The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda - 09/16/2024 (Joint Workshop)AGENDA JOINT MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP Monday, September 16, 2024 — 5:00 PM Monticello Community Center Planning Commissioners: Chair Paul Konsor, Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Melissa Robeck, Rob Stark City Councilmembers: Mayor Lloyd Hilgart, Charlotte Gabler, Sam Murdoff, Tracy Hinz, Lee Martie Staff: Rachel Leonard, Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Tyler Bevier, Steve Grittman 1. Call to Order 2. Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Submittal for an approximately 158 mixed - unit single-family residential development located on parcels guided Low Density Residential. PIDs: 213100242201 and 213100242202 Legal Description: Lengthy —Contact City Hall Applicant: Tamarack Land (Reid Schulz) 3. Adjournment r(7 "�N it an Consulting Ilc Steve.GrittmanConsulting@gmail.com Land Use MEMORANDUM TO: Angela Schumann Mayor Hilgart and Monticello City Council Monticello Planning Commission FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: September 3, 2024 MEETING DATE: September 16, 2024 (Workshop Meeting) Planning, Zoning, RE: Monticello — Tamarack Land/"Meadows at Pioneer Park" — Concept PUD Review GC FILE NO: 120-01— 24.17 PLANNING CASE NO: 2024 - 039 PROPERTY ID: 213-100-242201; 213-100-242202 (pre -annexation) Site Context and Proiect Descri This memorandum reviews the elements of a proposed concept plan for a residential Planned Unit Development on a parcel east of Fallon Avenue, south of Cardinal Hills, and north of 851n Street NE. The property consists of approximately 67 acres that is currently unplatted and includes an existing homesite at the corner of Fallon and 85t". The subject parcel is transected by a gas transmission line corridor approximately 100 feet in width, from the northwest corner of the site to the southeast. A powerline corridor also crosses the northern boundary of the proposed project. The developer has laid out a proposed development of a series of single family detached parcels of two different lots size, which are smaller than the City's current R-1 (Single -Family) Residential regulations. The existing home and outbuildings are to remain within the concept. The developer previously brought forward a prior concept proposal; the current version of the concept plan has evolved somewhat from earlier reviews. The property required additional clarification of the impacts for the existing home, and boundary line clarifications for the single- family exception parcel along 85t" Street NE, which the development otherwise surrounds on three sides. The unit count in the concept plan is proposed at 157 new development lots, distributed between the two lot sizes. Over the developable acreage, this project would result in a residential density of approximately 2.7 units per acre. Comprehensive Plan Guidance The Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan (Comprehensive Plan) guides the entire parcel as "Low Density Residential". This land use classification is designed to accommodate primarily single- family housing on lots of 6,000 to 14,000 square feet, and at densities of 3-6 units per acre. The proposed density of 2.7 units per acre is slightly below this density and well within the expected density for single-family development. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the R-1 and R-A zoning districts as correlating districts to Low -Density Residential guidance but anticipates denser development than those districts accommodate by ordinance. Greater density is currently achieved in Monticello through Planned Unit Development, commonly allowing for smaller lots than the R-1 standard, with a PUD expectation of additional amenities or design features that support the zoning flexibility below the common R-1 regulations. The City has also adopted the T-N (Traditional Neighborhood) District, which specifically provides for narrower lots. This development proposes to use PUD to mix the variety of lots sizes while meeting the 2040 Plan's density guidance. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the Low Density Residential land use category is as follows: "By 2040, the Comprehensive Plan envisions low density single-family uses and conservation style development in these areas of the City and contiguous to the MOAA. Generally, an average density of 4 housing units per acre characterizes single-family neighborhoods but these areas could likely be developed between 3-6 units per acre depending on utility infrastructure, sensitive natural resources, conservation style development, developer preferences and project specifics. Other types of single-family housing styles, including small -lot development and attached single-family homes is encouraged in this and other residential land use designations." Further, the 2040 Plan's growth strategy states: • "Encourage growth which creates a strong and vibrant place to live, work, shop and recreate, with focused infill development and redevelopment to create a vibrant downtown and core community; development which provides a range of housing, employment and economic opportunity, development which provides both a walkable community and safe multi -modal transportation options; and development which sustains and enhances the natural amenities of Monticello. • "Support investment and reinvestment within the existing city boundary of Monticello, directing development into areas of Monticello already serviced or planned to be serviced by roads and utilities, while also thoughtfully designing and limiting development within and around sensitive natural areas." PUD Consideration For residential subdivisions with lots below the common R-1 lot development size, the City has implemented its PUD review most often through the some combination of the following elements: 1. Retention of valuable natural features; 2. Creative neighborhood design to avoid repetitiveness; 3. Mixtures of architectural styles and materials; 4. Residential buildings that maintain a strong street -facing presence; 5. Additional landscape and streetscape elements; 6. Management of infrastructure to minimize prominence of needed structures and utility elements; 7. Enhancement of trail and non -vehicular transportation opportunities; 8. Additional attention to stormwater element visual impacts. 9. Other features dependent on the unique attributes of the specific site. 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 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. 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. Again, the applicant is also looking for specific feedback in the areas of PUD flexibility noted in their narrative. 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, its development details, and the potential issues it presents. In this way, the subsequent land use and development specifics can be more finely tuned to address City policy elements. Future Review and Land Use Application Process Further land use approvals should this project proceed would include the following: o Annexation o Development Stage PUD o Preliminary Plat o Final Stage PUD :] o Final Plat o Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development Wetland permit review will also be required given the developer's proposal includes mitigation of a small wetland within the project area. The project unit count does not require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Staff Preliminary 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 guided for Low Density Residential land uses, suggesting "R-1, Single Family Residential" zoning designation, but with an expectation that variable lot sizes below the R-1 District are appropriate. The resulting density of the proposal is below the lower range of the City's expected density for this land use category. That said, the density is slightly higher than that of the surrounding neighborhoods, some of which developed long before the Comprehensive Plan and others more recently. For instance, the older Cardinal Hills neighborhood to the north is approximately 2.2 units per acre, while newer Haven Ridge 1st Addition to the south is approximately 2.4 units per acres. Lot Sizes. As noted above, the project proposes two different single family lot sizes based on width — 65' wide lots with 50' wide building pads, and 45' wide lots with 30' pads. The project concept anticipates 95 lots at the 65' dimension, and 62 lots of the 45' width, a total of 157 lots. The existing homesite would be platted as a single parcel of 4.1 acres. All 65' parcels anticipate side yard setbacks of a total of 15 feet. The plan notes an option at 5' on one side and 10' on the other. Staff notes that the City has imposed a minimum 6' setback, which would require a slight modification of that aspect of these parcels. The Chief Building Official's letter supports that continued recommendation. The R-1 standard is a minimum of 6' with a total side yard dimension, counting both sides, of 20'. This is an area of PUD flexibility incorporated into the applicant's request. Side yard setbacks for the 45' lots are listed as 7' on each side, consistent with City minimums for residential parcels, although still as aspect of flexibility. Front yard and rear yard setbacks are identified within the applicant's narrative as 30 feet for all parcels of both widths. The R-1 front yard setback standard is 30 feet. Monticello has received a number of small -lot subdivision requests over the past few years. The City has generally responded positively to the various proposals in the interest of adding housing stock and understanding the current conditions relating to rising costs and interest rates in terms of housing affordability. The City's experience with recently constructed subdivisions of similar lot size has been reasonably positive, particularly with regard to building size and quality. The 45' lots will raise some potential new issues as related to front fagade treatment and building variety. However, as with any PUD, the City's objective is to accommodate flexibility in its zoning and subdivision standards without compromising its overall housing goals, which include affordability and attractive, livable neighborhoods. The challenge for the City and the development community will be to find PUD neighborhood enhancements that preserve those goals and balance the interests of the developer and builder groups as subdivisions proceed. iii. Circulation. The overall PUD project gains access from three primary street locations. One is from 85th Street NE, extending through the project from south to north as Tanager Lane, and then into the Cardinal Hills neighborhood to Tanager Circle and Mallard Lane. A second access extends from 89th Street NE from the Featherstone neighborhood to the west. An east -west connection extends Fallon Drive from the Cardinal Ponds neighborhood in the northwest to a future extension on the south. Much of the plat area is developed around two streets connecting with Tanager Lane, and eventually continuing to the east to access future development. It is noted that some modification of the street labeling will be needed to address the City's street naming protocols. Each of these access points is reasonable and expected for the site. There is no effective way to connect the project area directly to the surrounding collector system, and as such, the project is dependent on connections through the local street network, then to the collector streets serving the area. While reliance on local street connections alone is not ideal, the existing land and utility easement layouts leave few options. The number of these connections (a total of five) will maximize the ability of all traffic disperse along several routes, ultimately reducing traffic past individual properties. These connections points also provide access to existing utility corridors, provide for emergency vehicle access and circulation, and create opportunities for neighborhood connectivity. As with any such project, phasing will also be an issue to work with to ensure adequate access as the project is built out. The applicant discusses three phases, but suggests also that those details are yet to be determined. iv. Building Materials and Architecture. The application does not include building materials or architecture. The developer expects to sell lots to builders that cannot yet identify architecture or building details. It is not uncommon that some of the City's building standards differ from the standard models created by certain builders. Once the PUD and Plat are adopted, it is difficult to manage these issues. To move forward without a palette of architectural models, staff proposes that the following standards are applied to the PUD during formal application, which the developer can use to work with builders purchasing lots in the project. The standards are drawn from other recent housing projects that received PUD approvals and would allow the City to treat housing in this project consistently with those recent PUD requirements. Current Comparative Standards Alternative Standards a. Adherence to the City's T-N, Traditional Neighborhood zoning lot standards and setbacks, in the absence of a PUD design element addressing the other items in this list. Those standards include the following: b. 25 foot front setbacks, with 6 feet No change - these are minimum side yards and 20 feet rear yards. standards. c. Building sizes of 1,050 finished, and c. Building sizes of 950 sf finished, and 2,000 square feet finishable area. 1700 square feet finishable area. These are minimums, and averages should be measurably higher. d. Garage square footage of at least d. Garage square footage of at least 19 480 square feet feet in interior width and 22 feet in interior depth to accommodate garbage can storage. With garages smaller than the 480 sf standard, a condition shall be included that prohibits exterior accessory buildings. e. Roof pitches of at least 5/12. e. Roof pitches of at least 5/12; however, lesser pitch may accommodated on small roofline projections where a 5/12 pitch is impractical and/or does not compromise the visual impression of the structure. f. Brick/Stone on front facade equal to f. Brick/Stone on front facade equal to at least 15% of all front -facing surfaces. at least 15% of all front -facing surfaces. Limited exceptions may be accommodated where other architectural design features such as corbels, dormers, usable porches or other enhancements are incorporated on the front facade. g. Livable portions of the home g. Livable portions of the home exposed to the front street will span exposed to the front street will span no no less than 40% of the width of the less than 12 feet of front -facing space, structure, with designs to be approved including a front -facing entry door and through the PUD process. other enhancements to be identified. h. Usable front porches or similar h. Front porch spaces, covered features. entryways, portico or pergola features, or landscaped improvements, and other elements will be required. i. Front entry doors no greater than 6 i. This element may be flexed but will feet farther back from the garage require additional enhancements, such doors. as front porch spaces, covered entryways, and/or portico or pergola features, in order to minimize the visual impression of a garage -forward house design, focusing on neighborhood street views. j. Additional large tree planting j. Additional large tree planting (including trees of at least 3" caliper (including additional trees of at least planting size) in the front yards of the 2.5" caliper planting size) in the front proposed lots to make a more yards of the proposed lots to make a immediate impact on the streetscape. more immediate impact on the streetscape. This may include clusters of tree planting in available spaces, and other techniques to elevate streetscape over infrastructure and hardscape elements. k. Driveway standards per the R-1 k. Driveway standards per the R-1 District. District, however, narrower driveways will be required when street parking, infrastructure, landscape, or other factors require it. vi. Connectivity and Open Space. The site plans provide sidewalks along one side of each of the streets, per City ordinance. Also included in this design is the creation of a public trail along the boundary of the plat with Cardinal Hills and connecting to an existing side -yard path into the Cardinal Hills neighborhood. The applicants have previously indicated that extending this pathway farther to the east along that alignment is impractical due to topography. Instead, the trail cuts through the sideyards of two proposed lots and ties into the sidewalk along Goldfinch Avenue, which continues to the east and then south. This pathway also connects into the existing trail that intersects with Mallard Lane to the north. A proposed trail connection along the west side of the site connects to the existing pathway that extends along the east side of Fallon through Haven Ridge. Staff will also continue to evaluate the need for the northerly portion of the pathway to connect to the existing pathway along the west side of Fallon, which leads directly into Pioneer Park. The PARC may have additional comments regarding open space and connectivity on the site. There are wetlands on the site, two of which will be integrated into outlots in the northern portion of the site. The preserved wetland areas offer opportunity for additional landscaping and passive seating spaces. One small wetland in the center of the property is proposed to be mitigated. There is little to no existing tree cover on the site. Finally, while the proposed concept has shown sidewalks along the internal streets, the project will be required to provide additional right of way and path along Fallon Avenue. The City Engineer will have additional comment on right of way and related issues. vii. Landscaping and Streetscape. It would be expected that the development provide enhanced landscaping features as part of any PUD flexibility. The City has sought enhanced streetscape planting to supplement residential projects using PUD flexibility. Street tree planting would be one such element. While streetscape will be an issue to address in all of the project, it becomes an even greater visual aspect in the 45' lot neighborhood. Driveways for these residents will typically consume much of the available curb line, resulting in an equal significant percentage of pavement in the front yard spaces. Moreover, the remaining green space is often interrupted with utility cabinets and other necessary structures. Finally, there is little curb -line left for the parking of visitor vehicles, and the narrow areas remaining can make it difficult for neighbors when backing out of driveway when on -street parking is utilizing all of the space between driveways. The applicant plans to address parking configurations with a series of small parking nodes in proximity to the 45' lot areas. Details of these facilities will need to be worked out, as all streets in this subdivision are public, and maintenance could be an issue. The applicant proposes a small outlot (Outlot E) along Robin Street. This area could serve as a common mail station location. However, use and ownership of this outlot will require further definition. Staff notes that Outlot G at the east end of Fallon Drive is affected by adjoining boundary lines, and details of that outlot will also require additional information. Additional detail will be reviewed as the Development Stage PUD and Preliminary Plat phase is considered. viii. Future Site Planning. As noted, the proposer has provided street connections to the east and south, undeveloped lands that separates the Meadowbrook area from the 85t" Street extension to the southeast, and an eventual extension to Fenning Avenue NE. The plan will require study to ensure that these access points will accommodate a reasonable extension of the proposed streets through these undeveloped parcels, and allow development. ix. Other Details. In regard to the gas line easement transecting the proposed project, staff would recommend that the land area of the gas line easement be incorporated into the adjoining lots, extending the lots lines to the center of the easement. This will avoid the creation of an outlot that will present long-term maintenance and ownership issues. The Development Stage PUD phase of review will consider all of the above elements, as well as development signage, accessory uses and structures (if any), service needs, utilities, and all other aspects of the project. The proposers have noted flexibility requests from lot sizes, circulation relying part on adjoining local streets and future connections to adjoining collector roadways, as well as side -yard setback provisions and possibly other areas of flexibility. As noted above, the staff notes recommend consideration of a common treatment of architectural provisions up front — provisions which are based on other recent PUD subdivision considerations. 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 conflict, as well as any elements of the concept that the City would find essential for eventual approval. Specific comment should address the following potential issues, with the notation that the applicant is looking for specific direction with regard to the Commission and Council's support of PUD flexibility for lot size and other elements. Those items are listed in bold below. 1. Site Planning — The concept plan details adequate front and rear yard setbacks for all proposed lots. However, the sideyard setbacks designated for 65' wide lots should be verified to accommodate the City's minimum requirement for 6' side yards. Comments for enhanced streetscape and minimized pavement are of particular importance in the narrow -lot portion of the project, but applicable in all areas of the subdivision. The lots along the gas line easement should be revised to extend lots lines to the center of the easement on either side. The developer should also verify whether a homeowner's association will be established for any of the development. 10 In regard to the existing single-family homesite, it is anticipated that the uses and existing buildings will be allowed to continue, including maintenance and repair, as part of the PUD ordinance established for the development. The Monticello 2040 Plan includes the following strategy: "Adopt zoning regulations that allow for a wider diversity of housing types, identify character defining features and encourage a center of focus for each neighborhood." The developer's development stage plans should identify locations of focus and character for the neighborhood. 2. Building Design and Materials — At a conceptual level, the boards should comment on the proposed building and design standards identified by staff in order to provide the developer with direction as they consider pursuing development and final stage applications. 3. On -street Parking — Three small parking bays for additional guest parking have been provided in the smaller lot single family area. These will be important to maintain within the plan to accommodate additional off-street parking for the narrower lots, given the minimal spacing between driveways for on -street parking. HOA maintenance of these spaces should be identified. 4. Mailbox Locations/Utility Structures — For all areas of the subdivision, it can be important to address these streetscape elements up -front as a part of subdivision design, particularly in a PUD environment where flexibility in other areas of the City's zoning is to be balanced by development amenities or features. This is more important the narrower lots become. Planning for these structures can help avoid this aspect of subdivision development become too prominent a visual feature of the streetscape. There are locations within the development that provide opportunity for clustered mailbox features. 5. Landscaping — This will be an aspect of Development Stage PUD design, with the streetscape landscaping a consideration throughout the project area. Staff has suggested landscaping requirements to enhance the narrower lot design. 6. Circulation and Access —The plan accommodates three access points from the development for traffic circulation, as well as two connection points to future development. Phasing of the development relative to the access points will be a review point for future applications. 7. Open Space and Connectivity — The development parcel is directly adjacent to Pioneer Park, located to the northwest. A connection to the pathway along the west side of Fallon, including evaluation of a crossing at that point, will be made as part of development review. As part of PUD enhancements, the use of wetland spaces for passive seating and enhanced landscaping are encouraged. 8. Engineering - Comments and recommendations as provided separately. 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. 11 SUPPORTING DATA A. Aerial Site Image B. Applicant Narrative C. Site Plan D. City Engineer's Comment Letter and Plan Review E. Chief Building Official's Letter F. Excerpts, Monticello 2040 Plan G. Excerpts, Monticello Housing Needs and Demand Report 12 �TIFF I f I cl . 91�7w—j: CCCC.I� ��n'�L[PC�nII�C CCU, ,0»> \ -off ` CCCC�CCCCr� 'R °--- -O Qr� FF-CCCCCrn T.aJJJJ_000CCC� l 2? �I r^FF FFR -EE [Fr CC , m�-�� F-V 213100241 I I 1 LLLL LLLL� a FF DO AilMAP rill. c,c ' loll I The Meadows at Pioneer Park Tamarack Land Development is excited to create another wonderful community to live, play and enjoy for many families in Monticello. This wonderful new community is proposed in the heart of a residential growing area of the City with many amenities in place to support this community including utilities, parks, shopping and roadways that make this a great place to call home for many. Situated just off Fallon Avenue and 85`h Street NE, the site comprised of 67 acres surrounded by low density residential single-family neighborhoods to the north, west and south of the property, making this a great community to add to the area. Existing Site Nestled in the farm fields of the Nelson Farm today, sits pockets of lowland natural wetland pockets that provide habitat for many and important ecological water basins. The design of neighborhood was created to protect these features and was carefully designed around them while also providing amenities to bring people and nature together. The existing homestead along with the existing outbuildings would be preserved in the proposed plan. Proposed Site Design As mentioned above, careful consideration was taken into account to protect the onsite wetlands when the design was laid out. Primary street ingress/egress connections are proposed off off 851h Streetwith two inner connection to the neighborhood to the north, one off of existing Fallon Drive and one off of Mallord Lane. These connections are critical to the safety network and interconnectivity of the area. Internal roadways are designed to meet City of Monticello standards for local roadways including dedicating of 60-foot wide right- of-ways. A trail connection is proposed from the existing trail network from 8511 Street to the neighborhood of Cardinal Hills. The proposed development would also create inner connecting sidewalk networks internally. Stormwater ponding is proposed strategically in areas that can sufficiently and effectively treat and store stormwater prior to discharging to local wetlands and offsite discharges. The proposed development ponding will be sized appropriately to meet all local and state regulations. The ponds are proposed to become public after completion and acceptance. Proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) The proposed PUD will provide the area with a variety of housing types with flexibility in lot sizes for different styles of homes. The proposed concept plan proposes two lot sizes, a 65- foot wide lot or "traditional lots" and a 45-foot wide "villa or detached townhome" lot. Flexibility in lot sizes is important for this development to a HOA maintained program and allowing a more affordable product that requires less maintenance for the homeowner. This multiple style housing withing the development requires flexibility to the standard zoning, thus the proposed PUD. Important public benefits for this development were considered when developing this plan. 1) Flexibility within the lot sizes allows for the variety of house styles that would otherwise not be accommodated on larger traditional lots. In order for a HOA maintained community, smaller lots are needed to accommodate the style of home proposed. The housing type proposed on the "villa lots/detached townhomes" are only conducive for lots with smaller maintenance areas. Additionally, to support the HOA, the number of units is important to help share the costs and promote an effective managed HOA. Smaller HOXs are not as effective and efficient to operate. 2) Affordability. The PUD with smatter lots not only creates a sustainable HOA community, but also reduces the operational costs, reducing the HOA fees. Smaller Lots done correctly like the proposed plan, promotes more affordable housing but reducing the unnecessary costs of lot areas, smaller building footprints, etc.. that this style of home targets. The option for homeowners to choose a housing product that meets their needs, such as independent living without the maintenance requirements of traditional single family homes, smaller floor plans with one level living, oftentimes with slab on grade foundations that allow for a more accessible floor plan all while achieving a more affordable product. 3) Preservation of natural resources. As mentioned above, preservation of natural resources was important, the PUD allows for density to be achieved in areas outside of the critical habitat preserving these areas while still creating a neighborhood meeting density goals for the region. 4) Trails and connectivity. Public benefit serving residents outside of this neighbood is the proposed trail connection between 85" and the existing neighborhood. This connection is important for safety connecting neighborhoods to Pioneer Park. The PUD flexibility, allowing for density to occur in areas that make sense, allows for this trait connection to be constructed on the west and north end of the development, where otherwise might be consumed with ponding and proposed lots. Tamarack is excited to bring another beautiful neighborhood to Monticello. The proposed plan includes 95 traditional single-family tots and 62 smaller villa style lots along with the 1 existing to remain homestead for a total of 158 lots on approx. 59 developable acres or a net density of 2.69 units/acre. Proposed Lot Standards Traditional Lots: Min. Lot Width: 65' Min. Lot Depth: 130' Min. Lot Area: 8,000 SF Setbacks: Front: 30' Side: 7.5'/7.5' or 5' & 10' Rear: 30' Villa Lots: Min. Lot Width: 45' Min. Lot Depth: 135' Min. Lot Area: 6,000 SF Setbacks: Front: 30' Side: 7' Rear: 30' Developer - Tamarack Land 712 Vista Blvd, Ste 303 Waconia, MN 55387 Contact: Reid Schulz 612.817.9433 Land Owner David and Judy Nelson 5106 85" Street NE Monticello, MN 55362 Engineer/Surveyor• Bogart, Pederson & Associates 130761 n Street Becker, MN 55308 Contact: Chris Dahn cdahn(la bogart-c d .r on om 701.630.0508 Address: 5106 851" St. NE & Unassigned Address, Monticello TWP, MN 55362 PID#: 213100242201 & 213100242202 Current Zoning: Agriculture Land Use: Transition Area (Wright County) Parcel Size: 67.47 acres (Combined) Legal Description: Proposed 65' wide lots: 95 lots Proposed 45' wide lots: 62 lots Existing to remain: 1 lot Total Lots:158 Lots Proposed ROW Width: 60 feet Proposed Gross Density: 2.342 units/acre Proposed Net Density: 2.685 units/acre (Excludes collector roadways, wetland, gas line easements, steep slopes) See exhibit below. Total Area: 2,938,850 SF or 67.47 Ac. ROW Area: 492,248 SF or 11.30 Ac. Lot Area: 1,542,508 SF or 35.41 Ac. Existing Homestead: 178,565 SF. or 4.10 Ac. Outlot A (Pond): 102,842 SF or 2.36 Ac. Outlot B (Pond/Wetland/Gas line): 279,881 SF or 6.43 Ac. Outlot C (Pond): 190,458 SF or 4.37 Ac. Outlot D (Common Area): 31,587 SF or 0.73 Ac. Outlot E (Common Area): 5,819 SF or 0.133 Ac. Outlot F (Common Area): 6,787 SF or 0.16 Ac. Outlot G (Common Area): 17,494 SF or 0.40 Ac. Outlot H (Gas line): 90,661 SF or 2.08 Ac. .HH 1 2tNA} obW D1H oax 1 611n 0.Tf1 s Dmq uro1 f Imn o.YW Y D)Rn NBI R Di15n 9 U150 DYW U15n 0Y1tt tl V.Yd.6 O.Rd Y 1 9MI 6Tl) Y )1 tY.I Y b;IXO D ]3q DYDI S D Al 51RH ¢Yp1 1 /.nfn I:MYi 6)46 B 0Y10 )b Bmn 1f DYRn CYBI VldL] LL2W z u naD.S v;,ar 5 H.MI BYt Y6fOil LL611 4 L B l 6MSD 61H 5 B 6138 6 • 30 61SD I BIMaD 61M BN50 11 I )P91'( DIp( IIAMEJ 6Y/f B 0.155 BWSB 1 1 B 6 D 6W9 0Y SD y1M 0.f 8 B 61M 9 aEYd 61Y N 3 61f0 1f 4 6YW rroH vas) : xfH aWB 4.60)B 6.IDB 4dN9 D.W6 )+W4 61W 5 5 e, CJF VfIB 5 D D •v 415 1 td5 § 5 b:DFO G.1i5 5 9 6tiD10 0.f 15 4 5 D Wo S I1 6161 0.f/6 61H 4 U ) .} 0.1 ) 5 L ) ZS 61W 1 t4 B DIBB S 1D fo BL py) S IY fi,YB.t OS)5 5 10 5 6N) 6 tl 9 OM) 5 A B,bAD DAI 5 T 9 D.Yaf 5 h B 61D) 5 13 9M60 03Df 6 M 9 Om) 5 b Bb18 619D 4 i ).1W) piW : urcH van 0 Y BA60 OSA 9 6YYB BBgL tlS(6 • s u,efD.l vaaY B u oazf I 9lAp p$A b B Y D 0.TA 4 6TY3 tJT}5b LL3YJ Wli I81 4tl MI 1 t):9dY B,%h ) 3 9 4N l 9 a BT[5 5 e1 q OTN 91WA U.NJ 9,l®q 9.1ro S V.Ma.Y O.b - CQLECiL:1 RJH Ll4 fAYMEM O— f!]6D 6di �3,4 9I6I5GidilYk -81B90.GOEB ffiSM6 CMOB04 14DOYISQi`A03b Conceptual Plan Review & Annexation Preliminary Plat Submittal: Final Plat Submittal: Construction Start Phase 1 Grading: Construction Start Phase 1 Streets: Construction Complete Phase 1 Phase 2 construction: Phase 3 construction: Complete 12/2024 February 2025 April 2025 May 2025 July 2025 November 2025 2026 2027 Phasing is TBD, however phase 1 likely would be the streets and lots south of the gas pipeline. I I I z o ` �� // ��.� ova 0 / 100' Ln w a o w U) u Lu o I I i i I y QJ _ L_ — — —� SCALE: 1" = 100' w w I C (, /� �d� \ MALLARD LANE /f \ \ I NUMBER OF HOUSES cli LOT AMOUNT Q 0 N N SINGLE FAMILY HOMES: 95 O o 0 \ / o VILLA HOMES: 6P o WOi N 3- I7 O — East . A tiol:Re/e e of en[ � N w q I 90 32T � pp O N N 4 _ I \ v \ ¢o CO w0 m w �u = C) w o v o wOUTLOT C Lk [5 OUTLOTA OUTLOT B r 1 JL_�� I 20Lr,,,r -ED LiNI .. 1 1 F 3 4 LL \ \ \ \ \ \ ^\ \ I J I Z I � 6I 5 16 /l i / \ 00 : Lu _ W r--+_ — I---_ / 20 f L Q m- / 5\ � li \ \ \ \ i \ �� \, OUTLOT F ^ \ / \� 19/ L H I \ \ \ 6 \\ \� UTLOTE � / I O >wEW z \ \ \ ^ l \ \ \ OUTLOT D r 1 24 O a o J to co cd gQw "SF- 14)� 7r 125 EEI 10 �g� f — — gl � 26-1 27� qwr28 � <C �/ I I I H J Z I 13\ Lu41 J H w U > 2 2L F- 15 16 L 25 26 Q g wLu \ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 a' > y; ourLoro x:x 11 \ i Q 4- - ------�ePipeline Easement O I'(Dac No 680480) I < >. I I \f \ d U \ / \ 12 SHEET NO. CALF 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING: C2.0 GOPH R STATE ONE CALL N CITY AREA 651-454-0002 \ � \ MINN OTA TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166 i 0 U (7 Z w m U) 0 0 00 M 0 L0 L0 z Cfi 0 IL a w z z 0 0 M W D U) U) W D z W Q Q Z w x 0 wsb August 29, 2024 Matt Leonard City Engineer/Public Works Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street, Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 Re: Tamarack Residential Subdivision - Concept Stage PUD Plan Review City Project No. 2024-38 WSB Project No. 026480-000 Dear Mr. Leonard: We have reviewed the Tamarack residential subdivision conceptual stage PUD site plans dated August 12, 2024. The applicant proposes to construct a 157-unit single-family residential development on a 67 acre parcel. The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Monticello's general engineering and stormwater treatment standards. We offer the following comments regarding these matters. General 1. City staff will provide additional comments under separate cover. 2. Trail outlots or easements shall be 30' in width. 3. Verify the project concept will work with the existing utility easements on the property. Show the locations of existing easements on future submittals. 4. If split lots with existing structures are annexed into the City, provide utility stubs to serve the split lots. Once the utility stubs are provided, connection shall be made with the timelines outlined in the City of Monticello Code Chapter 50: Water and Sewer Ordinance. 5. The plat will require 12' perimeter and 6' side -yard drainage and utility easements. 6. The Fallon Avenue right of way shall be 50' from centerline. 7. With future submittals provide soil borings and full geotechnical evaluation to verify soil conditions, groundwater elevations within the site, and the proposed pavement section meeting City design requirements. Site, Street, & Utility Plans 8. With future submittals, provide a full civil plan set that includes an existing/removals plan, utility plan, more detailed site/paving plan, grading plan, erosion/sediment control, and standard details plan. M:\026480-000\Admin\Docs\2024-08-12 Submittal (Concept)\_2024-08-29 Tamarack Residential Subdivision - Concept Stage PUD - WSB Engineering Comments.docx Tamarack Residential Subdivision Concept Stage PUD — WSB Engineering Plan Review August 29, 2024 Page 2 9. Streets and utilities shall be designed in accordance with the applicable City Subdivision Ordinances and the City's General Specifications and Standard Details Plates for Street and Utility Construction. 10. The plan includes trails, sidewalks, and pedestrian facilities. See additional comments on pedestrian access and mobility requirements provided by City Staff under separate cover. A more detailed review will be provided with future submittals. 11. The Fire Marshall and/or building department will review required fire hydrant location(s) and emergency vehicle access/circulation. Fire truck circulation will need to accommodate the City's ladder truck. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building structures, cul-de-sacs, roundabout areas, and parking lots as applicable. Additional comments may be provided under separate cover. 12. With future submittals, provide a utility plan showing the existing and proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer serving the site. An overall utility plan was not provided with the plan submittal however, below are initial concept level comments: a. Watermain looping may be required through the site to provide adequate fire flow supply. b. Additional utility stubs to adjacent properties may also be required to accommodate future looping connections. c. See initial comments on concept plan markups. Stormwater Management 13. Below are General Stormwater Requirements for the Site: d. The applicant will be required to submit a stormwater management plan for the proposed development in accordance with the requirements in the City's Design Manual. e. Infiltration is required for new developments. If infiltration is not feasible provide documentation on the rational before moving to additional BMP's. f. The new site will need to provide onsite volume control for runoff of 1.1" over the new impervious area, Pre-treatment measures are required prior to discharging to the volume control BMPs. g. Water quality requirements will be considered met if volume control is achieved for the site. If volume control cannot be met then the development will need to show a no net increase of TSS and TP. h. Rate control will be required for the new development. All rates must be equal or less than existing rates for each discharge location. i. An operation and maintenance plan for all stormwater BMPs is required and should be submitted with the stormwater report for review. j. The site is not within the DWSMA and is subject to requirements of the City's Wellhead Protection Plan. 14. Two feet of freeboard is required for the HWL of a basin to the low opening of a structure. Two feet of vertical separation is also required from an area's EOF elevation to the low opening. 15. Include storm sewer sizing calculations with future plans. Refer to the City design guidelines for Storm sewer requirements. k. All flared end sections 12 inches in diameter and greater shall include trash guards per City detail Tamarack Residential Subdivision Concept Stage PUD — WSB Engineering Plan Review August 29, 2024 Page 3 I. The minimum full flow velocity within the storm sewer should be three fps. The maximum velocity shall be 10 fps, except when entering a pond, where the maximum velocity shall be limited to six fps. m. Vaned grate (3067V) catch basin castings shall be used on all streets. n. The maximum design flow at a catch basin for the 10-year storm event shall be three cubic feet per second (cfs), unless high capacity grates are provided. Catch basins at low points will be evaluated for higher flow with the approval of the City Engineer. 16. The last structure prior to discharge to a stormwater BMP is required to be a 4' minimum sump structure. 17. The proposed project will disturb more than one acre. Develop and include a SWPPP consistent with the MPCA CSWGP with future plan submittals. Provide calculations showing disturbed area, proposed impervious, and future impervious for the site. 18. 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. 19. A detailed review of erosion and sediment control BMP's will take place with future submittals. Provide redundant perimeter control around all wetlands onsite. Traffic & Access 20. The applicant is proposing three driveway access points, one extending from the existing Fallon Drive, one creating a south leg at the Mallard Lane and Tanager Circle intersection, and one located along 85th Street, approximately 1,200 feet east of Fallon Avenue. Street access spacing, grades, and sight lines will be reviewed with future submittals. 21. The site would generate approximately 1,481 daily trips, 111 AM peak hour trips and 148 PM peak hour trips. With this development and the Haven Ridge development connecting to the south, the proposed traffic is expected to have an impact along Fallon Avenue, 851h Street, Starling Drive, and School Boulevard. 22. Provide a traffic study for this development including impacted intersections, turn lane recommendations, and traffic control mitigation measures if needed. In addition, the location of the driveways adjacent to 85th St NE should be reviewed to make sure they are not impacted by the traffic turning on to 85th St NE. 23. A sight line analysis should be completed at the Site Access Street and 851h St NE. Wetlands & Environmental 24. Provide a wetland delineation for approval by the Local Government Unit. Wetland boundaries should be included on future plans. The City requires buffers around existing wetlands and the buffer widths are based on the wetland function. 25. Any permanent or temporary wetland impacts from new development must be permitted under the Wetland Conservation Act through a replacement plan. Tamarack Residential Subdivision Concept Stage PUD — WSB Engineering Plan Review August 29, 2024 Page 4 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. Feel free to contact me at 612-419-1549 if you have any questions or comments regarding the engineering review. Sincerely, James L. Stremel, P.E. Senior Project Manager I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MALLARD LANE I 1 \ / 1 I I � 1 r ----------- ---- a7 Frl 3 4 5 I IT --------- ------ ��.. -- -- ---------- L I� I I , 1 ,I [-r81119 !f 10 L ` OUTLOTA- OUTLOTB IT ��' I I� I , I - LPL �L- 3-J I 2 L-1 J L? J L ✓ \I �20 3!19 \ \ 1 \ ✓ 4 `> \ LLAlH S HE J Li 01 I I \ II 11 \ 12 Z 0 a o > ") wow 0 N � W? m a SCALE: 1" = 100' 3 N N NUMBER OF HOUSES LOTAMOUNT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES: 95 VILLA HOMES: 62 1 --4- OUTLOT C �v4w 21 22 I I 123 24 I �125 r zfi� 2 Fis I I I L IS J 1 S 117 J I IC7I C 7 20 21J 22 I 23 124 125J 26 --- Pipeline Easement --'(Doc. No. 680480) \ \ I \� CALL 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING'. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL \ N CITY AREA 851<54-1002 MINN OTA TOLL FREE 1-800-252-1166 z J Z LLJ ow Z J U LL, � C U g > Z t a 00 J G .�p 3 H Q I Ln � 0 O J Lu og W w U C > ci Q O Q U SHEET NO C2.0 s a e�;Ir +rA. t "'A" it CITY OF O`� Monticello Oi25 i 1, �,A-4i M �b 4L. rQ09 i I,�'i� �ir , �Y 25E F ,q , r i i ----------- 1 in = 333 Ft N A August 21, 2024 Map Powered By Datafi ws b CITY �OF Monticello August 29", 2024 Tamarack Development: The Meadows at Pioneer Park. General Comments PHONE:763-295-2711 Fax:763-295-4404 505 Walnut Street Suite 1 Monticello, MN 55362 The city is not responsible for errors and omissions on the submitted plans. The owner, developer, and engineer of record are fully responsible for changes or modifications required during construction to meet the City's requirements. After review of the most recent land use application for the proposed development in the city of Monticello, we have determined the following based on the MN State Fire Code: • Provide fire truck turning radius on the civil plans. • Provide locations of all fire hydrants on civil plans. (locations must meet fire/city code) • Verify cut -de -sacs meet the city code requirements, and fire truck turning requirements. • Minimum side yard setback is 6 feet. Strongly recommend maximum of 1 foot soffit width. These items are subject to the approval of the Monticello Fire Chief and Fire Inspector. This is a preliminary list of items that would need to be addressed. Sincerely, Chief Building Official/Zoning Administrator www.ci.monticel lo.m mus FUTURE LAND USE MAP LOW -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) The Low -Density Residential designation corresponds to the majority of Monticello's single-family residential neighborhoods. These areas are characterized by subdivisions of detached homes, usually on lots from 7,000 to 14,000 square feet. Housing in this designation includes single-family detached residential units as well as detached accessory structures. Other compatible uses, such as schools, nursing homes, private parks and religious facilities may also locate in this designation. Residential • Single -Family • Other Low -Density Residential uses Public/institutional • Schools Recreational • Parks/Playgrounds Open Space • Sensitive Habitat Primary Mode Vehicular (slow speeds) Secondary Mode Pedestrian paths !1 and trails Bicycle facilities and parking 1F Transit or Shuttle Service • Density - 3-6 units/acre ♦ 2018 Correlating (Low -Density Zoning District Residential) R-A • Height - Residential 1-2 stories Amenities District • Lot Area - R-1 Single -Family 6,000-14,000 Residence District sq. ft. per unit MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 71 GROWTH STRATEGY Monticello's growth strategy balances land use development needs with real estate market demand, and transportation and infrastructure improvement requirements to ensure an orderly and efficient use of land and resources. There is a significant amount of development potential within Monticello's existing municipal boundary and even greater potential in the surrounding MOAA. Therefore, for the next 20 years, the general growth strategy prioritizes development of remaining available vacant land within existing boundaries and the downtown and surrounding area before substantially developing and annexing land within the MOAA. The growth strategy has three objectives: Encourage growth which creates a strong and vibrant place to live, work, shop and recreate, with focused infill development and redevelopment to create a vibrant downtown and core community, • development which provides a range of housing, employment and economic opportunity, development which provides both a walkable community and safe multi -modal transportation options, and development which sustains and enhances the natural amenities of Monticello. • Support investment and reinvestment within the existing city boundary of Monticello, directing development into areas of Monticello already serviced or planned to be serviced by roads and utilities, while also thoughtfully designing and limiting development within and around sensitive natural areas. Ensure the managed development of appropriate and compatible land uses which is resilient to shifts and changes in the economy, real estate market and consumer demand, and responds to a changing tax base. Briar Oakes Residential Property, Source: City of Monticello Another aspect of the growth strategy is the designation of significant portions of the MOAA as a Development Reserve. This is land reserved for an extended, longer -term growth horizon beyond 2040 and the time horizon of this Comprehensive Plan. However, some development in the MOAA is likely to occur before 2040 and Monticello should adjust its land use policies and decision - making with some measure of flexibility to accommodate new development proposals as they occur. As long as development proposals meet the overarching land use planning goals presented in this Comprehensive Plan, an amendment to the Plan is the proper procedure for consideration of such projects. Consideration for projects in the MOAA and annexation requests will follow the current annexation agreement parameters, or any future amendments to the agreement. Growth and development within the MOAA would naturally follow the existing roadway network and its potential for expansion as well as the availability of utility infrastructure, specifically sewer and water lines provided as City services. Specific projects will require analysis of utility and infrastructure needs, roadway network capacity, as well as land use compatibility. Given the MOAA's existing land area and its growth potential, its full development build -out would occur over a much longer time period, extending beyond the 20-year timeline of this plan. Land in the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area 50 41«4[<M 419« � LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION IMPLEMENTATION CHART: LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION SHORT- I LONG- ONGOING THEME TERM TERM I Policy2.1: Neighborhood Strategy2.1.1-Adopt zoning regulations Diversity & Life -Cycle Housing •• that allow for a wider diversity of housing types, identify character defining features and O O . • • • • • Sustain a diverse array of encourage a center of focus for • - • • • neighborhood character and each neighborhood. • • • . - housing types throughout • • • • - • • • Monticello. These will range from • • • • • . • estate residential to established Strategy2.1.2- Encourage opportunities for residents to stay in Monticello, with additional • - • • • • • • • • traditional neighborhoods, to options for estate residential, senior living, and • • . - • • • • new planned subdivisions and other life -cycle options. Strategy2.1.3 - Amend zoning regulations as • • • . - • • • conservation development, and • . - • - • • • • • neighborhoods oriented around • . • • • • • • a center or activity generator. necessary to allow for small -lot single family homes, neo-traditional housing styles, cottage • - • • • . • • The unique design elements that homes, accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and • • • . • • • • define each neighborhood should mansion style condos. • • • • be protected and enhanced in the future including its housing stock, Strategy2.1.4 - Encourage housing options which incorporate Universal Design to promote parks and public infrastructure. equity in housing choice. Strategy2.1.5 - Consider allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). ) Monticello's neighborhoods help define the city's form and sense 0place. The city's neighborhoods will continue to evolve in the years ahead. In areas where the basic development pattern is already established continued reinvestment in the housing stock and infrastructure is encouraged with an emphasis on sustainable design in terms of private property improvement and investment, as well as capital improvements. In the outlying areas of the city where the development pattern is still evolving, new neighborhoods will be safe, healthy, attractive with a diverse population and housing stock. The planning objective for all Monticello residential areas is to make each neighborhood "complete" — with a variety of housing choices, proximity to neighborhood- scaled commercial services, community services, and neighborhood parks that serve as an identifiable center and gathering place for its neighbors and future residents. MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 199 IMPLEMENTATION CHART: LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION SHORT- I LONG- ONGOING THEME TERM TERM Policy2.2: Neighborhood Centers Strategy 2.2.1- Encourage and support location of public facilities including schools and parks close to neighborhoods to make them easily ) Enhance or create identifiable accessible by walking or bicycling. "centers" in each neighborhood Strategy2.2.2 - Ensure all neighborhoods have which serve as local gathering places. Neighborhood centers may access to healthy food, including community O take a variety of forms as public gardens and farmers markets, through a food uses such as parks, community security assessment. Small scale food stores and centers, Or schools; neighborhood neighborhood markets should be a permitted shopping districts; or any other use in the Mixed Neighborhood designation. public space where residents Can Congregate. Strategy2.2.3-Design sidewalks and pathways that enable safe crossings of major roadways in getting to and from nearby points of designation. Poiicy2.3. Strategy2.3.1- Establish incentives and Neighborhood Reinvestment allowances to facilitate design improvements to buildings and properties in the Traditional Encourage continued reinvestment Neighborhood designation and alder areas of in Monticello's neighborhoods the city. by private property owners and through capital improvements. Strategy2.3.2- create gateways and While the basic land use pattern incorporate other urban design elements in in many neighborhoods is already residential or mixed neighborhoods with new set and will be maintained, their signage and streetscape features such as branded street signs and streetscape amenities. continued improvement and evolution should be viewed an important part of the City's sustainability initiatives. t(«(«(«(« IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION CHART: LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION SHORT- I LONG- ONGOING THEME TERM TERM Policy 2.7. Locations for Higher Stmtegy2.7.1- Amend the Zoning Map to be Density Housing consistent with the Future Land Use Map and Generally, locate new higher identify areas where mixed -density residential density housing and mixed uses are appropriate. use development in proximity to Downtown where there is good access to parks and open space, proximity to local -serving commercial uses, and proximity to the transportation network. Consider impacts to over concentration of multi -family uses in specific locations. Conversely, the City should discourage the use of vacant sites with these attributes for new low employee intensity or low value land uses. Policy 2.8. Equitable Planning 4ft Ensure that no single neighborhood or population group is disproportionately O a impacted by flooding or environmental burdens, city services, incompatible uses, neighborhood constraints or potential hazards. Policy2.9 - Neighborhood Design Strategy2.9.1- Integrate open space, parks, Support the development of street trees, landscaping, and natural features neighborhoods with a strong set of into Monticello's neighborhoods to enhance their visual quality, create inviting and safe amenities which enhance quality spaces, and improve access to nature of life, retain residents and support and recreation. continued investment. Strategy2.9.2- Create and maintain a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay zoning district to identify areas that should O be developed in a manner consistent with conservation style development. 202 IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION CHART: PARKS, PATHWAYS AND OPEN SPACE SHORT- LONG- ONGOING I THEME TERM I TERM • • Policy 1.9. Park Master Plan and Design Standards Strategy 1.9.1- Include funding to prepare a Parks and Pathways Master Plan into the City's Five Year Capital Improvement Program. O Maintain a Parks and Pathways Master Plan that more specifically describes the standards and guidelines for park and pathway Strategy 1.9.2 - Ensure that the Master Plan design and development and incorporates design standards for all city includes detailed procedures for acquisition, development, operation parks and pathways including linear parks and innovative amenities. O and maintenance and all City park and pathway facilities. Policy 10. Parks, Arts and Recreation Commission • Maintain the Parks, Arts and Recreation Commission as the primary advisory �a body that discusses and reviews plans for the acquisition and development of parks and recreational facilities, develops recreation programs, reviews parkland dedications for new subdivisions and makes recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council. Policy2.1. Connectivity Strategy2.1.1-Annually evaluate, update and adopt the Pathway Connection map, which throughout the City and MOAA identifies and prioritizes segments and loop )) • • - Provide pathway connections connections for completion. • • • • • " " • • between parks and recreation • " • • • • • • • • - areas, open spaces, neighborhoods, Strategy2.1.2- Ensure trail connections across barriers, such as the Interstate and �a schools and commercial and Highway 25, are included in all street, roadway • • " employment Centers. and infrastructure projects including a future • • " • • • • • • interchange with Orchard Road or new • . • • • • - • . - • intersections on Highway 25. Strategy2.1.3- Incorporate segment completion as part of annual Capital • ' - ' • • • • • • • Improvement Plans. 234 <(� IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION CHART: PARKS, PATHWAYS AND OPEN SPACE SHORT- I LONG- ONGOING THEME TERM TERM • • Policy 5.1. Open Space and Strategy5.1.1- Designate lands as Open • • Resource Conservation Land Use Space and Resource Conservation as needed to identify, protect and preserve natural open Maintain an Open Space and space and sensitive habitats in and around • • - - Resource Conservation land use Monticello consistent with 2008 Natural - - Resource Inventory and Assessment and park designation to recognize lands that dedication policies. - should be permanently protected �a - as natural open space, which later - - my be protected through park - dedication, easements or other tools. • • • • • • •• Policy 5.2. Strategy5.2.1- Continue to utilize and • Open Space Preservation implement strategies from the City's 2008 Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment Seek opportunities to expand and and/or develop a Natural Resource Management add to the open space system Plan to provide restoration, vegetation surrounding Monticello whenever management and protection for valuable open N possible as a means to preserve space resources. The 2008 Natural Resource Assessment identified Monticello's natural character. Recognize the many wetlands, a variety of sensitive areas as having ecological value warranting protection, these include the Pelican Lake creeks, lakes and water features Watershed, Ditch 33 Watershed and Wetlands, within and surrounding Monticello Oak Savanna and Prairie located near Xcel and promote their protection as a Energy and Montiview Hill, among others. Protection could be accomplished through valuable Community resource. public acquisition of an area or through conservation easements. Strategy&Z2- Continue to protect Otter Creek and its water quality by controlling development near the creek, monitoring water quality and preventing unlawful discharges into the Creek. ■111111111111TICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN IMPLEMENTATION CHART: COMMUNITY CHARACTER, DESIGN AND THE ARTS SHORT- I LONG- ONGOING THEME TERM TERM • - Strategy 1.1.1- Pursue neighborhood Policy 1.I. Neighborhood Design conservation approaches that promote • " • _ Pursue traditional neighborhood • • • • - • • - • appropriate housing rehabilitation and new construction responsive to Monticello's • conservation and preservation traditional neighborhood character and ((( approaches that encourage visual diversity. ))) property improvements, Strategy 1.1.2 - Explore and offer incentives reinvestment and promote quality neighborhood design. which provide financing mechanisms for improvements and reinvestment in the neighborhoods. Strategy 1.1.3 - Identify the physical characteristics and qualities — built and natural — that define the existing traditional neighborhoods and subject to conservation measures and used to enhance new infill development. A historic resources survey 1J1 and inventory may be one method to identify individual homes or blocks worthy of recognition and preservation. Strategy 1.1.4 - Consider options for establishing a neighborhood conservation district through a zoning overlay or new design standards. Strategy 1.1.5 - Create distinct neighborhood gateways and public art used as community design elements unique to each neighborhood ) J ))) or area of the City. Strategy1.1.6- Focus capital and right-of-way improvements on urban design and streetscape improvements that enhance neighborhood ))) walkability and visual qualities. MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 241 64 ENTRY-LEVEL AFFORDABILITY LOWER -INCOME HOUSEHOLDS that own their housing commonly occupy what is referred to as the "starter home" market. For purposes of this study, this is tracked as the "Bottom Tier Home Value" and is the median of the 511 to 35'" percentile of all home values within the City. These homes followed the same general trend both going into and coming out of the recession - showing consistent steady increases in cost over the past decade. Amongst peer communities, Monticello still has the lowest -cost entry point into the ownership market, even considering appreciation. However, the "starter home" market is still becoming increasingly unaffordable for those who live in the City. As of the most recent data and estimates (2023), the median starter -home cost is just out of reach of the affordability limit for a City household earning 80% of the median income ($269,000 home entry cost vs. $263,000 purchase limit). As housing costs continue to rise throughout the market, Monticello households below the AMI will be increasingly precluded or "priced -out" of ownership opportunities in the City, consistent with occupancy and consumption records. STARTER HOME VALUE $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 000�% $50,000 OCCUPANT INCOMES OF HOUSES AFFORDABLE TO 50% AMI HOUSEHOLDS Household Income 0% - 50% AMI With Mortgage 200 Without Mortgage 330 51 % - 80% AMI 265 85 81%- 100% AMI 215 45 > 100% AMI 429 11 a� > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Monticello Buffalo Becker —Big Lake Saint Michael Source: Zillow Data and Research (MLS Aggregator) City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand 65 HOUSE AVAILABILITY SINGLE -UNIT HOME AVAILABILITY as tracked by the Multiple listing Service is often inversely related to prices - as inventory decreases, prices increase. As the local housing market was coming out of the recession, there was a market slowdown - though this slowdown (as represented by months' of supply) still indicated a balanced market. Months' supply is generally considered to be balanced when there are 4-6 months' of inventory in the market. As that lessens, it is indicative of increased competition for available homes in what is often referred to as a "seller's market". Since peaking in 2011 at more than three months, the average days on market has dropped to a steady 2-3 weeks on market over the past 4 years. There is seasonal variation within the data that reflect common market periods, but time on market has generally decreased to a point where during peak real estate season, houses have averaged less than 3 weeks since 2016. SINGLE-FAMILY AVAILABILITY 140 120 100 U1 `7 cT G 80 0 a m 0 60 40 20 This increased sales activity is directly reflected in the months of supply metric, as it is the balance between inventory and demand (number of sales). Together, these metrics indicate a competitive market with increased competition among buyers that is causing cost inflation well beyond the 2% average U.S. inflation rate. A slight increase in months supply in recent years may be due to the increase in units coming online within the City which can signal a return to a more balanced market. 5-YEAR AVERAGE APPRECIATION RATE ON MEDIAN SF HOME: 9.3% ANNUALLY 5-YEAR APPRECIATION ON MEDIAN SF HOME (BY SALES PRICE): $130,450 Source: Multiple Listing Service 0 0 'Y� ti� titi 1ti ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� tirO ti� ti1 ti� ti� ti� ti� ti� titi titi titi titi ti� >ac >°\ _10 >°> >ac >°> >ac >°> >a� >°\ >a� >°\ >a� >°\ >1 >J\ " >�> 1,1 >�> >ac >°> >ac >;> >ac >°\ Source: Multiple Listing Service -Days on Market -Months Supply Ownership Market 66 HOUSE AVAILABILITY INVENTORY of single-family houses for sale slowly decreased from 2015 to 2021, with a slight increase in the last two years. As inventory decreased, the median sales price showed steady corresponding increases - with fewer homes available, and steady demand, markets shift toward favoring sellers through increased competition and appreciation. As available supply has slightly increased over the past two years, there was still a marked increase in the median sales price due to the skyrocketing demand for home buying coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic amid very low interest rates. With recent high interest rates, the sales price should stabilize. From January 2015 to January 2021 during the period of decreasing inventory, the median home appreciated at a rate of 10.2% annually. The recent slight increase in inventory has correlated with appreciated price at a rate of 5.2% annually for the median home. This shows that increasing inventory helps to ease pressures on the market that cause cost increases, though the months of supply metric indicates there is still demand for units in the market that will further shift buyer/seller indices toward a more balanced market. MONTHLY INVENTORY 3.7% 4.5 % 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 TOWNHOME AVAILABILITY AND COST $250 $200 $ $150 $100 $50 6 5 T 4 a 3 0 2 1 $ 0 do tit titi ti3 ti° tih ti� ti� tiro ti� ,yo titi titi ti'' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Price/Sq. ft. -Months Supply Source: Multiple Listing Service 2.7% O 5.5% 6.8% 00 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 0 111111-I� 111111111111111 lJJ LU 11 111 111 I I 1 ICJ 1 I LLL.0 I11I I1I 11 LI I IJ-LLLN I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ILW hLl tih ti( ti�b ti� ti� ti� ti0 tiC ti0) Monthly Inventory Median Sales Price Source: Multiple Listing Service City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand 67 HOUSE SALES SALE TO LIST PRICE RATIOS also display trends in the ownership market that indicate increased competition on an year-to-year basis - though stabilizing as inventory of units on the market has also stabilized. Since coming out of the recession, sellers have generally accepted offers that have been more than 95% of the asking price for single- family homes in the City. The greatest peak in this ratio came amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the summer of 2021 when sellers accepted offers that were nearly 105% of their list price. With increasing supply coming in 2022, the sale to list price ratio dipped slightly, tracking with the slight decrease in median sales price. This is consistent with growth in number of units and indicative of a healthy market. MEDIAN SALES PRICE COMPARED TO LISTING 105% 100% 95% 90% TOWNHOME PCT OF ORIGINAL PRICE (AUGUST 2023) 100% for 3 consecutive months SINGLE-FAMILY PCT OF ORIGINAL PRICE (AUGUST 2023) 100% or over for 4 consecutive months Source: Multiple Listing Service 85% do do titi titi titi titi ti� ti� tior ti� ti`' tih ti° ti° ti� ti� ti� tiw ti° ti° ,yo ,yo titi titi ,yti ti� ,y'' ,y3 Townhome Single -Family Source: Multiple Listing Service Ownership Market 68 HOUSE SALES REGIONAL SALES TRENDS largely indicate a tightening (increased demand) of the market for many peer communities as well. Though Monticello's market was slightly slower to see increased competition and increasing offers post -recession (when tracked through sale:listing ratio), it then increased to become the second community to see the median sale cost meeting asking price, behind only Big Lake. Monticello has the highest current sale:list price ratio among its peer communities, though many have shown a consistency through the past year. Off-peak sales without a large percent decrease in sales price indicates that growth potential for the region is strong, and demand is shifting into other areas. It also likely indicates that Monticello (as the community with the largest ratio) is seeing demand that it cannot fill with the existing stock, which has spillover into other regional communities (both peer communities and others), although this is impossible to tell solely from data. 105 % 100% 95% 90% 85% TOWNHOME PCT OF ORIGINAL PRICE IN PEER COMMUNITIES (.JULY 2020) 99% in July 2020 SINGLE-FAMILY PCT OF ORIGINAL PRICE IN PEER COMMUNITIES (JULY 2020) 100% for 4 consecutive months Source: Multiple Listing Service 1", 1, 1a 1�` 1h 1y lac ��\ 1ac ��\ 1'°c ��\ Monticello -Big Lake -Buffalo -Saint Michael 102 UNIT DEMAND Findings & Recommendations 104 OWNER DEMAND -LOW ESTIMATE Growth projections for the City of Monticello indicate that current household growth rates will continue - and may have the potential to increase. More commuters are looking to call Monticello home. More area residents would like more options in the housing market. This demand analysis identifies a need to increase the number of ownership units in the City - creating more opportunity for ownership that can serve residents and newcomers alike. There are two pages of demand analysis per housing tenure type (ownership and rental) - this is done to illustrate the range of potential growth that the City may undergo. In general, low estimates are based on 1.7% household growth, and high estimates are based upon 2.9% household growth. Some assumptions in each are the same - such as the need to bring vacancy back to healthy levels, and decrease the rapid speed of cost increases on housing. Other estimates differ based on current best projections. Final unit estimates are broken down by total projection of unit need from 2020 to 2028, projected unit need subtracting out permitted units (units constructed or under construction), and projected unit need subtracting out permitted units and units with land use and land division approval (anticipated units). The low estimate should be used as a baseline - a minimum threshold for unit construction, not just plats. New Ownership Housing D- Demand from Household Growth Within the City - Household Growth from 2020 to 2028 644 additional households New Household Ownership Rate 50% Demand for New Construction 322 ownership units Demand from Existing Resident Households Current Owner Households 3,082 households Current Owners Actively Looking for New Housing 10.0% Increased Demand from Existing Residents 308 ownership units Desire for New Construction 56% Existing Resident Demand for New Construction 173 ownership units Total Demand for New Construction Ownership Units = 495 units Preference for SF -Detached 70% Preference for SF -Attached 30% 347 units # 148 units Additional Need for Vacancy 54 units Additional Need for Vacancy 23 units Total SF -Detached Need 401 units Total SF -Attached Need= 171 units Total Ownership Unit Need = 572 units Total Need minus Permitted Units = 401 units Total Need minus Permitted Units & Approved Units = 284 units City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand 105 OWNER DEMAND -HIGH ESTIMATE This high estimate should be used as a goal - a measure of units that could be constructed in the market to provide additional housing choice - in location, type, and price point for buyers at any given point in time. Community feedback through this process indicated the desire that there be multiple areas under different stages of development at the same time, so that buyers who want to move to the City have areas to choose in where to call home. This estimate would likely require multiple active subdivisions in order to have the demand met and fully constructed by 2028. Development interest and demand drive the housing market. Due to lending requirements and market analyses needed for large-scale developer investment, if there is developer interest, there is also likely demand. New Ownership Housing D- Demand from Household Growth Within the City - Household Growth from 2020 to 2028 1,159 additional households New Household Ownership Rate 50% Demand for New Construction 579 ownership units Demand from Existing Resident Households Current Owner Households 3,082 households Current Owners Actively Looking for New Housing 10.0% Increased Demand from Existing Residents 308 ownership units Desire for New Construction 56% Existing Resident Demand for New Construction 173 ownership units Total Demand for New Construction Ownership Units = 752 units Preference for SF -Detached 70% Preference for SF -Attached 30% 526 units # 226 units Additional Need for Vacancy 54 units Additional Need for Vacancy 23 units Total SF -Detached Need 580 units Total SF -Attached Need= 249 units Total Ownership Unit Need = 829 units Total Need minus Permitted Units = 658 units Total Need minus Permitted Units & Approved Units = 541 units Unit Demand & Recommendations 106 OWNERSHIP FINDINGS GENERAL CONDITIONS IMPACTING THE HOUSING MARKET: • Average household size has remained stable (p• 8) • Families and home -office preferences sustaining need for larger units (p. 8) • Aging households are the fastest increasing demographic since 2010 (p. 9) • Aging households will be a significant portion of households through 2050 (p. 12) • Monticello residents have lower average incomes compared to peer communities (p. 13) • Monticello residents have lower degrees of educational attainment compared to the County (p. 14) • Common occupation groups in the City indicate a need for affordable housing, especially for entry-level positions (p. 16) • Large shares of residents (48% as of 2020) commute into metro counties daily for work. Forty-eight percent of community survey respondents indicated Twin Cities or a suburb as place of employment (p. 18) • Housing unit production has not kept pace with new households moving to the County, decreasing vacancy and increasing cost (p. 19) • Rising costs and interest rates have made the development process more difficult (p. 97) • Vacancy rates continue to be low in the City and region, despite strong unit production (p. 104) WHAT RESIDENTS WANT: • Increase in zero -entry, patio, and rambler style homes • Detached, accessory, missing middle, and townhome units • Affordable starter -home development in proximity to amenities • Areas with different development options to build in MAJOR OWNERSHIP MARKET FINDINGS: • Ownership units have made up 25.3% of planned or constructed developments since 2020, well below historic building trends (p. 6) • Though the majority of ownership housing is single-family detached, there are also many attached ownership units (p. 51) • Owners make up a smaller portion of the overall housing market than in most regional communities (p. 53). Now at 70% of housing market as of 2021. • Though affordable homes exist in the market, residents still identified the largest negative aspect of the market as lack of affordability, with more than half of survey respondents indicating that affordable housing is becoming harder to find (p. 58) • There are generally more affordable ownership opportunities in the city core, though attached ownership units are affordable in many areas (p. 60) • Many households are remaining in their housing longer than the 7-year national average (p. 61) • Since 2014, home costs have drastically outpaced income growth with single-family home value reducing affordability and access for potential homebuyers (p. 62) • The median single-family home value is now greater than the median income affordability limit (p. 62) • The median home cost has more than doubled since 2010 (p. 62) • Among its peers, Monticello has the lowest - cost entry point for a median starter home (p. 64) • The median starter home in the City is no longer affordable to households earning 80% AMI (p. 64) • Monticello has the current highest Sales:List price ratio among peer communities (p. 68) • There is demand for ownership townhomes (p. 70) City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand