339
Wright County 44,473 46,817 49,383
Minnesota y 2,087,227 2,176,475 2,258,733
2010-2016
No.
443*
189
172
372
109
484
1,769
2,344
89,248
%
8.6%
5.6 %
3.0 %
4.6 %
7.1 %
12.9%
6.1 %
5.3%
4.3%
Change
2016-2021
No.
263
154
186
328
137
378
1,446
2,566
82,258
%
4.9%
4.3%
3.2 %
3.9 %
8.4%
8.9 %
4.8%
5.5%
3.8%
*The 200 occupied units of the new IRET Apartment Complex were accounted for here.
Note: There is potential for household growth to exceed these projections based on the housing markeYs recovery from the Great Recession.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts, WSB & Associates
7��'age �
� � Montic;ello WSB
:��� � 1��� �Iri`� � I�1F:�C�T � �I L1�II��'�
In addition to knowing how many people currently live and will likely live in Monticello, an
understanding of the population's age composition can help the City plan for and provide necessary and
desired services for its residents. The following provides an overview of the e�sting age composition of
Monticello's residents and the anticipated changes in age composition that will occur through the year
2021 (see Table 1-F: Age Composition 2010-2021). Composition will remain relatively consistent outside
of a slight decrease in the 25-34 age category (by 2.1%) and slight increase in the 55-64 age category (by
2.5%) which reflects aging baby boomers and a smaller succeeding generation.
Extrapolating further past year 2021, Monticello can expect a surge of 7,438 residents entering the over-
si�ty-five (65) age group as is indicated by the red box in Table 1-F. The age cohort closest to age si�ty-
five (65) typically is comfortable downsizing their living situation. This is a substantial number of
households who will be causing the demand in housing types to change in Monticello for future years as
current projections do not have a corresponding offset in future age groups.
TABLE 1-F: AGE COMPOSITION 2010-2021
2010 2016
Age Number
Age 0 - 4 1,292
Age5-9 1,101
Age 10 -14 969
Age 15 -19 823
Age 20 - 24 731
Age 25 - 34 2,255
Age 35 - 44 1,991
Age 45 - 54 1,505
Age 55 - 64 885
Age 65 - 74 584
Age 75 - 84 394
Age 85+ 229
Median Age 31.6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts
HOUSING SUPPLY
%
10.1%
8.6 %
7.6 %
6.5%
5.7 %
17.7%
15.6%
11.8%
6.9 %
4.6 %
3.1 %
1.8%
Number
1,206
1,150
1,033
924
901
1,968
2,065
1,771
1,240
751
372
185
33.1
%
8.90%
8.50%
7.60%
6.80%
6.60%
14.50%
15.20%
13.10%
9.10%
5.50%
2.70%
1.40%
Number
1,293
1,226
1,163
949
903
2�
2�
1�
9 353
836
404
171
32.3
2021
%
9.00%
8.50%
8.10%
6.60%
6.30%
15.60%
15.00%
11.70%
9.40%
5.80%
2.80%
1.20%
Number and Types of Housing iJnit�
The US Census indicates that there were 4,693 households in Monticello in 2010: 1,749 more units than
identif�ied in 2000 (2,944). Data describing the household type, as shown below in Table 1-E, was only
available as an estimate. The most recent data is from the 2014 American Community Survey. Roughly,
54.5% of the housing units in 2014 were single-family detached houses: this is considerably lower than
Wright County (76.4%) and lower than the State of Minnesota (672%). In 2014, roughly 182% of the
housing units in Monticello were single-family attached units (townhouses): this is almost double the
figure for Wright County (9.8%) and much higherthan the State (7.5%). In 2014, the City also had a
considerably higher percentage of multi-family housing than Wright County but was consistent with the
State of Minnesota. Refer to Table 1-G: Housing Supply by Type - 2014, for more information.
8��jage �
� � Montic;ello WSB
TABLE 1-G: HOUSING SUPPLY BY TYPE - 2014
Housing Type Monticello Monticello Wright County Wright County
Units % Units %
Single-Family 2,663 54.5%
Detached
Single-Family 889 1820�0
Attached
2-4 Unit Multi- 123 2.5%
Family
5+ Unit Multi- 787 16.1 %
Family
Mobile Home 422 8.6%
Other - 0.0%
Total Units 4,884 100%
Source: 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
37,715 76.4%
4,863 9.8%
799 1.6%
3,609
2,335
50
49,371
7.3%
4.7 %
0.1 %
100%
�
State State
Units %
1,589,773 67.2%
176,173 7.5%
104,411 4.4% p
410,648
82,441
703
2,364,149
C;a�����i�c�� �z��1 _F`�r����t c�f ����x•-(���upi��! ��d I���t�r-(���upi��! TJr�i��
17.4%
3.5%
0.0 %
100%
It is important to have a balance of owner-occupied and renter-occupied units. In general, many
communities strive to have roughly 65-70% of their housing units owner-occupied and 30-35% renter
occupied. In 2010, approximately 68% of the housing units in Monticello were owner-occupied; this is
slightly lower than Wright County (75%), and about the same as the State of Minnesota (68%). During
2016, the City of Monticello's housing occupancy ratio (owner: renter) has changed slightly, with 69% of
the housing units being owner occupied and 25% being renter occupied. In 2021, the housing occupancy
ratio is forecasted to remain consistent with past trends. Refer to Table 1-H: Housing Tenure by Type -
2010, for additional information. Please be aware that there is roughly a 6% gap between owner occupied
housing units and renter occupied housing units; this gap will be addressed in the following section.
TABLE 1-H: HOUSING TENURE - 2010 - 2021
Owner Occupied Housing Units %
Location: 2010 2016 2021
Monticello 68.2% 68.7% 68.1 %
Wright County 75.8% 74.7% 74.7%
State of MN 64.9% 64.0% 63.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts
Renter Occupied Housing Units %
2010 2016 2021
26.2% 25.3% 24.9%
14.9% 15.8% 15.9%
24.0% 24.8% 24.9%
�a1�i�Il�I�S
Today, the City of Monticello faces an overall housing vacancy rate of 6.0%, which is 3.4% lower than
the vacancy rate for Wright County, and 5.2% lower than that of the State. Monticello's vacancy rate has
increased by 0.4% since 2010 and is projected to increase by 1% in 2021 which will still be significantly
lower than the County and State. Both the County and State are projected to remain consistent through
year 2021. The increase of vacant housing units in Monticello can partly be explained by the fact that the
number of housing units in the City increased by nearly 6% from 2010-2016, and the housing market
experienced a significant decline. Please see Table 1-I for further details.
� � Montic;ello
9�Y�age �
WSB
TABLE 1-I: VACANT HOUSING FORCAST & COMPARISION — 2010-2021
Year City Vacant Units City Percent Vacant County Percent Vacant
2010
2016
2021
280 5.6% 9.2%
315 6.0% 9.4%
391 7.0% 9.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts
State Percent Vacant
11.1%
11.2%
11.2%
The rental housing average vacancy rate is low in Monticello but is projected to increase indicating a
demand for addition rental units at all levels of affordability. Table 2-I indicates specif�ic vacancy rates
for eight of the rental properties in the City.
TABLE 2-I: RENTAL APARTMENTS — VACANCIES AND RATES
Ridgemont Apartrnents
River Park View Apartrnents
Ridgway Apartments
Hillside Terrace
Cedar Crest Apartrnents
Broadway Square
7th Street Townhomes
Monticello Crossings*
Monticello Village
Average Vacancy Rate
* 202-unit IRET Apartment Complex built in 2016
Source: WSB & Associates Phone Interviews
�alu� �f I3lousi��
Vacancy
0.0 %
� 0.0%
2.3%
� 0.0%
0.0 %
� 0.0%
6.7 %
1.0%
3.3%
1.5%
Rates
$566 - $610
30%of income
$460 - $725
30%of income
30%of income
30%of income
$825
$925 - $2,210
$1,018—$1,610
�
�
�
�
The median value of owner-occupied housing units in Monticello in 2016 was $179,095 and is projected
to increase by $30,314 in 202L Most housing in Monticello is valued in the range of $150,000 to
$199,999, which is consistent with the County and State. In comparison to low and moderate valued
housing, there is a relatively limited choice of higher valued housing units in Monticello. Only 16.5% of
owner-occupied housing units have a value of $250,000 or greater compared to 38.8% in the County and
36.7% in the State. The median value of owner-occupied housing in Wright County was $216,395 and
$205,288 in the State of Minnesota. Monticello needs to focus on later-stage housing opportunities to
meet the demand for higher valued housing units. Refer to Table 1-J: Owner-Occupied Housing by Value
-2016 for additional information. Table 2-J illustrates the affect that the Great Recession had on housing
values in Monticello. Note that median sale price fell below median appraised value in mid-2007, then
recovered and surpassed appraised value in 2011to regain a more traditional relationship. Data from
Table 2-Jcame from the Wright County Assessor.
lO�Page �
� � Montic;ello WSB
Value
Less than $50,000
$50,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$200,000 to $249,999
$250,000 to $299,999
$300,000 to $399,999
$400,000 to $499,99
$500,000 to $749,999
$750,000 to $999,999
$1,000,000 or More
Median Value V
Source: ESRI Forecasts
$zio,000
$zoo,000
$i9o,000
$iso,000
$i�o,000
$i6o,000
$i5o,000
$i4o,000
$iso,000
TABLE 1-J: OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING BY VALUE - 2016
City Units
411
240
407
1282
672
269
217
65
18
22
5
$179,095
■
�
�
City %
11.4%
6.7 %
11.3%
35.5%
18.6%
7.5%
6.0 %
1.8%
0.5%
0.6 %
0.1 %
�
Wright County %
6.5%
4.8%
11.8%
21.4%
16.7%
11.5%
13.2%
6.4%
4.5%
1.8%
1.4%
$216,395
�
■
�
State %
6.5%
9.4%
14.7%
17.9%
14.7%
10.3%
12.2%
6.1 %
4.9 %
1.9%
1.3%
$205,288
CHART 2-J: MONTICELLO HOUSING VALUES THOUGH THE GREAT RECESSION
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Median Sale Median Appraised
C��vr���� i�Ic��thly ��st� �� P�r��r�t��� c�f I3����1��i�� I���€�rr�a�
Housing decisions should not be based solely on the value of housing, but also the cost of housing
expenses in relation to household income. In general, housing costs (taxes, insurance, principal, interest,
etc.) should not exceed 30% of total household income. In 2014, only 19% of homeowners in Monticello
had monthly costs that were more than 30% of their household income, compared to 27% in Wright
County and 29% in the State of Minnesota (see Table 1-K: OwnerMonthly Costs as Percent of
Household Income -2014). These figures suggest that housing was more affordable in Monticello than in
Wright County and the State of Minnesota in 2014 possibly due to age and livability of housing units.
This is an important strength for the City as it continues to grow and evolve into a regional center linking
the Twin Cities Metro with the St. Cloud MSA.
Monticello should consider a goal to maintain appropriate amounts of affordable housing to mitigate the
negative impacts of a housing price correction like that seen during the Great Recession (2007-2010).
This will allow for the community to see steady and modestly increasing home values and reduce the
11�Page �
� � Montic;ello WSB
likelihood of rapidly increasing home prices causing homeowners to be required to spend a larger portion
of their income on housing. While the provision of affordable housing is one side of the coin, the City
should also incorporate a plan to encourage the development and attraction of livable wage employment
opportunities in the City.
TABLE 1-K: OWNER MONTHLY COSTS AS PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME - 2014
Percent of Household Income City Units* City %
Less than 20% 1,286 47.0%
20.0 to 24.9% � 611 � 22.3%
25.0 to 29.9% 611 11.4%
30.0 to 34.9% 169 � 6.2%
35.0%or More 361 13.2%
Total 2,738 100%
Source: 2010-2014 American Community Survey *Housing Units with a Mortgage
�
County %
39.0%
18.9%
14.8%
7.6 %
19.6%
100%
�
State %
41.3%
17.8%
12.3%
7.9 %
20.8%
100%
Contract Rent
In 2014, rental housing units accounted for roughly 25% ofthe occupied housing units in Monticello. In
2014, roughly 88% of units had a monthly rent of $500 or more, which is higher than Wright County
(87%), and the State of Minnesota (79%). See Table 1-L: Renter-Occupied Housing Units by Gross Rent
- 2010, for additional information.
TABLE 1-L: RENTER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY GROSS RENT - 2014
, � -
City County State
Monthly Rent Units % Units % Units
Less than $200 23 2.0% � 141 2.0% 24,764
$200 to $299 57 4.9% 233 3.3% 31,166
$300 to $499 66 5.6% 582 8.2% 68,601
$500 to $749 367 31.2% 2136 30.1 % 159,802
$750 to $999 322 27.4% 2012 28.3% 139,386
$1000 to $1,499 306 26.0% 1514 21.3% 105,182
$1,500 or more 34 2.9% 188 2.6% 34,297
No Rent Paid 0 0.0% 300 4.2% 27,938
MedianRentPaid $773 $778 $747
%
4.2 %
5.3%
11.6%
27.1 %
23.6%
17.8%
5.8%
4.7 %
Total Specified Units ` 1,175 100% 7,106 100% 590,136 100%
Source: 2010-2014 American Community Survey
lZenter Monthly Co�ts as Perc�ntage of Ho�isehold Income
In 2014, 46.5% of renters paid over 30% of their household income in rent (see Table 1-M.� Gross Rent
as Percent of Household Income - 2014). This number is slightly lower than Wright County (47.7%) but
higher than the State of Minnesota (46.1%). This suggests that there is not an abundance of affordable
rental units in Monticello and efforts should be made to decrease rental costs.
12�Page �
� � Montic;ello WSB
TABLE 1-M: GROSS RENT AS A PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME - 2014
Percent of Household Income Units Percent Wright County
Less than 10% 0 0.0% 3.2%
10 to 14.9% 73 6.2% 8.1 %
15 to 19.9% 205 17.4% 13.6%
20 to 24.9% 262 22.3% 13.1 %
25 to 29.9% 72 6.1 % 9.1 %
30 to 34.9% 194 16.5% 9.7%
35 to 39.9% 86 7.3% 8.1 %
40 to 49.9% 102 8.7% 9.8% �
50.0%orMore 164 14.0% 20.1%
Not Computed 17 1.4% 5.2%
Total Specified Units � 1,175 100% 100%
Source: 2010-2014 American Community Survey
State
3.5%
8.2 %
12.3%
12.5%
11.4%
8.8%
6.1 %
8.1 %
23.1 %
6.0 %
100%
�g� �nd :��ir�i���n�� �i�1a��in� �t��l�
In 2014, roughly 39% (1,910 units) ofthe City's units were constructed before 1990 (greater than 27
years old). Just 5.4% of the housing units in Monticello were built before 1939. Monticello has a
relatively new housing stock in comparison to Wright County and the State of Minnesota, with 60.8% of
housing units being built since 1990 compared with 50.4% for the County and 29.0% for the State.
TABLE 1-N: YEAR STUCTURE BUILT
Year Structure Built Monticello Units Percent
2010 or later 0 0.0%
2000 to 2009 1,697 34.7
1990 to 1999 1,277 26.1 %
1980 to 1989 748 15.3%
1970 to 1979 654 13.4%
1960 to 1969 63 1.3%
�
1950 to 1959 96 2.0%
1940 to 1949 86 = 1.8% _
1939 or Earlier 263 5.4%
Total Specified Units � 4,884 100.0%
Source: 2010-2014 American Community Survey
Wright County
0.7 %
32.2%
18.5%
12.2%
16.0%
4.9 %
4.1 %
2.3%
9.2 %
100.0%
�
State
0.8%
14.6%
13.6%
13.0%
15.6%
9.8%
10.4%
4.8%
17.3%
100.0%
13�Page �
� � Montic;ello WSB
LIFE-CYCLE HOUSING AND PROFILE OF
HOUSEHOLDS
The housing needs of a community relate to the demographic profile of the household. Typically,
households move through several life-cycle stages; including entry-level households, first time
homeowners, move-up buyers, empty nesters/young seniors, and senior citizens.
The following describes each of these household types and the effect that they have on housing demands
in Monticello.
Er��r��-1����1 li��us�ta€�Ids
People in the 18 to 24-year-old age group typically leave their childhood home and establish their own
household. They often rent a house or an apartment because they generally do not have the income and
savings needed to buy a home. In addition, many people in this age group move frequently, so they are
hesitant to buy a house. They are also more likely to share housing with other unrelated people of similar
age.
The entry-level household population in Monticello will fluctuate annually. Many Monticello residents
that graduate from high school move to other communities to attend a university or to pursue other job
opportunities. In the long term, unless current conditions and trends change, Monticello is projected to see
a 0.5% decrease in the 15 to 24-year-old age group by year 2021 (Table 1-F�. Job opportunities aimed at
retaining this age cohort need to be strongly considered. Nevertheless, there will always be a strong need
to provide affordable housing for people of all ages.
Fit�si-Ti�� _F��r�a����r�����
First time homeowners are typically in their 20s and 30s. They are usually "move-up" renters, meaning
they "move up" from an apartment to a home. They are often married with young children, but
increasingly, first time homeowners are single. They are prone to moving within several years of buying
their first home for several reasons; including, increased salaries allow them to move to more expensive
housing, children may require larger housing, and job opportunities may require that they move to another
community. Monticello is projected to see a 0.3% increase in the 20-44Z age group by year 2021 (Table 1-
F�, which could translate into an increased demand for lower-end housing units.
����r�-I1� ������
Move-up buyers are typically in their 30s and 40s. They move up from the smaller, less expensive house
that they had previously purchased. From an economic growth perspective, this is an important age group
of people. Typically, move-up buyers have children in school and an established career. They are less
likely to move to another community and start over. Also, professionals who are moving to a community
to advance their career are generally looking to move to a more expensive house than what they had in
their previous community. Monticello is projected to see a 0.5% decrease in the 25-543 age group by the
year 2021 (Table 1-F�. This is 0.3% lower than the study area average of a 0.8% decrease. This may be an
indicator that there is a shortage of available units for move-up buyers. Monticello must continue to
z People in their 40s were included due to U.S. Census age groups.
3 People in their 20s and SOs were included due to U.S. Census age groups.
14Ii���� �
� � MOTItIC;el10 WSB
ensure that it has adequate choices for those who are looking for move-up housing that will satisfy their
needs until they are in their SOs and beyond.
E;�n��t� �'�st��°s �a�d �'e►t���� 5�x�i�r�
Empty nesters and young seniors are generally in their SOs, 60s, and early 70s. Often, their children have
moved out of their house and left them with a larger house than needed. Empty nesters and young seniors
often want to live in a smaller home, like a townhouse or patio home, that has less maintenance.
The baby boom generation in Monticello is projected to increase by 0.6% by year 2021 (Table 1-F�. A
notable increase in apartment rentals in Monticello by members of this population segment is likely to
occur. A large portion of these individuals will likely desire higher-end apartment complexes with quality
amenities so they can maintain their current lifestyles.
��rti�� �i%i��r��
This age group is generally in their late 70s and older and are often looking for low maintenance or
assisted living housing. As the population ages, Monticello must continually ensure that it has adequate
housing to meet the needs of seniors. The City is projected to see a 0.1% decrease in the 75 and older age
group by year 2021 (Table 1-F�.
Monticello should continue to strive to be a senior-friendly community that values the contributions of
seniors, promotes positive intergenerational interactions, considers the needs of seniors in community
planning, supports the efforts of seniors to live independently, and acknowledges the role that family,
friends, and neighbors play in the life of seniors.
5���°i�l �'��c��
Housing for those with special needs includes housing for those with mental and/or physical disabilities
or health issues and those who need temporary or transitional housing. The number of people with
special housing needs is expected to increase as the population of Monticello continues to age and grow.
��i7ia� 1-�a�a�ir�� ���z�l���
Monticello City staff inembers have identified a need for senior housing market analysis. Based upon
population growth forecasts, household forecasts, and the current age of householders, we can extrapolate
what the senior housing market will require. Table 1-O: Senior Housing Projections 2010-2021 illustrates
how the change in the sixty-five and older population will affect the number of occupied housing units.
By year 2021, Monticello will need 940 units suitable for senior residents to meet demand, which is an
increase of 136 units from 2010. We consider senior housing to be any housing unit (affordable, renter,
duplex, patio house, etc.) that meets the needs of residents si�ty-five (65) and older.
15�Page �
� � Montic;ello WSB
TABLE 1-0: SENIOR HOUSING PROJECTIONS — 2010-2021
�
Year 2010 2016
Total Population 12,759 13,568
Total Occupied Units 4,693 � 4,936
65+ Population 1,207
65+ Population Percent 9.5%
Units Occupied by 65+ population 804
Percentage of Units Occupied by 65+ Population 17.1 %
Source: U.S. Census, ESRI Forecasts, WSB & Associates
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
1,308
9.6 %
871
17.7%
�
�
2021
14,383
5,199
1,411
9.8%
940
18.1%
Affordable housing is important to a strong economy and a healthy community. Increasingly, housing is
not affordable for many working families and the lack of affordable housing for people of all ages and
incomes causes families stress, dampens productivity and stifles job growth. Various organizations define
"affordable housing" in many ways. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
generally defines housing as affordable if it costs less than thirty (30) percent of a household's income.
However, HUD's Section 8 Income Guidelines are the basis for most affordable housing programs.
Section 8 guidelines define low and moderate incomes on a sliding scale, depending on the number of
persons in the family. For example, a four-person household is considered "moderate income" if their
family income is eighty (80) percent of the area's median family income.
Most housing affordability programs and data place emphasis on creating owner-occupied units at eighty
(80) percent of the median family income (moderate income) and rental units at fifty (50) percent of the
median family income (low income). Since low income persons are typically renters, the definition of
"low income" is tied to the number of persons in each unit. This study identifies "affordable owner
occupied units" as those affordable for moderate income families (eighty (80) percent of inedian income).
Affordable rental units are based on fifty (50) percent of the median income and reflected on a per capita
and per family basis.
It is very important to note that the definition of "affordable" in terms of a dollar amount will continue to
change as the cost of living increases and interest rates change. Therefore, the City should periodically
review income/housing statistics and update the definition as warranted. Factors such as interest rates will
impact housing affordability in both a positive and negative manner.
Ir���rr�� l�� ��� �f �I�a�as�°��lcl�r
Looking at income data is also important when predicting future housing demands in the City of
Monticello. In 2010, the median household income in Monticello was $68,135 ($67,963 in the County)
and the largest employment industries were educational, health and social services, manufacturing, and
retail trade. By 2016, the median household income increased significantly to approximately $76,954
($73,798 in the County) and the top employment industries were the same. Monticello's median
household income is projected to increase to $85,218 by 2021 ($83,257 in the County) according to ESRI
Business Analyst.
16�Page �
� � Montic;ello WSB
Income distributions as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau can be compared to affordability standards to
determine how many households and families in the City of Monticello may require affordable housing.
Table 1-P: Monticello Affordable Housing Units Requirements - 2016 & 2021 depicts the number of
households (renter and owner) that may require affordable housing (based on family income). The gray
shaded area indicates family incomes of 80% or less of the median household income ($61,449 in 2016
and $68,174 in 2021). The red box indicates family incomes of 50% or less ofthe median household
income ($38,406 in 2016 and $42,609 in 2021). By 2021, 2,214 owner households may require
affordable housing, and 1,629 renter households may require affordable housing.
TABLE 1-P: MONTICELLO AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS - 2016 & 2021
2016 2021 �
Annual Household Number of Households % of Total Number of Households % of Total
Income
Less than $15,000 378
$15,000 to $24,999 286
$25,000 to $34,999 332
$35,000 to $49,999 543
$50,000 to $74,999 834
$75,000 to $99,999 � 887
$100,000 to $149,999 1,262
$150,000 to $199,999 341
$200,000 and over 74
Total Households Y 4,937
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts
7.7 %
5.8%
6.7 %
11.0%
16.9%
18.0%
25.6%
6.9 %
1.5%
100%
411
271
316
631
512
937
1,564
472
85
5.199
7.9 %
5.2 %
6.1 %
12.1%
9.8%
18.0%
30.1 %
9.1 %
1.6%
100%
The following table illustrated the maximum affordable housing costs for renters and owners based on
median income. A direct relationship exists between monthly affordable housing costs and median
income. Steps should be taken in Monticello to keep housing costs affordable as housing values increase
such as maintaining current affordable housing stock and assuring opportunities for the construction of
new affordable housing units.
TABLE 1-Q: MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE HOUSING COSTS (RENTER & OWNER) - 2016 & 2021
Renter
Year 2016
Median Income $76,811
Affordable Income: $38,406
50%Renter, 80%Owner
30% of Affordable $11,522
I ncome
Monthly Housing Cost � $960
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts
2021
$85,218
$42,609
$12,783
$1,065
Owner
2016
$76,811
$61,448.80
$18,434.64
$1,536.22
2021
$85,218
$68,174.40
$20,452.32
$1,704.36
17�Page �
� � Montic;ello WSB
OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING MARKET
ANALYSIS
This section analyses the City of Monticello's owner occupied housing market. Analyzed in this section
are single-family home resale trends, home foreclosures, actively marketing subdivisions, pending
subdivisions, interviews with local real estate professionals and others involved in the local housing
market to gain their feedback on existing market conditions and trends. The Wright County Assessor's
Office provided data on resale trends. The following are key findings regarding the owner-occupied
housing market.
Hame Resale Trends
The average resale price of single-family homes in Monticello in 2016 was $202,073 and there were 342
sales. This was an increase in price from 2015 ($169,025 and 266 sales). While some ofthe price
changes from year to year can be attributed to the age and quality of the homes sold during a year, an
interview with a realty expert indicated the average resale price likely bottomed out in 2011 and slow
price appreciation is expected to continue to bring prices back to a more market-neutralleveL Median
sale price is often a more reliable measure of price trends. In Monticello, the median sale price of single-
family homes increased from $171,500 in 2015 to $185,269 in 2016, which reflects an increase of 8% for
that period.
TABLE 1-R: RE-SALE TRENDS OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
: � —
Year Number of Sales Median Sale Price Average Sale Price
2015 266 $171,500 $ 169,025
2016 342 185,269 $ 202,073
Source: Wright County Assessor's Office; WSB & Associates, lnc.
Table 1-S shows the number of home sales in 2016 by the decade the homes were built. In 2016, 181 of
the 342 (52.9%) single-family homes sold were built during year 2000 or later. Similarly, Table 1-N
showed that approximately 34.7% of Monticello's owner-occupied single-family homes were built after
2000. Only 11.7% of the sales in 2016 were homes built prior to 1980. This highlights the relatively
large supply of newer homes available to potential new residents moving to the community.
Table 1-S also highlights how the median sale price decreases as the homes get older. Most homes sold
in Monticello in 2016 for under $170,000 were built before 1980. Homes priced above $180,000 were
generally built since 2000.
Decade
1970 and Older
1971-1980
1981-1990
1991-2000
2001-2010
2010-2016
TotaL �
Source: Wright CountyAssessor's Office
TABLE 1-S: HOME SALES BY DECADE BUILT 2016
Number of Sales
27
13 �
23
98 '
132
49
342
Percentage
7.9 %
3.8%
6.7 %
28.7%
38.6%
14.3%
100.0%
�
Median Sale Price
$151,509
$166,000
$157,500
$181,467
$193,951
$221,050
18�Page �
� � Montic;ello WSB
Beginning in the middle of the last decade, home foreclosures began to have a significant impact on
housing markets across the nation. Initially, most foreclosures occurred among buyers with lower credit
ratings who had sub-prime mortgages. Gradually, foreclosure activity increased as jobs plummeted and
home prices sank precipitously. Foreclosures have gradually decreased over the past few years as housing
markets have stabilized. Table 1-T presents foreclosure data for Wright County and Minnesota. The data
are considered "Sheriff's Sales Foreclosures" and was compiled by the Minnesota Homeownership
Center and published on their website. There were 7,212 foreclosures in Minnesota in 2015. This was
down from 8,313 in 2014 and significantly lower than 11,834 in 2013. Wright County had 205
foreclosures in 2015, down from 240 in 2014 and 372 in 2013.
Wright County has maintained a higher foreclosure rate than Minnesota. The foreclosure rate, as shown
in Table 1-T, is defined as the number of foreclosed mortgages as a percent of total residential parcels. In
2015, Wright County's foreclosure rate was 0.49% compared to 0.40% in Minnesota.
Foreclosures have hindered Wright County's housing market as they have other areas of the State. Out of
87 counties in the State, only 6 had a higher foreclosure count than Wright County. Those counties were
Saint Louis, Washington, Dakota, Anoka, Ramsey, and Hennepin.
TABLE 1-T: HOME FORECLOSURES WRIGHT COUNTY, 2013 to 2015
Wright County Minnesota �
Year Number of Foreclosures Foreclosure Rate Number of Foreclosures Foreclosure Rate
2013 372 0.89% 11,834 0.64%
2014 � 240 0.57% 8,313 0.46%
2015 205 0.49% 7,212 0.40% �
Sources: Minnesota Homeownership Center, HousingLink
�ir�gl��I��r�ai��� Li�����s
Based on a review of various Realtor websites, there were 77 single-family homes actively listed for sale
in Monticello in November 2016. The homes were unevenly distributed by price range; weighted heavier
toward higher priced homes. Only two (2) homes were priced below $120,000 and 68 priced $150,000 or
higher listed for sale. Four (4) homes were listed for sale between $100,000 and $150,000.
The average list price of homes on the market was $271,759 in November 2016. While homes typically
sell for less than the list prices, the current prices suggest that Monticello should continue to see
appreciation in home prices since the low point in 2011.
�.�i�iii�� L,t�t Sa�p�ly
There are currently a limited number of lots available to accommodate new single-family homes in
Monticello. The City is experiencing a shortage in buildable lots as bank owned lots have been purchased
and developed. As of the end of 2016, there are a total of 74 single-family lots and sites that can
accommodate up to 101 multi-family units. Permit numbers have steadily recovered from the 2010 and
20111ow point (two single family permits issued each year) to the issuance of 61 single-family permits in
2016. Prior to the recession, the City issued more than 300 permits annually. During that time (2002-
2007) housing lots were selling in the $70,000-$90,000 range. The sale price of lots fell by more than
80% after the recession. Bank foreclosures of developers resulted in existing lots becoming bank owned
19�Page �
� � Montic;ello WSB
and ultimately being developed quickly. Many of the approved single family pre-plats were not
completed due to the diminished demand for new homes. Refer to Table 1-U for full details.
TABLE 1-U: AVAILABLE PLATTED & UTILITY SERVICED LOTS
Development Single Family Lots Multi Family Lots
Featherstone 15 0
Hunters Crossing 0 0
Hillside Farm 22 0
Spirit Hills 0 5
SunsetPonds 21 0
Carlisle Village 7 � 17
Autumn Ridge 0 79
Easiview 1 0
Club West 7 0
Pine View 1 0
Total � 74 101
Source: City of Monticello
In mid-2016, the average price of a lot was about $20,000. As the housing market has improved and lot
prices have increased due to the limited supply, it has allowed for an increase in prices for new single
family lots. The new housing price situation is further aggravated by the limited number of remaining
small home builders which have either closed or changed professions due to the recession and is now
resulting in higher construction costs. According to a Monticello realty expert, another critical factor
impacting the demand for single family homes is the degree to which first-time home buyers are riddled
with college debt and unable to afford the price of a new home.
The interest rate for new home loans has increased slightly from an all-time low of 3.4% during the
depths of the recession to approximately 425% in late 2016.
Monticello's average re-sale price currently sits in the five to seven percent range and is expected to go
up. There are no major complaints or concerns among current homeowners looking to move up into more
expensive homes. However, Monticello currently lacks availability of lots that are attractive for higher
end housing. The community should focus on the development or attraction of a high-end housing
development. The two-major upper-bracket areas (Carlisle Village and Briar Oakes Boulevard) have
limited availability of undeveloped lots and are surrounded by agricultural uses. City-annexed land west
of Monticello provides development opportunities but is unattractive to developers looking to build
higher-market homes due to the lack of natural amenities and features generally associated with high end
housing areas.
��n�le-f�r�i�l� I�����i�Y� �'�r�rtits
The City of Monticello issued si�ty-one (61) building permits in 2016. This number is up 38.6% from
2015 when forty-four (44) permits were issued (6 attached and 38 detached). To meet demand, the City
will need to continue this trend. Please refer to Table 1-C for additional information.
20�Page �
� � Montic;ello WSB
RENTAL HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS
�i%r�i��k�l� F2��i�1 [-�4rasifi�
This section of the report analyses the affordable rental housing market in Monticello. The analysis
includes data collected from Affordable Housing Online. All the properties in this section are general
occupancy.
As shown in the demographic and housing stock overview sections, there are approximately 1,175 renter
households in Monticello which is down 127 households from 2010. The overwhelming majority of
renters live in larger multifamily properties. There are approximately 2,923 renters (24% of total
population) living in Monticello. As of 2014, 25% oftotal Monticello households were renter-occupied,
compared to 15.6% for Wright County, and 28% for the State of Minnesota.
Properties that include units assisted by federal programs were surveyed as part of this analysis. In total,
eight (8) properties with 322 units were surveyed. Twenty-six (26) percent of the City's rental units are
federally subsidized. Monticello's federally assisted affordable rental housing stock includes properties
financed through the following programs:
Program
Section 8
LIHTC
RD 515
Total
TABLE 1-V: FEDERALLY ASSISTED AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING STOCK
Properties
2
3
6
9
Units
74
102
189
307
Note: The total does not necessarily equal the sum of each program as some properties may participate in multiple funding programs
Source: Affordable Housing Online
The average number of units per property for affordable rentals in Monticello is 34. The largest federally
assisted affordable rental community in Monticello is Ridgemont Apartments at 48 units and the smallest
is Hillside Terrace II at 12 units. Two apartment properties provide housing for seniors totaling 59 units.
A11307 units include some form of rental assistance (like Section 8) to make rent more affordable for
very low income families. In Monticello, a family of four must earn $42,900 or less to qualify for Section
8 housing. See Table 1-W.� Federally Assisted Units by Property for details.
Name
Broadway Square
Cedar Crest Apartrnents
Hillside Terrace -- Monticello
Hillside Terrace II
Ridgeway Apartments
River Park View Apartrnents
Ridgemont Apartrnents
TABLE I-W: FEDERALLY ASSISTED UNITS BY PROPERTY
Sec 8 LIHTC RD 515
38 - � -
36 - -
- � - � 12
- - 44
- 31 31
- - 48
Source: Affordable Housing Online
Note: Not all unit counts are available from HUD
�
�
Senior
28
31
21�Page �
� � Montic;ello WSB
Photographs of Monticello Apartment Buildings
Image 2: River Park �'�e� ' �:, '�ents
:;�i��z.�:�..�ryg�;�.m a�._�.,mn
i� �
.���, �
�� � ,'i�����
.� � �,.
� �II�i�����!�l�Ial
� —r+:iia';^.lifllt6
Image 6: Ridgeway Apartments
:�'� r r , - 1 . � �
��(i . � I �I I'-J „ '� , r��
. � '_ -'— _ . � -_
" ` - ��
. . ` .. ,_"" �-1 Y
: - ^'�` � �' � .
_ " �--�—�=��"`'�- - �I�Y�y
� � Montic;ello
Image 1: Ridgemont Apartments
�r�...=-� _ � . _ _
Image 4: Cedar Crest Apartments
, ! '�
�w��" ��'
��. * ' 1���:��
- Y � �. - � r `.;� j�
9 } � �� �' , � :
'�=- �, � � � `'� � ��. r;
� ' ,�_ �;�+' '"' � � ; � �ti
- � _ � � �,� 4 3'"�' � ,' �
� � � �,r � � � ,.
. .c��....1�
`"V i� � — .___ � � ---- �
Ima�e 5: Broadway Square
�� �il- „�rar; t�.,�
� , � �! -
�` �9
-.� �=� - �,.-.-..
�
22�Page �
WSB
y �¢
- ::����.
� �
—iavi:":ef—
�
.. .--- �
„��”
�fti,. � %.,�' �
;:�� �:�. ,.
`�s %h, ; ,� r ,.
�: . . . ,g �,u�'�;�
Y�&��<�<xe �. ?��=.�r�te�;��l�sa �'��c�����a„,�m
�i �.�"a�.� �'r►��
. ■ m � a a ■ ^�- � �
� : � � • i 7 � .i Y� ■ �� , 1 Opl �� �
�:���_ ��,�y,�.�� - �41 ;' � -
�� , �
� _ ,.yr_'_. �, _.-as�-��tr�'_..a ..
�__ �... . _. . _ ,� , Y � •r
� �°'=,s4,�= `�`� � a�L�: '°�°. ._.....�,..�
�� � .� i _ � �.
� i� � _...
:, e� -�
_ =,�' _
There are currently three future housing development sites that have been identified in Monticello.
Site A is an 11.93-acre area located at 506 Territorial Road and is the site of the historic registered Rand
House which was the home of the Minnegasco founders. This site is zoned low density residential (R-1)
and performance-based overlay and may be used for the development of a senior housing apartment
complex with sixty to eighty units (60-80) in addition to forty (40) patio homes. The Rand House would
be used as a community center and guest home for the development. Rezoning this area using the
planned unit development (PUD) process may be the best option to allow for this higher density
development. The uniqueness of the property and the City's need for additional senior housing units
could be used to justify the PUD. Also, we believe the proposed housing development is consistent with
the purpose of the performance based enhancement district.
Site B is a 6.4-acre area located north of the lake on the corner of Elm Street and 7t'' Street West. It is
zoned for medium density residential (R-3) and may be used for multifamily, senior, or market-rate
development. It is within proximity to the Cub Food Store and the Community Center. The site's southern
exposure to the wetland pond offers an attractive natural amenity.
Finally, Site C is located at the corner of Locust Street and 3rd Street West and has already been approved
for the construction of a twenty-three (23) unit three story residential development.
As stated earlier in the "Senior Housing Market" section, from 2010-2021 Monticello will need to
construct 136 new senior housing units to meet the forecasted demand. Sites A and B have both been
identified as ideal locations for senior housing development. Depending on the number of units permitted
on each of these sites, and on how many senior housing units have been constructed from 2010-2016,
Monticello may need to identify more sites suitable for senior housing.
23�I�agL L
� � Montic;ello WSB
P�
Image 9: Site �
\ , ,� � ;�.
7 � � �_
7sesasno�u�a
�' ♦- i 'e'4:f�C ^�'
:t'�� A'°�
v S
{
�i� y,�
��
�a..
�� t5i5l/Di�i�3G11�• .
` �r _ '
; y�"' �. _ ` :.. ��.
!� '
''., j. +" i }�, ..,�ti �
�
1 � !
�' �� i � �
` :" issiisooso^�/'�
E • ��I
� /
�.�?...�,... --.� --- �
" --�:,.75511�::._— . �
r , >>
r ti
•�' caLFCOURSE RD 4 �15550o1a13oo+" � 4j S�'����
W �
W q ��� I� ��`` �, ;.� � ryy y
u � Q
',wi �� ; � V +�.�f _ `� � Srysr�, � a�°
-� � ; a
" i ,-ro � I a�. � ._ � . . � t "
1' �
u, �r-� � ���5�5�aoo�9o7o��t ' � , � , . `�s
�`��— Z-F'�_ � � �. ' �y"�
V Q , �? �4.
�rW : f f � � �p.. }' � r �T. �- + � e��
= eY' 9: ,Z Hsr ,;;3 i �
w � � ^'�W
��J9 � .:a. �� .. _�-'
�A�* ' . ,� /: � _
F15v033p� , -' � I 35556p1a1402 .15550�101s�H w ;� � �
`ki
3 550339(10�'I,0' ��T`yy: , _ 6 7 2 ST' �` ti p `�
�.�,M��r.� � \`ST� � - '", �r� � g
,: 1'..�'. �i . I-1. • �I.`+
ussuo3naiao �ssz2�aooaio � . ,
' r� . ff �155bVb5'td7t� 5550U11�1�SI
/. '�""er y�—� � . 3 i 3 t
``i ��p� r � \\�i/ � . ��"�'� :4 •.. �Y��LL �s•}
�a `+� �, �.i. . .'15522600d029:� .� - . � i55b68 �
i. "t�4 :. . - D.��
V� 93Jfl ��j��� ' ,° � U]ytl
� �. i � `%:i�:� .,. �_ • . .. . .r . . , .
Image 11: Site C
24�Page i
� � Montic;ello tNSB
DEMAND ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
This section of the report utilizes data collected in the previous sections to calculate demand for owned
and rental housing in Monticello through 2021.
�lc��u�ir�� 1)��t��r�d w����nl����is
Demand for additional housing in Monticello will primarily come from household growth. Replacement
of older homes will contribute to the need for additional residential development, as will pent-up demand.
Table 1 X outlines our calculations for owner and rental housing demand in Monticello from 2017 to
2021.
TABLE 1-X: POTENTIAL HOUSING DEMAND OVER NEXT 5 YEARS
2017 to 202�
A. Household growth*
B. Replacement Demand
C. Total housing growth (A+B)
D. Percent rental demand
E. Rental housing demand (C x D)
F. Pent-up rental demand
G. Total rental housing demand (E+F)
H. Percent owner demand
500
10
510
Range to occur over ne� 5
years:
30% to 35%
153 to 179
64 64
217 to 243
I�
65% to 70%
I. Total owner housing demand (C x H) � 332 to 357
* Includes projected growth for Monticello (263 households) and one-fifth the growth in the
remainder of the market area (237)
Sources: US Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts, WSB & Associates, lnc.
Table 1-E shows that Monticello is projected to add 263 households between 2016 and 2021 and the
remainder of the market area is projected to add 1,183 households. We estimate that Monticello can
capture one-fifth of the demand in the remainder of the market area, or 237 households, by providing
greater housing choices to retain and attract some potential residents who otherwise would live in the
surrounding areas. Thus, an additional 500 housing units would need to be developed from 2017 to 2021
to satisfy projected household growth in Monticello.
Replacement demand is generated from the loss of housing or the need to replace housing units that are
physically or functionally obsolete. A review of Monticello's housing stock from the U.S. Census
revealed that there are about 340 housing units built prior to 1950. It can be assumed that these homes'
values are decreasing at a faster rate relative to other types of housing. Most of these homes are in good
condition4, and we estimate that 0.5% percent per year should be removed annually from the housing
supply because of obsolescence, which equates to two units every year or ten units over the ne�t five
years.
A healthy rental market is expected to have a vacancy rate of about 5% to allow for sufficient consumer
choice and unit turnover. With pent-up demand (a shortage of units), persons who would normally form
' Good condition meaning that these homes do not need renovated or demolished.
25�I�ag� L
� � Montic;ello WSB
their own rental households, instead decide to move in with other persons in a housing unit, live with their
parents, or live in housing outside of the area and commute to j obs. In 2016, Monticello had an estimated
1,300 rental households, of which 20 units (1.5% from Table 2-� were vacant. This percentage is well
below the stabilized vacancy rate. In order to bring the overall vacancy rate to a balanced 5%, about 64
additional rental units would need to be added to the city.
Based on demographic and market trends, we project 30% to 35% of the housing demand from household
growth and replacement-need in Monticello between 2017 and 2021 will be for rental housing. There is a
total of demand for appro�mately 217 to 243 rental households (about 44 to 49 annually). This demand
is for all types of rental housing — from subsidized and market rate general occupancy housing to senior
housing.
An estimate of 65% to 70% of housing demand in Monticello between 2017 and 2021 is projected to be
for owner-occupied housing. This equates to demand for 332 to 357 households from 2017 to 2021 (66 to
71 homes annually.). This would equate to the projected demand for single-family homes and
townhomes.
These demand projections are based upon the housing market's behavior over that last ten years. During
this time, we experienced the market correction of 2009-2013 which greatly impacted the calculations
causing the projections to be historically low. It can be anticipated that if the housing market continues
its recovery, the demand for both rental-occupied and owner-occupied households will be greater than the
projections. It can be further extrapolated that in response to the increased regulations on mortgages, and
the high rates of student debt, the demand for rental housing will dramatically increase.
�t��a° 13��sixt� �����y���Yid�ta����
Proj ected demand for new housing products in Monticello through the remainder of the decade from
current and future residents is outlined on the preceding pages. In addition, there are other programs that
Monticello can implement to assist in meeting local housing needs and improving the quality of the
existing stock. The key programs/initiatives that Monticello should pursue are outlined below.
• Monticello needs to closely monitor rental vacancy rates and availability as new rental properties
are added to the community. The addition of the 202-unit Monticello Crossing apartment
complex has set a precedent with 200 of its units being occupied during a very short timeframe.
This indicates a clear pent-up demand that should continue to increase at the housing market
recovers from the correction.
• Monticello should also work towards converting vacant housing units into renter-occupied to
reach 30-35% oftotal housing units. In its current state, the rental housing inventory sits at 25%
of total housing units. As seen in Table 1 I, the City is projected to have seventy-six (76)
additional vacancies.
• Monticello needs to maintain its low housing costs and low percentage (19%) of residents paying
more than 30% of their monthly household income on housing to reduce the negative impacts
from another housing correction like 2006-08. This percentage is much lower than county and
state averages (27% and 29% respectively).
• Monticello should make efforts to increase affordable rental housing inventory so they are
available for younger generations of citizens as well as baby-boomers and empty-nesters. The
latter two cohorts of residents are downsizing their living spaces and need affordable places to
26�Y�ag� L
� � Montic;ello WSB
live. Combining affordable housing options with job opportunities could lead to an increase in
19-24-year-old residents.
• Monticello should also ensure an adequate amount of higher-end rental units for higher-income
individuals looking to retire and downsize their living quarters. While these individuals are
looking for smaller spaces, they are not willing to surrender the amenities to which they have
grown accustom.
• With the expected increase in the percentage of residents over the age of sixty-five (65),
Monticello needs to increase their stock of senior housing units. Refer to Table 1-O for projected
figures.
• Monticello should consider the development of housing in the downtown area to accommodate
young seniors and millennial residents. Both cohorts share the same preference for areas that are
rich with amenities and walkable, and housing properties that have lower maintenance
requirements. Providing residents with downtown housing options is critical if the city wishes to
achieve population age diversity and a complete life-cycle housing environment.
.�.._� '
� : ,. �.���
�..y...4
_ ,�,�;�., �x.�,.�Y- ,
:a ;.a,�-� �,,� � ,.., � r_ _ - ,. �,, _. — �
±�'Y. _�.� � - ..' � . ...-. , _ �3 s��
�' . �..�"'�i .:r � . . �iJ"^� � � . _... - .i. . . �r, _ . �
.,p��'�'0 �a.s�s.�,,,,,'..w��,. �nn�;� .�.. } . . ,. .. 'r�i
- � . .� r .. � .
.i+ .. .
� . . . ... , � r'#.
.. ����, w , M � p �.... ,� .i�.�� t�a r . � . ' �� � .,. �t� � u._ �� f,' `""+T
' . � ,� ' w §u, f �c A- .� ar �� . . � ' .�,. p
� '" � ,� „rY: 4i° � J"�,
�i.a J,��"� � � �,'�, i"a.M��"�; �,`yi ��l��"� H �w � l 1 �
�Y' ��.�� x`�9� i�,�S 1�� +�.yi:� �°V��' n�r�� ��." t u r� 1�; : i'" i tV� ���� +r'�r Ul k'.
a" n tY��, �L .1 g� i,�o. . 3�,.r �'a �7
' ..SJI]� , i 4 +'" �=Y di '� �$�' `i" L� Yy 4' .Jp y ..
. _ � . . � .... . �. � ly,. ., ,Ili�` Db'�+�il.. ,.r�fnl�,�Raf�.LA��
v,'��n� �S'�+r -
`4 �' ��. �.•.. . ...... . . " " �?��xi. .'+ 1 i 4G�Y`u,� �,qy�.�We r'r't±'k'�.e� ti ..,!
�` _ �t iw �.�, a ��1;..� �y �i W
.. . , . _,ra�r "' F�� � ' �
. . . . . � _" h " - . .. _ . . F "� "f�.��' 1 t ��,�
- _ � �'•�k �� 5 "
'&.-'. . � � � . ' w``�'",a� . .. � .�w e"..'�'r"` `,��' , �,1� .^k�
.� ,� w,� ..,vi�ri� . . 5 �
�� � Y1� �'.•. _,�. ... :y.:.�"' �'{r �'� a„L_�b,,� � 4,� "Ci
�. . . yy�y _ . � r^� -
r �� �
�,' i , �� - � � " . � . �. II��1�� i 'r �' � ..
� � ' 'y �
.'J`��.►�^_ ,. y � �." �. � �� -. � ��ri ��.y . � 37!'� � r �R��'
� _ . �
y-... "' � �r � �.Y � �..
- � ,..._. �y�.
�yyy h� � � a M +�+'4:
(� � rY�, � , � �, � �Y � � Y'R �` �"�"�.•;
�"�^ `E � � -�jY...�y.� • � . .1�� r . �� �y- � �
� ' f ,,�.�
,,w"�' :=� - . - ._ 4 ;�,;k�,�, 3�' , '' � �, Ai .
�� �.�-:. - I�;�^ .. l'�� - M,�Is��� �y y,�'��,i,:•s,� � t
� +� .+ ,]�*r °' 'k,a►. � , I' w t 3� �
:�, ` �''�} • .� �M�' .� �c �+. �� . F{ ,r ' f iy"I
�
� _ _ r � �' o .i' ,� 1�". + �, ,{y a "r 1 � ��l � ,,.
( ¢a� - � r. c!
� � :, �1 :. _;* � �, ....,,� �r� . Y� "�r- �' ��} �f�� ����'� $Y-���'�► �
s .19� y �f
' � �� 4 a ``"a ' � Y: ,�.�� p ri(� < s'� �� ^�' u' r.. 1
� 'I �L ��.'L1�'�, : :. � �v .�, �'� je' . �� ,... � -� .; f,� � � �'.:� .t� � � �+4 g. w.� a + '.� { -''
�� � � y. .�v . p ' N�
� �F,. i� F 1 �.... _ fi�'� � � ,� i'' _ � . r. .✓ : �w �. ',,� �� .:� �% �'��'� �� h 'r�'�'`� � ��� �A S i� � t � .� .
1 � ,� f , + � � ��
i y � 4-t� � _�' � � Y � - ���� f� �� „� ��� : .f y � FA ���' .T� .7 .y� �'�� :�.}��,� k.��
�j�y � " . ���,�✓ _ � �yJ�{.,� � e �9 � ! �� � �'!1� �4� ly f. ��V r �� �;. i`!� ° � � 'i��� r
� �1 p� ' i ! 1� � �j 71�i �-
. . •
� ��� � y ,i ��� .�' � Y � ��y �{/� �s."' �1 ���u�y[� �n�.i� � - � ,� �� � � *,%�tF ,�y, l y ��. � 4�.
�1ln` • I4 '��r^' " 3 �-� ,df��. y � ..� �.y� , 'i�,� .�, � s �1 � � � �� }' � �� . J , t � y �yi � % li �
�' f � �• �� x� �•' ; 1' � "��P�`�' r � � � ' � ,',r��.. ,�.i::i � �� /
� � N!S �
� �. - �. .,�`,� ¢ r� �� i a '� '� �1 �,
�., � r � � � °' �,� �Y '3 •.,5, �� �� � +� ����� J -y �i �y i, � x i` f . � '
-.�. � � Y � ;:�� � I' * '��r. � :� 6 � I
� ' - �� �C , �
�� h/ • I�.�'* �y�"'i',� ry,.�- � �`�,_ '.7r ��...���, ,�,� �..°..�1� � �g� r � �i� f�
r •�^ ���.. �� ��r ;/' 'yiY���..';� ' r .sJ"�r �`
� i� t, 4J�J�' �' � . �, 8 e � �� �Y '.,7 � r �', .�.. . ' i
� � � �S � : t ,�, �' �. ' °�'� �. , � o � �� f +� �r �:,: r { � ,
� ���a�� .t ,�' '�y�� �� ' �� 11, '' +^,�,r `r � � ;4f � ,� '"� , e ..
� � � '�i y� � :,���i1 ,q r� 4r. � ,� ;t' � a �i p/r, `� / ,,'�( �
r ..+�{'-t :.. r:a �.� ?.,i,�t�IFr,�.. ��� �t� ..��' '"�y, � �,.., ,., � .�� , ...M+,:r ./ I ,;t� � f`'y�.r
�F ' 7R�" � y .� f �.�,'/ � r �' YlI� '� � }
� N";� �; � �L ! G% �;7 T ,11.1�`!. "�f' � ,� ` ..�� .
- �; ��:� ; �(, �' r r, �' � "� � � �r' '� r'u► " �`' ' ' .
� � +k, ��.f �7�J,,v ,'i' ��'� ,�rR. � � � , '�". / �r .
�t �' `� kr I a.' � 1 � , �� 6�Ai � / �
' � � � 5 1 � .� . . � � � �,�� � 1 /
r.� -
..
. ,p� '
..�iyfL �' �.' . ��..T E.� �/ . '.rt�:id1'. �.'�—�! .� � h �.A' : ,,. s��+ �P-'�'� ., ar�� . .�.. , . � `�.
, ;1
��' � � r
� �� �1
The future vision for Monticello provides the foundation for the
Comprehensive Plan (the vision statement appears in Chapter 1). 1he
Land Use Plan, in turn, provides the frameworl< for how land will be used
to help achieve the future vision for Monticello.lhe Land Use Plan seel<s
to reinforce desirable land use patterns, identify places where change is
needed and guide the form and location of future growth.
The Land Use Plan for Monticello was shaped by a variety of factors,
including:
► Community input gathered through public worl<shops and Tasl< Force
discussions.
► The existing built and natural environment in Monticello.
► 1he vision for Monticello's future.
► Factors described in the Community Context chapter of the Plan.
► Systems plans for transportation, sanitary sewer and water supply.
lhis represents a departure in form from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan.
1he 1996 Plan included the land use plan as part of a broader Development
Frameworl< section. The 1996 Plan described Monticello's land use
plan by general district of the community as a means of attending to the
unique issues in each district. 1he 2008 Update of the Comprehensive
Plan establishes a separate land use chapter consisting of the following
components:
► A section on Future Growth describes the implications of future
resident growth and the amount of growth anticipated by the Plan.
► 1he Land Use Plan Map (see Figure 3-2) shows the land uses assigned
to each parcel of land.
► Land Use Cate o� further explain the Land Use Plan by describing
the land uses depicted in the Map. lhis section includes land use
policies describe the objectives that Monticello seel<s to achieve
through the implementation of the Land Use Plan and the supporting
elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
► Focus Areas provide a more detailed discussion of characteristics,
goals and policies for 1<ey areas of the community.
2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2014 Land Use � 3-1
Future Growth
In lool<ing to the future, Monticello must not just
consider the qualities of the future community, but also
the nature of growth. Assumptions about the amount
and pace of future growth are important parts of the
foundation for the Comprehensive Plan. Growth has
several important implications for the Comprehensive
Plan:
► Growth proj ections are used to plan for the capacity
of municipal utility systems.
► Growth projections are used to create and manage
finance plans for capital improvements.
► The school system uses growth projections to
forecast enrollments and to plan for programs and
facilities.
► Marl<et studies use growth projections to analyze
the potential for locating or expanding businesses
in Monticello.
► The characteristics of growth influence the amount
of land needed to support this development.
► Growth adds trips to the local street system.
► Assumptions about growth influence the
policies and actions needed to implement the
Comprehensive Plan.
For these reasons, it is essential that the Comprehensive
Plan state assumptions of the nature of future growth. A
challenge in forecasting future residential development
is that the Comprehensive Plan influences, but does not
control, the factors that determine where people live.
lhese factors include:
► Quality of life.
► Access to employment.
► Availability of desired housing and neighborhood
options.
► Affordability.
► Competition from other places in the region.
Given these uncertainties, the Comprehensive Plan
seel<s a balance between optimism and prudence.
For many reasons, the Plan should not significantly
understate the growth potential of Monticello. 1he
balancing force lies with the implications of assuming
Figure 3-1: Growth Trends and Projections
more growth than is reasonable. 1he chart in Figure
3-1 shows the projection of future residential growth
assumed in the Comprehensive Plan.
The projections assumes that the rate of growth slowly
rises over the next five years and continues at a level
of 150 units per year from 2012 to 2020. This amount
falls below the 229 units/year average for 2001 through
2005. lhis rate of growth is intended to reflect several
factors. Monticello will remain a desirable place to
live, attracting both builders and residents. Housing
marl<et conditions will improve from the weal<nesses
experienced in 2006 and 2007. A combination
of marl<et conditions, local policy objectives, and
changing demographics may reduce the potential for
achieving and sustaining higher rates of residential
growth. Slower future growth reflects the belief that
achieving the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, in
particular seel<ing more move up housing, will result
in less development than in previous years.
Growth Policies
1. 1he Citywill consistendyreview recent development
trends and update growth projections to serve as a
basis for public and private planning.
2. Over the life of this Comprehensive Plan, growth
will occur within the boundaries of the current
municipal boundaries and the Orderly Annexation
Area.
3. Future development should be guided to locations
that utilize existing infrastructure and locations
3-2 � Land Use City of Monticello
that facilitate the construction of street and
utility systems that meet the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate
action by Monticello to annex or extend utility
systems to property immediately north of the
Mississippi River. Development in this area will
place additional traffic on STH 25 (particularly
in the Downtown area) and channel investment
away from other parts of the City, especially the
Downtown.
Land Use Plan Map
1he Land Use Plan Map (shown in Figure 3-2) shows the
desired land use for all property in Monticello and the
Orderly Annexation Area 1he land use plan depicted
in this map builds on the previous community planning
in Monticello.
The Comprehensive Plan uses the Land Use Plan to
define the broad land use patterns in Monticello. 1he
Land Use Plan seel<s to:
► Organize the community in a sustainable
manner.
► Mal<e efficient use of municipal utility systems
and facilitate the orderly and financially feasible
expansion of these systems.
► Provide the capacity for the type of growth desired
by the community.
1he Land Use Plan Map is only one piece of the land
use plan for Monticello. 1he other parts of the Land
Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan worl<with this
map to explain the intent and objectives for future land
use. Further, this map lays the foundation for land use
controls that are used by the City to implement the
Comprehensive Plan.
Land Use Categories
1he Land Use Plan Map uses a set of specific categories
to guide land use in Monticello. One element missing
from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan was a description
of the land use categories shown in the Land Use
Plan. 1he ability to use the Comprehensive Plan as
an effective land use management tool requires a
definition of each land use. lhese definitions provide
a common understanding of the basic characteristics
of each category used in the Land Use Plan.
1he 1996 Plan relies on three basic categories of private
land use: residential, commercial and industrial.
Each of these categories is further divided into
subcategories that distinguish between the character,
type and intensity of development desired in different
locations.
1he 2008 update of the Comprehensive Plan uses a
different approach to achieve similar land use patterns.
The Land Use Plan map depicts series of "places" for
private development: Places to Live, Places to Shop,
Places to Worl<, and Downtown. lhis approach is based
on the following rationale:
► lhese broad categories more clearly illustrate the
pattern of development and the plan for future
growth.
► Although residential land uses vary by type and
density, they share many public objectives.
► This approach mal<es a more enduring
comprehensive plan. 1he Plan can guide an area
for the appropriate land use without the need
to predict future community needs and marl<et
forces.
► The Plan relies on policies, land use regulations,
performance standards and public actions to
provide a more detailed guide for land use and
development. This approach conveys more
flexibility and control to the City Council and the
Planning Commission.
Role of Zoning Regulations
Zoning regulations play a critical role in implementing land use plans in
Monticello. StateLawgiveszoningregulationspriorityovertheComprehensive
Plan. If land uses are different, zoning regulations control the use of land.
Zoning regulations are particularly important in the application of the land
use categories in the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The "places to" land
use categories set forth a broad and flexible land use pattern for Monticello.
Zoning regulations (and other land use controls) will be usedto determinethe
appropriate location for each form of development and other regulations on
the use of land, consistent with policies ofthe Comprehensive Plan.
2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2017 Land Use � 3-3
Figure 3-2: Land Use Plan Map
3-4 � Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3-3: Land Use Plan - Places to Live
1he remainder of this section describes the categories
used in the Comprehensive Plan in greater detail.
Places to Live
1he Comprehensive Plan seel<s to create and sustain
qualiryplaces for people to live in Monticello (see Figure
3-3). This category designates areas where housing is
the primary use of land. The emphasis behind Places to
Live is to help ensure that Monticello offers a full range
of housing choices, while preserving and enhancing the
quality of neighborhoods. Although a single land use
category, Places to Live does not suggest housing is a
homogenous commodity or that any type of housing is
desirable or allowed in any location.
When someone says "house" the most common image
is a single family detached dwelling. lhis housing style
is characterized by several features. There is a one-to-
one relationship between house and parcel of land - the
housing unit is located on a single parcel. 1he house is
not physically attached to another housing unit. 1he
housing is designed for occupancy by a single family
unit. 1he typical neighborhood in Monticello is made
up exclusively of single family detached homes.
The primary variables become the design of the
subdivision, the size of the lot and the size and style of
the dwelling. Many older neighborhoods in Monticello
(north of Interstate 94) were built on a traditional grid
street system. Over the past thirty years, development
patterns have moved to a new suburban curvilinear
2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2017 Land Use � 3-5
pattern, characterized by curvilinear street layout with
the use of cul-de-sacs.
A variety of factors, including consumer preference
and housing cost, have increased the construction
of attached housing in recent years. Duplexes, twin
homes, quads and townhomes are common examples
of this housing style. Although the specific form
changes, there are several common characteristics.
Each housing unit is designed for occupancy by a single
family. The housing units are physically attached to
each other in a horizontal orientation.
Places to Live will include some neighborhoods
designed to offer a mixture of housing types and
densities. Mixed residential neighborhoods create a
pattern that combines single-family detached housing
with a mixture of attached housing types. Using
good design and planning, these mixed residential
neighborhoods can achieve a higher density without
compromising the overall integrity of the low-density
residential pattern.
This integration strengthens neighborhoods by
increasing housing choice and affordabilitybeyondwhat
is possible by today's rules and regulations. It also avoids
large and separate concentrations of attached housing.
It enhances opportunities to organize development in
a manner that preserves natural features.
A complete housing stocl< includes higher density
residential areas that consist of multi-family housing
types such as apartments and condominiums. In the
near term, the Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate
expanding the existing supply of higher density housing.
It is lil<ely that Monticello will need additional higher
density housing to:
► Provide housing suited to the needs of an aging
population.
► Facilitate redevelopment in the Downtown or in
other appropriate locations of the community.
► Provide housing needed to attract the worl< force
required to achieve economic development goals
of the City.
Higher density residential land uses should be located
and designed to be compatible with nearby residential
or mixed uses, on lots able to accommodate larger
buildings and added traffic generation. In addition,
siting factors for high density residential uses will
prioritize access to services and amenities including
public utilities, parl<s, trails and open space, and
commercial and/or medical services. It will be
important, when considering potential designation
of high density housing development, that the parcels
meet the specific standards of the zoning district, and
such development can be accommodated in accordance
with the policies in this Plan.
While these comments and the comments in the zoning
ordinance are intended to be instructive they are not
necessarily the only factors that might come into play
on specific properties.
Policies — Places to Live
The Comprehensive Plan seel<s to achieve the following
objectives for residential land use in Monticello:
1. Provide a range of housing choices that fit all stages
of a person's life-cycle (see below).
2. Support development in areas that best matches the
overall objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Develop quality neighborhoods that create a
sense of connection to the community and inspire
sustained investment. The Comprehensive
Plan seel<s to maintain the quality and integrity
of existing neighborhoods by encouraging the
maintenance of property and reinvestment into
the existing housing stocl<. Changes in housing
type should be allowed only to facilitate necessary
redevelopment.
4. Create neighborhoods that allow residents to
maintain a connection to the natural environment
and open spaces.
5. Seel< quality over quantity in residential growth.
Achieving the objectives for quality housing and
neighborhoods may reduce the overall rate of
growth.
6. Reserve areas with high amenities for "move up"
housing as desired in the vision statement. lhese
amenities may include forested areas, wetland
complexes, adjacency to parl<s and greenways.
Some of the City's policy objectives require further
explanation.
3-6 � Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3-4: Life Cycle of Housing Supply
��� g � -
.� y �
� �-..
�f
� •� �i
,,
� �
Life Cycle Housing
Housing is not a simple "one size fits all" commodity.
Monticello's housing stocl< varies by type, age, style
and price. 1he Community Context chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan describes the characteristics of
the housing stocl< based on the 2000 Census and recent
building permit trends.
The concept of life cycle housing recognizes that
housing needs change over the course of a person's life
(see Figure 3-4). Young adults may not have the income
capacity to own the typical single family home. lhis
segment of the population often seel<s rental housing.
Families move through different sizes, styles and prices
of housing as family size and income changes over time.
With aging, people may desire smaller homes with
less maintenance. Eventually, the elderly transition
to housing associated with options for direct care. As
noted in the Vision Statement, Monticello's population
will continue to become more diverse. lhis diversity
will be seen in age, race, culture and wealth. lhese
factors will influence the housing needs of Monticello.
1he Comprehensive Plan recognizes these differences
and seel<s to create a balanced housing supply that
encourages people to move to and stay in Monticello.
lhis balance may not be achieved solely by marl<et
forces guided by this Land Use Plan. Actions by the
City may be needed to promote the creation of housing
in underserved segments of the marl<et.
Neighborhood Design
A priority for the community is diversification of the
housing stocl< by providing more "move up" housing.
In this context, the term "move up" housing refers to
larger homes with more amenities in structure and
setting. lhis type of housing may not be exclusively
single-family detached or low density. Attached forms
of housing with medium or high densities may meet
the objectives for move up housing in the appropriate
locations. In this way, the objectives for move up
housing and life cycle housing are compatible and
supportive.
While every community wants a high quality housing
stocl<, this issue has particular importance in Monticello.
It is a 1<ey to retaining population. Without a broader
2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2017 Land Use � 3-7
variety of housing options, families may encouraged to
leave Monticello to meet their need for a larger home.
It is a factor in economic development. One facet of
attracting and retaining professional jobs is to provide
desirable housing alternatives.
It must be recognized that creating move up housing
requires more than policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
1he Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for achieving
the desired results. 1he desired outcomes require
private investment. This investment occurs when
demand exists or the City can provide an incentive to
attract investment.
Part of attracting move up housing comes from
creating great neighborhoods – places that will attract
and sustain the housing options sought by the City.
Neighborhoods are the building blocl< of Places to Live
in Monticello. 1he goal of the Comprehensive Plan is
to create and maintain attractive, safe and functional
neighborhoods. 1he following policies help to achieve
this objective:
1. Neighborhoods should incorporate the natural
characteristics of the setting. Trees, terrain,
drainageways, and other natural features provide
character to neighborhoods.
2. Housing should be oriented to the local street,
minimizing access and noise conflicts with collector
streets.
3. 1he City will use public improvements to enhance
the appearance and character of a neighborhood.
Some examples of improvements that define an
area include streets with curb and gutter, trees in
the public boulevard, street lighting systems, and
storm water ponding.
4. Sidewall<s, trails, and bil<eways will connect the
neighborhood to other parts of the community.
5. Every neighborhood should have reasonable access
to a public parl< as a place for residents to gather
and play.
All of these elements worl< together to create a desirable
and sustainable place to live.
Figure 3-5: Relationship Between Development and
Natural Features - Parkway
-.���� ��'�.���� ��. Y �.�- -,��
'_..:'� ���r' �t
�{� �._ ��_:.: �
f .�'i ''.
.' �, — ,
t
T-- �^ � ',
�� ��� :�� :
Figure 3-6: Relationship Between Development and
Natural Features - Trail Corridor
�;; �`1'� T �' .� � .�� .'�'�'`'{�* �.
��.. :k,��' �;_,. �.. .,f =�;,._
�� � _ ;
� ..
� a�_ I -_ ,._.��4 _
;
I �
�.� � � e�_ .
�
Balancing the Built and Natural Environments
1he natural amenities of the growth areas (west and
south) in Monticello should serve as a catalyst for
residential development. 1he Bertram Chain of Lal<es
Regional Parl< offers the dual assets of natural features
and recreational opportunities. Lal<es, wetlands and
other natural amenities exist throughout the orderly
annexation area.
Studies have shown that parl<s and open space have a
positive economic effect on adjacent development. An
article published by the National Parl< and Recreation
Association states that "recent analyses suggest that
open spaces may have substantial positive impacts
on surrounding property values and hence, the
3-8 � Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3-7: Example of Conservation Design Development
. � � �1 OPEN SPACE DESIGN
� . �il�-- W: �f- . , wM�F� �"�I - Pastu res
� � - Equestnan Facility
�� � � - WetlandsEnhancements
��. ��' "M1�� � ' �.,' _ - Conservation Easements
�'� � � � �� �, �� til - Central Park
�� ` �,+s , �4�, _ � - 27 Acre Park South of Lake
+ 9
!"�, � �" �� `�
;-� �:k �
��
T. � 4 NEIGHBORHOOD FEATURES
�- '4' '-'��- ��}," '�� CentralPark
� �. Y -
�;. { � � � f' r�'�� '.�= �'� p = NoHheast Neighborhood Green
,`+f Y • ''�f: "'��' y� SouthNeighborhoodGreen
7 +,_"' �. . .
� r-� , ,�F F� " �.r��� �.""� - Association Dock and Park
J r . 5
1`g �� � y �}�.'. � ' .
'S .,' .. /yi,h % � A _ '
i' � �„ �
rt ��� �' xM ' �, �4 '* �.. _.
�x:
r�..�:, � - ---
� ,.+ � n!'�
property tax base, providing open space advocates
with convincing arguments in favor of open space
designation and preservation:' Balancing the built and
natural environments should provide a catalyst to the
types of development desired by the City and in the
expansion of the property tax base.
In attempting to meet residential development
objectives, the City should not lose sight of long-term
public benefit from access to these same natural areas.
1he original development of Monticello provides an
excellent illustration. 1he majority of the riverfront
in Monticello is controlled by private property. Public
access to the River comes at points provided by public
parl<s.
A well 1<nown example of balancing public use with
private development is the Minneapolis chain of lal<es
and Minnehaha Creel<. Public streets (parl<ways)
and trails separate neighborhoods from the natural
� .e t�; 'a
r � �
� , . i_ � ,.�'+� � +�
� � . � t
��� , y , �}�� �� �, �'��;`
i 4�`' .. � # i j ��� � .
• �'� � � -
�
�� s ���
# Y/
� j` � p �.
r ._ Y 1.�� � *�r.
NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOI
Total Housing Units: 98
Semi-Custom, Smgle-Family Homes
LotWidth: 82 Minimum
Lot Size: 9 900 to 16 000 Sq R
House Sq. Ft.: 2 400 to 4 800 Sq. Ft.
Price Point Packages: $450,000 to
$650,000
NORTHEASTNEIGHBORHOOD
Toha/ Hous�ng Un�fs: 66
Custom, Wxury THnn Homes
LofWitlfh. 45 x90 Twinhome
Lof Size: 4 O50 Sq. R.
House Sq. Ff.: 2,800 to 3,800 Sq. Ft.
Prvce Poinf Packages: $475,000 to
$750,000
f ..
_:'i,�, r,�-..�
� _
�
i ��
features, preserving public use and access. These
neighborhoods are some of the most desirable in the
region, demonstrating that public use and private
benefit are not mutually exclusive.
The figures on the previous page show two options for
integrating housing, natural features and public use.
Figure 3-5 is the parl<way concept. An attractive street
forms the edge between the parl< (or natural area) and
the housing. A multi-use trail follows the street while
homes face the street and draw on the attractiveness of
both the parl<way and the natural amenities.
1he alternadve is to use a trail corridor to provide public
access to these areas (see Figure 3-6). 1he trail follows
the edge of the natural area. Access to the trail between
lots should come at reasonable intervals.
There are a variety of real world examples of how
Minnesota cities have used conservation design
strategies to promote high quality development and
2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2017 Land Use � 3-9
preserve the natural environment. The illustrations in
Figure 3-7 shows elements of the Chevalle development
in Chasl<a. Using open space design and rural
residential cluster development techniques, HI<Gi's
concept plan provides for a variety of housing options
while preserving a majority of the area as permanent
open space, including public and common open
spaces. Amenities would include access to protected
open spaces (lal<eshore, woods, meadows, pastures,
wetlands), wall<ing/bil<ing trails, equestrian trails
and facilities, common outdoor structures and an
environmental learning center. 1he experience of other
cities and developments can guide future planning and
decision mal<ing in Monticello.
Attractive Places
Attractive physical appearance is one of the most
common attributes of Places to Live in Monticello.
Attractiveness is a combination of design, construction
and maintenance. These characteristics apply to
buildings and sites. Attractiveness is relevant for both
private and public property. Attractiveness reflects
individual pride in property as well as an overall sense
of community quality.
The City may use a variety of regulatory tools to
influence the potential for attractive neighborhoods:
owner. lhis relationship may include a third party
property manager retained by the owner to perform
maintenance duties. Owners of attached housing may
act collectively through a homeowner's association.
In multiple family rental housing, the tenants have no
direct responsibility for property maintenance. lhis
discussion does not imply a preference, but is intended
solely to highlight the differences. lhis understanding
becomes relevant when public action is needed to
address a failure of the private maintenance approach.
Nuisance ordinances are one tool used by the City
to address failures in private maintenance and use of
property.
Economics also influences property maintenance. 1he
greater the portion of income devoted to basic housing
costs (mortgage/rent, taxes, utilities), the less money
available for maintenance activities. Maintenance
can be deferred, but not avoided. If left unchecl<ed,
this cycle of avoided maintenance produces negative
effects.
Safe Places
Safety is frequently identified as the most desired
characteristic of Places to Live. Several aspects of the
Comprehensive Plan and city government influence
safe neighborhoods.
► Building codes and additional regulations to 1.
promote quality construction.
► Subdivision regulations control the initial
configuration of lots.
► Zoning regulations establish limitations on the size
of lots, placement of the house on a lot, relationship
of structure size to lot area, and building height.
► Nuisance ordinances enable the City to prevent and
correct undesirable uses of property.
► Other City regulations control other ancillary uses
of residential property.
Maintenance of property is a factor in sustaining
quality neighborhoods. 1he tenure (form of ownership)
influences the responsibility for housing maintenance.
1he owner-occupant of a single family detached home
is solely responsible for the maintenance of building
and grounds. If this same home is rented, maintenance
responsibilities are often shared between tenant and
The City will encourage existing neighborhoods
and develop new neighborhoods where people
are involved in the community, interact with their
neighbors and support each other.
2. 1he City will design, build and maintain a system
of streets that collects traffic from neighborhoods,
allows movement within Monticello to jobs,
shopping and other destinations and minimizes
traffic that "cuts through" neighborhoods on local
streets seel<ing other destinations.
3. The City will provide, directly or by contract,
services needed to protect people and property.
4. 1he City will support the Land Use Plan with a
water supply that provides clean water at pressures
needed to support fire suppression.
5. The City will protect the natural environment
by requiring new development to connect to the
sanitary sewer system and by adequately treating
all municipal wastewater.
3-10 � Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3-8: Land Use Plan - Places to Work
6. The City will provide water that is safe to drinl< by
protecting water supply sources.
Places to Work
This land use is primarily intended for industrial
development. Places to Worl< seel<s to provide
locations for the retention, expansion and creation of
businesses that provide jobs for Monticello residents
and expansion and diversification of the property tax
base. In order to be a center of employment with a wide
range of job opportunities, it is critical that Monticello
preserve sufficient land for Places to Worl< over the
next twenty-five years. These land uses can be one of
the most challenging to locate because of its need for
convenient transportation access and influence on
surrounding land uses. In planning for future Places to
Worl<, the Comprehensive Plan considers the goals of
the community; what type of industrial development
is sought; and what factors should be considered when
locating an industrial land use.
In planning for sustaining existing businesses and
attracting new development, it is necessary to
understand why Places to Worl< are important to
Monticello. 1he objectives for this land use include:
► Expanding and diversifying the property tax base.
► Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for
people to worl< and live in Monticello.
2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2017 Land Use � 3-11
Figure 3-9: Land Use Plan - Places to Shop
►
►
Promoting wage levels that provide incomes
needed to purchase decent housing, support local
businesses and support local government services.
Tal<e advantage of opportunities to attract
companies that have a synergy with existing
companies in the community, including suppliers,
customers and collaborative partners.
► Encouraging the retention and expansion of
existing businesses in Monticello. 3•
Policies - Places to Work
1. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to
designate and preserve a supply of land for Places
to Worl< that meets current and future needs.
2. Consistent with the vision for the future of
Monticello, the Land Use Plan promotes the
4.
establishment of business campus settings that
provide a high level of amenities, including
architectural controls, landscaping, preservation of
natural features, storage enclosed within buildings,
and other features. The zoning ordinance,
subdivision regulations and other land use controls
will also be used to create and maintain the desired
business campus settings.
Places to Worl< supports the City's desire to attract
businesses that complement existing businesses
or benefit from the community's infrastructure,
including power and telecommunications.
The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that
Places to Worl< should provide locations for
other general industrial development in the areas
3-12 � Land Use City of Monticello
of manufacturing, processing, warehousing,
distribution and related businesses.
5. Places to Worl< may include non-industrial
businesses that provide necessary support to the
underlying development objectives of this land use.
Examples of supporting land uses include lodging,
office supplies and repair services.
Additional public objectives and strategies for Places
to Worl< can be found in the Economic Development
chapter.
Places to Shop
Places to Shop designate locations that are or can be
developed with businesses involved with the sale of
goods and services. Places to Shop may include offices
for service businesses. Places to Shop guides land uses
that are both local and regional in nature.
Policies - Places to Shop
�
°�,._
� '.
� - i� ' � .
- - � . <#
� � � y �� �� �
�
_ • ��M1 ' .;. -_
The Comprehensive Plan describes issues, plans and policies related to the Downtown in several sections
of the Plan.
between the commercial parcel and adjacent
residential uses.
These policies help to create sustainable locations for
Places to Shop in a manner that enhances Monticello.
In guiding land uses for Places to Shop, the Downtown
Comprehensive Plan seel<s to:
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
1he Comprehensive Plan seel<s to attract and retain
businesses that provide goods and services needed
by Monticello residents.
The Comprehensive Plan seel<s to capture the
opportunity for commercial development that
serves a broader region. Places to Shop with a
regional orientation should be located where
the traffic does not disadvantage travel within
Monticello.
Commercial development will be used to expand
and diversify the local property tax base and as an
element of a diverse supply of local jobs.
Places to Shop will be located on property with
access to the street capacity needed to support
traffic from these businesses.
Each parcel should supply an adequate supply of
parl<ing that mal<es it convenient to obtain the
goods and services.
Building materials, facades and signage should
combine with public improvements to create an
attractive setting.
7. Site design must give consideration to defining
edges and providing buffering or separation
The Embracing Downtown Plan was adopted by City
Council resolution 2012-011 on January 9, 2012. The
City einbarked on an update to the Downtown Plan in
2017and the Downtown Sinall Area Plan was adopted
by City Council resolution 2017-070 on SepteJnber 25,
2017 and is herein incorporated as an appendix of the
Coinprehensive Plan.
Downtown is a unique commercial district that is part
of Monticello's heritage and identity. It is, however,
no longer possible for powntown to be Monticello's
central business district. 1he mass of current and
future commercial development south of Interstate 94
along TH 25 and in east Monticello along interstate 94
have replaced the downtown area as primary shopping
districts. 1he future success of downtown requires it
to be a place unlil<e any other in Monticello.
The Comprehensive Plan seel<s to achieve the Vision,
and Goals described in the Downtown Small Area Plan.
Downtown is intended to be a mix of inter-related and
mutually supportive land uses. Businesses involved
with the sale of goods and services should be the focus
of Downtown land use. Residential development
facilitates reinvestment and places potential customers
2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2017 Land Use � 3-13
in the Downtown area. Civic uses draw in people from
across the community.
During the planning process, the potential for
allowing commercial activity to extend easterly out of
the Downtown along Broadway was discussed. 1he
Comprehensive Plan consciously defines Cedar Street
as the eastern edge of Downtown for two basic reasons:
(1) Downtown should be successful and sustainable
before new areas of competition are created; and
(2) The Comprehensive Plan seel<s to maintain and
enhance the integrity of residential neighborhoods
east of Downtown.
More than any other land use category, Downtown has
strong connections to other parts of the Comprehensive
Plan. Therefore the City has adopted the Downtown
Small Area Plan as its guiding planning document
for the Downtown. The following parts of the
Comprehensive Plan also address community desires
and plans for the Downtown area:
►
►
The Land Use chapter contains a specific focus
area on Downtown. The focus area contains a
more detailed discussion of the issues facing the
Downtown and potential public actions needed to
address these issues.
The operation of the street system is a critical factor
for the future of Downtown. The Transportation
chapter of the Comprehensive Plan and the
Transportation Frameworl< of the Downtown
Small Area Plan influence the ability of residents to
travel to Downtown and the options for mitigating
the impacts of traffic on Highway 25 and other
Downtown streets.
► The Parl<s chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
and the Parl<s & Open Space Frameworl< of the
Downtown Small Area Plan provide for parl<s in the
Downtown and the trail systems that allow people
to reach Downtown on foot or bicycle.
► The Economic Development chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Implementation
chapter of the Downtown Small Area Plan lay the
foundation for public actions and investments that
will be needed to achieve the desired outcomes.
Goals - Downtown
► Improve Pine Street for all users.
► Shift the center of Downtown to Broadway and
Walnut Streets
► Encourage Small and Medium Scaled Investments
► Become a River Town
Policies/Guiding Principles - Downtown
1.
�
3.
4.
5.
I�
Downtown is a special and unique part of
Monticello. It merits particular attention in the
Comprehensive Plan and in future efforts to achieve
community plans and objectives.
Downtown is intended to be an inter-connected
and supportive collection of land uses. Land uses
should support and enhance the overall objectives
for powntown.
The City will build on core assets of greater
Downtown Monticello as identified in the
Downtown Small Area Plan. lhese assets include
the preponderance of civic activity, proximity to
the river, a grid of streets and small blocl<s, and a
varied building stocl< - both old and new.
A shared vision among property owners, business
owners and the City is the foundation for effective
team worl< and long term success.
A shared understanding of realistic marl<et potential
is the foundation for design and generation of
a healthy mix of land uses. This includes both
residential and non-residential land uses. Housing
the core blocl<s is encouraged to be medium
density (apartments or townhouses) and to face the
perimeter of the blocl<s and be pedestrian friendly,
either with street level commercial uses or doors,
stoops, porches, plazas, or other features that face
the sidewall<.
A safe, attractive human scale environment and
entrepreneurial businesses that actively emphasize
personal customer service will differentiate
Downtown from other shopping districts.
Property values can be enhanced if property
owners and the City share a vision for powntown
and actively seel< to cultivate a safe, appealing
environment and attractive mix of inter-related
uses.
3-14 � Land Use City of Monticello
8. Housing in the Downtown can facilitate necessary
redevelopment and bring potential customers
directly into the area. Housing may be free-
standing or in shared buildings with street level
commercial uses.
9. Downtown is the civic center of Monticello. To
the degree possible, unique public facilities (such
as the Community Center, the Library and the Post
Office) should be located in the Downtown area as
a means to bring people into the Downtown.
10. Downtown should emphasize connections with the
Mississippi River that are accessible by the public.
It is especially important to design Broadway so it
is easy and safe to cross as a pedestrian or cyclist
- with an emphasis on Walnut and Cedar Streets.
11. Downtown should be a pedestrian-oriented place
in a manner that cannot be matched by other
commercial districts. Pedestrian scale is achieved
at the scale of both the blocl< and the building.
Blocl<s should reflect the historic fabric of the City
and buildings should present a pedestrian friendly
facade to the sidewall<.
12. Downtown should have an adequate supply of free
parl<ing for customers distributed throughout the
area. The Downtown should be well connected so
customers are comfortable wall<ing 1-2 blocl<s from
their car to their destination.
13. The City and business community must worl<
actively with MnDOT to ensure safe local access
to the Downtown.
All of these policies worl< together to attract people to
Downtown and to enhance the potential for a successful
Downtown environment.
Mixed Use
The Mixed Use is a transition area between the
Downtown and the hospital campus. It has been
created in recognition of the unique nature of this area.
1he area serves two functions. It is the edge between
long-term residential neighborhoods and a major
transportation corridor (Broadway Street). It is also a
linl< between the Downtown, the hospital campus and
the east interchange retail area.
1he primary goal of this land use is to preserve and
enhance housing in this part of Monticello. Any
non-residential development should be designed to
minimize the impacts on and conflicts with adjacent
neighborhoods.
Policies - Mixed Use
1
2.
3.
Development should not have direct access to
Broadway street. Access should come from side
street.
Non-residential development should be limited to
small retail, service and office businesses. 1he scale,
character and site design should be compatible with
the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
All non-residential development will be oriented
to Broadway Street and not to 3rd Street or River
Street.
4. Commercial development compatible with the
Downtown should be encouraged to locate there.
5. More intense housing and commercial uses may be
allowed if directly related to the hospital.
Places to Recreate
Places to Recreate consist of public parl<s and private
recreation facilities. The land uses are essential
elements of the quality of life in Monticello. 1he Parl<s
and Trails chapter of the Comprehensive Plan describes
the current parl< and trail system and the future plan
to maintain and enhance this system.
The Comprehensive Plan is only one aspect of managing
the land use for public parl<s and private recreation
facilities. 1he City's zoning regulations place these
locations into a zoning district. Often, the purpose
of the zoning district is to guide private development,
such as housing. Under current State Law, zoning
regulations "trump" the Land Use Plan and govern the
use of land. With the potential for the redevelopment
of golf courses, it is important the Comprehensive Plan
and other land use controls worl< in concert to achieve
the desired outcomes.
The City's plans and policies for parl<s, trails and
open space can be found in the Parl<s chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan
2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2017 Land Use � 3-15
Places for Community
Places for Community consist of public and semi-
public land uses. Public uses include all governmental
facilities (city, county, state and federal) and schools.
lhis category also applies to churches, cemeteries,
hospitals, and other institutional uses.
It is important to note that these land uses relate only
to existing land uses. 1he Comprehensive Plan does
not guide the location of new churches, schools, public
buildings and other institutional land uses. Places for
Community will be needed in the Northwest area as
it develops.
lhese uses are typically allowed in residential areas and
governed by zoning regulations. These institutional
uses (such as schools and churches) are important parts
of the fabric of the community, but require guidance
to ensure a proper fit with its residential surroundings.
New institutional use should be allowed in residential
areas under certain conditions. These conditions
should address the aspects of the use that conflict with
desired characteristics of residential neighborhood.
Criteria for locating an institutional use in a residential
land use area include:
1. Size. Large buildings and site areas can disrupt
neighborhood cohesiveness. Use in lower density
in the near term in this Plan. The objective is to
encourage rural and agricultural uses, preventing
barriers to future development opportunities. It is
anticipated that the City will grow into portions of the
Urban Reserve as planned land use areas become fully
developed and capacity for future growth in needed.
The Urban Reserve is not simply a holding area for
future development. Parts of the Urban Reserve are
lil<ely to be preserved as natural resource areas or for
agricultural purposes. Future planning will consider
the locations in the Urban Reserve best suited for
development.
Interchange Planning Area
The Interchange Planning Area encompasses
undeveloped land in the northwest part of Monticello
around the site of a potential west interchange with
Interstate 94. The purpose of this land use is to
preserve the area for future development and prevent
the creation of development barriers.
If built, the area should be planned to support a mixture
of commercial, employment and residential land uses.
The interchange location and the routes of future
connecting roads are solely for illustration. Future land
use issues in this area are discussed in the Focus Area
for Northwest Monticello.
residential areas should not be more than [to be Private Infrastructure
determined] square feet in lot area.
2. Parl<ing. Parl<ing may spill on to neighborhood
streets without adequate on-site facilities. 1he
parl<ing needs will vary with the use of the facility.
Each facility should provide adequate on-site or
reasonable off-site shared parl<ing based on the use
of the facility.
3. Traffic. Institutional uses should be oriented to
designated collector or arterial streets.
4. Lighting and signage. Site lighting and signage
needs may resemble commercial uses. lhese site
factors should be managed to fit the character of
the surrounding residential development.
Urban Reserve
1he Urban Reserve contains all property in the Orderly
Annexation Area that it not shown for development
lhis category applies to Xcel Energy's power plant and
railroad right-of-way. lhis category recognizes the
unique role of the power plant in Monticello.
Greenway
1he Land Use Plan Map shows a"potential greenway"
ringing the western and southern edges of Monticello.
1he Greenway is intended to provide an environmental
corridor that connects large community parl<s and open
spaces to neighborhoods, schools, shopping areas and
places to worl<.1hey serve to protect environmentally
sensitive areas such as natural habitat, wetlands,
tree canopy, and drainage ways. Land within this
corridor could be comprised of a combination of
public and private open space. Development would
not be prohibited within the greenway but would be
3-16 � Land Use City of Monticello
reasonably restricted to ensure that development is
carefully integrated with the natural environment.
The Greenway is intended to shape development
patterns in a manner that is sensitive to the existing
environment and harmonious with the landscape. 1he
Greenway creates opportunities for a continuous trail
corridor connecting neighborhoods with large parl<s
and open spaces. A trail within this corridor is intended
to be fully accessible to the general public.
1he following are the City's goals for the Greenway:
1. To provide (where possible) a continuous green
corridor connecting large community parl<s and
open spaces to neighborhoods, shopping areas,
schools and places to worl<.
2. To connect people to significant places.
3. To protect the community's natural resources
(trees, ponds, wetlands, slopes, etc).
4. To create environmentally sensitive development
and design.
5. To provide opportunities for corridors for wildlife
movement and ecological connections between
natural areas.
Focus Areas
For certain parts of Monticello, the intentions of the
Comprehensive Plan cannot be adequately described
solely with the land use map and the related category
descriptions. 1he following Focus Areas provide a more
detailed examination of the plans and issues in 1<ey
locations that will shape the future of Monticello.
Northwest Monticello
lhis focus area includes the entire northwest corner
of the community. 1he land use objectives in this area
include:
1. Encourage development in this part of the
community to utilize infrastructure investments
and to provide the capacity to develop in high
amenity areas.
2. Provide for a variety of housing alternatives based
on the natural features and the surrounding
land uses. Areas with high natural amenities or
Figure 3-10: Land Use Plan - Northwest Monticello
proximity to the Bertram Chain of Lal<es Regional
Parl< should be reserved for move up housing.
3. Expansion of existing Places to Worl< in a manner
that creates more "head of household" jobs.
4. Preserve and promote public use of natural
areas, including the establishment of greenway
corridors.
5. Identify and preserve 1<ey street corridors.
6. Preserve areas for future Places to Shop and Places
to Worl< around a future highway interchange, if
such an interchange proves viable.
The Comprehensive Plan envisions that growth will
extend westward from existing development. 1he
initial high amenity residential development is expected
to occur along the eastern perimeter of the Bertram
Chain of Lal<es Regional Parl<. No Places to Live are
planned with the boundaries of this parl<. Future
development will be influenced by the capacity of the
street system, including plans for the construction of
a highway interchange.
2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2017 Land Use � 3-17
1he remainder of this section describes the land use
issues and objectives for northwest Monticello in
greater detail.
West Interchange
A new interchange with Interstate 94 is a critical
should not be limited to the property in the Interchange
Planning Area land use category. An interchange
and the supporting street system has future land use
implications for a broader area.
Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park
variable in the future development of this area. VC/hile Another critical factor in the future of the Northwest
the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the potential for
a future interchange, in 2008 it is only a concept. It
is not part of the State's plans for future highway
improvements for this district.
This interchange could be a valuable part of the long-
term transportation plan for Monticello if it is part of
a new river crossing that removes traffic from Highway
25. Without the bridge, the primary benefit is to
provide access to this area and expand the development
opportunities.
1he Land Use Plan assumes that the interchange is a
future possibility. For this reason, property adjacent
to the interstate has been placed into a combination
of Places to Live, Worl< and Shop. 1he Plan seel<s
to prevent development from limiting the location
of the interchange (or blocl< it) and to preserve the
area around the interchange for future commercial,
industrial and residential development. Without
the access provided by the interchange, commercial,
industrial and residential development should not be
anticipated in this area.
Ideally, the City will pursue additional investigations
following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
lhese investigations should be designed to resolve some
of the unanswered questions related to the interchange.
lhese questions include:
► Where should the interchange be located?
► What is the potential for a new river bridge
connection?
► How would the interchange be funded and what are
the financial and land use implications for the City?
Area is the former YMCA camp that is being converted
into the Bertram Chain of Lal<es Regional Parl<. 1he
City and Wright County formed a partnership in 2005
to start purchasing portions of the 1,200 acre YMCA
property. As of 2013, 495 acres have been purchased
through state grants with another 300 planned for
acquisition. The YMCA will lease land at the regional
parl< to run their Camp Manitou Summer Camp.
The area around this parl< is guided for future Places to
Live. No residential development should be allowed
within the parl<. The amenity of this land and the
regional parl< provide an excellent setting (around
the perimeter of the parl<) for some of the "upscale"
neighborhoods and housing desired by the City.
In planning for this parl<, it is important to lool<
beyond the boundaries of the parl< and to its context
in the broader community. 1he illustration in Figure
3-11 highlights several 1<ey community development
opportunities:
► 1he City must create connections between the parl<
and other sections of Monticello.
► Building streets in a"parl<way" design emphasizes
the desired qualities of a regional parl< and of the
surrounding Places to Live and Worl<.
► 1he parl<is a critical piece in creating a"greenway"
system that linl<s to the Mississippi River and may,
over time, ring the community.
Industrial Growth
1he Northwest area is a cridcal location for current and
future industrial development. 1he Mondcello Business
Center, located south of Chelsea Road and west of 90th
► What time frame should be used in planning for Street, has already started to be developed as a high
the improvements? amenity environment with protective covenants that
1he answers to these questions provide invaluable
guidance to future land use and transportation in
Monticello. The area included in future planning
address building materials, loading docl<s, outdoor
storage, and landscaping. In order to provide sufficient
land for Business Campus uses over the next 25 years,
3-18 � Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3-11: Community Connections to Regional Park
� Existing _ _
Natural .
Land
;1 ' Potential
' .� Greenway
i
J• Corridor
----- --- —= t - 39 -
Existing �_.�'��
Natural r
Land
Potential Parkways
7To Mississippi River
.•
$_,°i � Existing
�' �;'--�. Green
'' ' Corridor
the Comprehensive Plan extends this land use south to of this roadway should be identified and preserved as
the planned expansion of School Boulevard. development occurs.
It is important to recognize that activity generated
by business development can create conflicts with
residential development. 1he Comprehensive Plan
seel<s to create both high quality business parl<s and
residential neighborhoods in this area. Careful site
planning and development management will be needed
to meet these objectives.
School Boulevard Extension
School Boulevard has several other Comprehensive
Plan implications:
► lhis major collector street will influence the nature
of adjacent land use.
►
1he Northwest Area serves as a good example of the ►
need to coordination land use and transportation
planning. An extension of School Boulevard is
needed to provide access to the area and to connect
development to the rest of the community. 1he route
Streetscape improvements would help to define
the high quality character desired by the City as a
gateway to the Bertram Chain of Lal<es Regional
Parl< and to new neighborhoods.
The street is a means for bringing trail connections
to the parl<.
2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2017 Land Use � 3-19
Golf Course
In 2006, the Silver Springs Golf Course was part of a
development proposal (Jefferson at Monticello) that
would have redeveloped this property mixing golf and
housing. 1he development did not proceed beyond the
environmental review.
The Comprehensive Plan shows the area as Places to
Recreate based on the continued use as a golf course.
This designation does not preclude a future proposal
and Comprehensive Plan amendment for residential
development. It is lil<ely, however, that this scale of new
development will require the access provided by a new
highway interchange. The Comprehensive Plan seel<s to
fill in other development areas and mal<e effective use
of other infrastructure investments before extending
utilities for redevelopment of the golf course.
Downtown Focus Area
Downtown Monticello needs special attention
in the Comprehensive Plan. Following the 2008
Comprehensive Plan update, the community undertool<
a separate downtown planning process. lhis process
resulted in the Embracing Downtown Plan. In 2017,
recognizing the changes in the retail marl<etplace, and
more specifically marl<et changes and investments in
the Downtown, the City engaged the community in a
planning effort for the core blocl<s of the Downtown.
On September 25, 2017, the City adopted a Downtown
Small Area Plan, which provides guidance for the
downtown, including the core blocl<s and extending
to include the full Downtown Central Community
District (CCD). 1he Plan emphasizes the importance
that the community places on Downtown. 1he 2008
Comprehensive Plan Update relies on the Downtown
Small Area Plan as a guide for public and private actions
in the Downtown area.
Revitalizing and sustaining Downtown Monticello
requires a collaborative effort of the City, businesses,
property owners and other stal<eholders. Planning
for the future of the Downtown must recognize the
practical realities facing commercial development in
Downtown:
► The configuration and traffic volumes of Highway
25 significantly reduce opportunities for direct
access from the Highway to adjacent properties.
► Traffic volumes on Highway 25 will continue to
increase. Greater volumes and congestion act as an
impediment for people living south of I-94 coming
to Downtown.
► There is no controlled intersection on Highway
25 between Broadway and 7th Street. 1he lacl<
of a controlled intersection combined with traffic
volumes mal<e pedestrian connections between
Downtown and residential areas to the east very
difficult.
►"Big box" and retail development continue to occur
in other parts of Monticello. lhese businesses
directly compete with the Downtown and attract
smaller businesses (that might otherwise consider
a Downtown location) to adjacent parcels.
Downtown Goals
► Improve Pine Street for all users.
► Shift the center of Downtown to Broadway and
Walnut Streets
► Encourage Small and Medium Scaled Investments
► Become a River Town
Land Use
► Create a Center to Downtown that is active
throughout the day and into the evening — year-
round. The Walnut / Broadway Intersection should
become the heart of this area.
► Improve connections to the River by locating
uses that benefit from open spaces and activities
associated with the River.
► Improve the entry experience from the north.
► Maintain a shopfront District along Broadway, west
of Pine Street comprised of traditional main street
(mercantile) buildings that have retail/restaurant
space on the ground floor and housing or offices
above.
► Create a development pattern on Pine Street that
benefits from high visibility and regional access.
► Infill Walnut Street and Cedar Street with mid-
scale housing (2-4 stories) that creates an effective
transition between the in-town neighborhoods and
the Downtown.
3-20 � Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3-12: Land Use and Development Framework from the Downtown Small Area Plan
F
.�M
_ _ �y
f �
�� � .
�� ��. `�
��'' ' � .'..�
�, �� �
f�, *�i r� 5 i;
, • "`� '�� � S •-+.,� f
��t �� � a., �``'.�
�• � `.r1.� �.�n��
�{ ; � ����
�^''-�. _ / 4� f � ' i �-w, �� f�•�
� *�f
�� � .f� �� ��
��,%� �Y ���:� 4r,:
C � � �. �
`� . � ,. �
.�� ��k�'�-.1
. �-
�
Transportation
► Connect Walnut Street to River Street
► Maintain the River Street / Pine Street signal as the
formal entrance to Downtown and an important
pedestrian connection across Pine Street.
► Add a traffic signal at 4th and Pine to help balance
the grid and turning movements at the Pine /
Broadway Intersection.
► Modify Walnut / Broadway and Cedar / Walnut
Broadway intersection to prioritize pedestrian
crossings and access to the river.
► Narrow the travel lanes on Walnut Street, add
parl<ing where possible and ensure continuous safe
and pleasant sidewall<s.
► Add sidewall<s at the perimeter of blocl<s where
they are not currently present.
► Discourage direct property access to Pine Street;
favoring the side streets wherever possible with
through-blocl< lanes or easements.
► Allow direct property access to Blocl< 52 from
Pine Street in order to reduce volumes at the Pine
/ Broadway intersection.
► Consider traffic calming at River Street and Locust
(or Linn) to prevent excessive speeds - similar to
River Street and Cedar Street as an example.
Open Space and Parks
► Redesign East and West Bridge parl< to include
an amphitheater, water feature, riverfront access,
2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2017 Land Use � 3-21
picnicl<ing, and additional space for passive parl<
use.
► Improve Front Street Parl< to include improved
boat landing and space for nature oriented
programming.
► Connect the two Bridge Parl<s with Front Street
Parl< with improved pathways and trails. Design
all three parl<s as a single parl< with multiple uses.
► Provide access to the islands with a seasonal bridge
► Create small pocl<et parl<s mid-blocl< on Broadway
to offer plazas that connect to parl<ing lots in the
middle of the blocl<.
► Redesign Walnut Street between River Street and
Broadway as a special street that can be closed and
used for festivals and events throughout the year.
► Consider all sidewall<s for opportunities to enhance
greenery and public art. Emphasize Walnut Street,
River Street and Broadway as the main pedestrian
corridors in Downtown.
► Use public art throughout the parl<s and corridors
to distinguish Downtown as a place of cultural
expression and celebration.
► Worl<closelywithlocalbusinesses, residents (new
and existing) to ensure local parl<s and open spaces
are appropriately designed and programmed for
their varied needs.
► Create north / south bil<e access to the river along
Walnut and Cedar through a complete streets
policy. Encourage bicycle crossing of Pine Street
at 4th, River and 7th Street.
Downtown Design and Image
► 1he Downtown Small Area Plan provides guidance
for the core blocl<s of the Downtown. VC/here the
Downtown Small Area Plan does not provide
specific design guidance, the City's zoning
ordinance will guide design and image.
South Central Focus Area
Continued residential growth to the south is an
important element of the Comprehensive Plan. lhis
growth achieves several objectives:
► It helps to facilitate the expansion of the sanitary
sewer system in conjunction with the reconstruction
of Fallon Avenue. lhis sanitary sewer capacity is
� ��� .
�� �,� _ M
� ,c �,_ ' �„� � ' �
� _
`, ti �, . � h� ;� �-= �'�.�
'� �_: .r —
4' _ „.
�,^ � rr•:' . __ —h � �I.�e #' - -
.�
,. •F� ._ � � `w^ ��,
� �,;i ;: �
�
{�� r � ` ' _
� � � � � � '�,' • � � ..�,�
k
� i� �* — "� � +fr"-''+1
Y9 v
�-._ "
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to enhance the existing commercial core along Broadway by building
sfrong connecfions wifh fhe riverfronf and fhe cividrefail disfricf on fhe soufh end of Walnuf Sfreef.
. �'��'�:,
-,-"^'«'�
r. � � + : } ,��,,, �
�
s � � , �:. ��`F�'
x I��Sf+s���� '4.. � ., k}�f�',
.�� -.,�;, "� ��,� �,� �
��
� �: ,' �`,�. a -�-�� ti�'5�.. . ;._.►�� . �?� �
, ' �e - =��
� _ - _ `�` ..# _ �
�— � � . .. � , _ � •,�.4
� - �--',,,:±'_ _
`��. _ _
, - `�� . - �p ; _ ,��a � �
" . �,- �--�--
The currenf end of Walnuf Sfreefis a barrier fo improving connecfions befween Downfown and fhe
riverfront.
needed to support future industrial growth area
along Highway 25.
► These areas encourage growth in areas that could
use the new eastern interchange with I-94 rather
than Highway 25.
► These areas provide appropriate locations for
continued growth in entry-level single family
homes and medium density housing types.
These Places to Live are important elements of
maintaining an adequately diverse housing stocl<.
3-22 � Land Use City of Monticello
► Orderly expansion to the south moves development
towards area of higher natural amenity. Areas along
the southern edge of the Orderly Annexation Area
provide another location for potential "move up"
housing.
A 1<ey to development in this focus area is the
construction of the Fallon Avenue bridge. 1he bridge
leads to the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue and the
related expansion of municipal sanitary sewer and
water systems. Future development will be limited
without additional utility capacity.
East Focus Area
The Comprehensive Plan places greater priority on
growth to the west and south. Development should
be directed to areas that most effectively achieve the
objectives of this Plan.
Several factors could cause the City to encourage future
residential development in the East Focus Area:
► Increased overall housing demand that exceeds the
capacity to support growth in other areas.
► Traffic congestion on Highway 25 that increases
the need to channel use to the east interchange.
► The need to solve stormwater and drainage
management issues (Ditch 33) in this area. Solving
drainage issues allows eastward expansion along
County Road 18.
Future growth in the east should continue to fill in the
development area within the Orderly Annexation Area
on the east side of Monticello. 1he natural features in
these areas allow for higher amenity neighborhoods.
This growth can occur with new collector/arterial
street corridors.
Figure 3-13: Land Use Plan - South Central
Figure 3-14: Land Use Plan - East Focus Area
2008 Comprehensive Plan � Updated 2017 Land Use � 3-23
t;f-l�i�°��t� :�: ��i�l�i� i3(�`i�it;iS
Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts
:�,�bsection (1) R-4: Medium-High Density Residence District
Section 3.4 (I)
R-4 Medium-High Density Residence District
The purpose of the "R-4", medium-high density residential district is to provide for medium to high
density housing in multiple family structures of 13 or more units per building, and at densities of between
10 and 25 units per acre. The district is intended to establish higher density residential opportunities in
areas appropriate for such housing, to be determined by the City on a case by case basis. The City of
Monticello shall zone land to the R-4 District only when, in its sole discretion, all aspects of the property
support the potential uses of the R-4 district, including location, private and public services, and
compatibility with existing and future land uses in the area. In making a determination as to the
suitability of a site for R-4 rezoning, the City will prioritize the following site and area factors:
Replacement Land Uses. R-4 zoning fits the following zoning categories and circumstances:
• Land already zoned for R-3
• Land currently zoned for commercial uses, but which would not be considered "prime" commercial
(the City would like to protect "prime" commercial areas that show the most promise for that use in
the future).
Proximity to Other Residential Neighborhoods.
• R-4 zoning may be allowed in proximity to other medium to high density residential areas, however
the nature and concentration of existing multi-family structures shall be carefully considered to avoid
an over concentration of these uses.
R-4 zoning may be allowed in proximity to lower residential uses, if it is determined that the high
density site can address the site and area factors provided here.
Architectural Compatibility and Building Massing
• In the vicinity of lower density residential areas, R-4 District buildings need to be lower profile with
regards to size and mass, or need to be screened or buffered by distance and natural features.
Requirement for Adequate Public Facilities. High density residential development shall be located to
provide for the following essential services and amenities:
• Access to public parks, pathways, and open space, without overburdening them. R-4 development
may be required to provide additional facilities to meet the City's open space planning policies.
• Connection to public utilities.
• Access to major streets, or at the very minimum, avoidance of traffic generation that would utilize
local streets in lower density residential areas.
• Proximity to commercial and/or medical services.
This district is intended to provide exclusively multiple family housing as defined in this ordinance, as
opposed to lower density housing types such as townhouses, two-family homes, or single family homes.
City of M�rr�ieeilo Loning Ordinanc� h��� V 05
�I�A�i�� 3: Z��+liP�ffC; �/S7"�l�l`S
Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts
Subsection (1) R-4: Medium-High Density Residence Distri�t
Minimum and Maximum Density:
10 — 25 dwelling units per acre
Maximum Base Density:
1,750 sq. ft. per unit (25 units per acre)
Maximum Density through Planned Unit Development:
1,750 sq. ft. per unit (25 units per acre)
Base Lot Area
• Minimum = 30,000 square feet
Base Lot size
Gross Density a
Max Density w/o PUD
Net lot area per du
Frontsetback
Corner side setback
Interior side setback
Rear setback to building
Clear open space setback from
ROW
Clear open space setback from
Property Line
Buffer Req. to Single Family
Common open space per du
Landscaping
Parking requirements
Arc h itectu re
Roofs
Unit square feet
Garages
Garage Setback
Garage Doors
R-4 District
Multi-Family (13+ units / building)
30,000 sf
10-25 du/acre
NA
Max 1,750 sf/du
100 feet
40 feet
30 feet
40 feet
60 feet
40 feet — no more than 50% of any yard facing a street covered with parking/drive aisles
C buffer
500 sf/du
2 ACl/ 2,500 sf open space + 4 shrubs / 10 feet bldg. perimeter
2.25 spaces/du, with max I.I space/du uncovered
20% street min frontage covered with enhanced materials, horizontal siding of steel or
cement-board only (no vinyl or aluminum)
5:12 pitch, plus roof ridge line articulation of 3 feet min.
900 sf finished floor area per unit, minimum
Attached or Underground
Detached accessory garages allowed only after base requirements are met
May not access street directly — must be served by interior driveway
Must include glass and decorative panels if visible from public street or adjoining
residentiallv zoned orooertv
Page I 06 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
cHaPrER a: zo►v►►vG DrsrRrcrs
Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts
:�,�bsection (1) R-4: Medium-High Density Residence District
PUD Options for Multi-Family (6 — 12 units / building)
Multi-Family Buildings
Landscaping Increased landscape quantities and/or sizes beyond code minimums; Special landscape
features includin� water features, recreational structures, patios, etc.
Open Space Increased open space areas per unit beyond code minimums of 10% or more
Parking All required garage parking underground
Building Materials
Arc h itectu re
Site Work
Housing for Seniors restricted
to 55 vears of age or more
Increased use of stone, brick beyond front, or on other exterior walls
Extensive use of ornamental features, building and/or roofline articulation, fenestration
and building wall undulation atypical of other buildings in similar zoning districts
Use of decorative paving materials in parking, sidewalks, etc.;
Extensive use of ornamental site lighting or similar features.
Accommodations to design and density through PUD process only
City of Monticello Zoning Ordinan�� Page I 07