The URL can be used to link to this page

EDA Agenda - 01/22/2025AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) Wednesday, January 22, 2025 – 7:00 a.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: President Steve Johnson, Vice President Jon Morphew, Treasurer Hali Sittig, Rick Barger and Councilmembers Lloyd Hilgart and Tracy Hinz Staff: Executive Director Jim Thares, Rachel Leonard, Angela Schumann, Tyler Bevier 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Roll Call 7:00 a.m. C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items 2. Consent Agenda A. Consideration of Approving November 6, 2024, EDA Workshop Meeting Minutes 3. Public Hearing N/A 4. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of authorizing a Master Developer format and process with Kraus Anderson related to Block 34 Redevelopment and affirm the concept proposal depicting Christiansen Group office proposal as a potential Phase 1 development in the southwest quarter 5. Other Business A. Consideration of Economic Development Manager’s Report 6. Adjournment MINUTES (DRAFT) WORKSHOP - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) Wednesday, November 6, 2024 – 5:00 p.m. Academy Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: President Steve Johnson, Treasurer Hali Sittig, Ollie Koropchak-White, Rick Barger and Councilmembers Lloyd Hilgart and Tracy Hinz Commissioners Absent: Vice President Jon Morphew Staff: Executive Director Jim Thares, Angela Schumann, Tyler Bevier 1.Call to order: 5:00 p.m. 2.Roll Call 3.Block 34 Redevelopment Evaluation Framework - Review and Discussion Economic Development Manager Jim Thares introduced Angela Schumann, Community Development Director, to lead the Block 34 redevelopment evaluation framework review and discussion. Ms. Schumann began her presentation by stating staff released an RFP for Block 34 redevelopment. The goal of the RFP is to mirror development as illustrated in the 2017 Small Area Downtown Area Plan, with buildings at the four corners of Block 34. The Plan also shifts the center of downtown to Walnut and Broadway, though it recognizes that Cedar is intended to be a street similar to Walnut Street. The Plan intends to bring access to the parks and the downtown. The EDA is reviewing large, small and medium-sized investments. While the largest investment Downtown is Block 52, the EDA has also been involved in smaller ones such as the façade program and will continue to make small improvements. The Downtown Improvement Plan also intends to bring the community back to being a River Town. Ms. Schumann continued, stating when surveying the Public, they wanted to also see the development of Block 34. Considerations include the building architecture, public uses as well as structure locations and types. In recent City Council and EDA discussions, Block 34 redevelopment was noted as a priority. Those discussions focused on the land, various uses and density options as well as the timeline. EDA asked staff to reach out to developers and also with local businesses to regarding potential conceptual ideas and realistic goals. Two of the developers are present to present their proposals. Ms. Schumann stated that the intent of the workshop is to discuss the proposals and get EDA direction on next steps. Ms. Schumann led the EDA through an exercise to induce discussion about the relative goals for down. •What do you hope to accomplish on this block relative to the goals for downtown? •How does this proposal support a larger Downtown revitalization? •What is important to communicate to the development partner and community about the redevelopment of this block? •How do proposals concepts relate to the existing Downtown landscape and surrounding uses in the area? •What details of the proposals require mor discussion? •Do the presented projects seem feasible? •What is the timeline for development? •What type of public input would you like? •Other considerations. Chair Steve Johnson stated the EDA will need to consider the intensity of the use as it is the center of the city, and it is a less than desirable use of that spot. The EDA has a once in a lifetime opportunity for development Block 34 and needs to consider the right intensity for the block. Mayor Lloyd Hilgart feels that the type of use mix is important and continues what was developed on Block 52. The mix of uses to bring citizens there during the day every day and every evening. Council Member Tracy Hinz states this creates an opportunity to capitalize on retention since the EDA does not own all of the Block 34 land. Commissioner Olie Koropchak-White stated connecting Downtown to the River is an important part of revitalizing this area for pedestrians. Mr. Johnson feels that it is important to augment the use of Pine Street and Broadway to be more pedestrian friendly. They are currently an impediment to foot traffic. Mr. Johnson pointed out the importance of the safety crosswalks and flashing lights provided for pedestrians related to a recent downtown community event and suggested another be added at the intersection of E Broadway and Cedar Street. He feels these types of improvement would entice pedestrians and development on Block 34. Commissioner Jon Morphew stated the EDA has to work within the confines of property neither the City nor EDA own. Ms. Schumann asked if the EDA felt developers and businesses know what they know about the block. Mr. Hilgart stated he feels the developers and potential businesses are aware of the wells on this property. Mr. Johnson inquired about what the City’s plans are for the wells. Ms. Schumann addressed this question stating City Council authorized soil testing to evaluate potential locations to move the wells to see if there is a possibility of doing so. Mr. Johnson asked if the well could be incorporated into underground parking and that he feels parking will be an issue for intense development. Commissioner Hali Sittig stated she would like to see the architecture and development to provide a continued feel of downtown…coinciding with Block 52, not mirroring Block 52. Ms. Sittig expressed she would like to see green space on Block 34. Ms. Schumann asked what the EDA feels would bring citizens downtown. Mr. Johnson stated he feels convenience type of retail (not convenience stores) as well as offices. Each brings different parking needs and entrance/exits traffic. Ms. Schumann asked what type of convenience stores Mr. Johnson is thinking about. He stated coffee shops, places selling goods and is concerned with parking. It was a consensus that being able to access one parking area to the next is important. Ms. Sittig expressed the ease and new improved safety features built into Broadway provide the ease of parking across the street and has created additional pedestrian traffic. Ms. Schumann asked what the importance of developing Block 34 is to downtown revitalization. Mr. Morphew stated this will bring additional people downtown. Mr. Barger feels a mix uses will be important. Ms. Sittig said having community activities would help bring citizens to the area. Ms. Hinz stated that Block 34 currently is a detractor whereas Block 52 is attractor. Mr. Johnson stated parking with a mix of pedestrians and office employees could be a problem. Ms. Schumann asked if after looking at the proposals, is there anything the EDA would like to focus on. Mr. Barger said the intent to bring down the current apartment building should be a focus. Mr. Johnson stated that with the intensity of a developer buying the property and be able to do something with it the EDA has to consider the return on their investment. Mr. Johnson, Ms. Sittig, and Mr. Barger expressed their agreement. Ms. Schuman asked the EDA how important it is to them to recover their investment should all of their other goals be met and what are the nonnegotiable. Mr. Morphew addressed the first question stating it may depend on how far the gap is. Mr. Barger agreed. Mr. Johnson suggested that it could depend on who the investment has helped. Mr. Morphew stated we will know it when we see it. Ms. Hinz stated she does not recall that the EDA has not routinely supported a project with a firm thought that we need to get our investment back and that the EDA is all on the same page is most important. Ms. Sittig stated the mission of the EDA is not to make money but rather revitalize the community with economic growth and being thoughtful in their decisions where to invest. Investing in revitalizing is the goal. Mr. Johnson stated the long-term goal is to reinvest in the future. Mr. Hilgart noted that redevelopment is expensive and requires subsidy. Mr. Hilgart addressed the wells and underground car park. He feels underground parking is a necessity, however, research will need to be done on how the wells could fit into this. Moving the wells will be expensive. The land the EDA doesn’t have control over is like Block 52. There was also a sliver of land not owned by the EDA/City. We know we can develop with this situation. Mr. Hilgart stated that if the EDA is concerned about money than putting an apartment building on the property may not provide the desired return. He agreed that “we will know it when we see it.” Mr. Johnson stated if a developer wants to come in, the EDA will need to price the property to help make it possible. The goal is it fits a public purpose. Mr. Hilgart stated there is no way to know the total impact of Block 52, however, we know that when Beef o Brady’s was built with the apartments, the businesses felt a positive impact. Mr. Johnson stated this is an example of the parking balance between business and retail space. Ms. Schumann shared staff work with businesses on ensuring they have adequate parking. Mr. Hilgart shared when he was at Block 52 the prior week, they were finishing the parking. He stated the parking lot is 70-80% full during the day because of the offices downtown. Because they were finishing the parking lot no cars were parked there. All of the spots on River and Walnut were taken showing all of these excess parking was within 2 blocks. Ms. Schumann stated at a prior meeting, Commissioner Barger asked do we want businesses….or parking. Staff addressed the city-created companion parking on Block 51 to accommodate the Block 52 parking and created parking on River, reconfigured the parking from Walnut to Locust. She suggests directing staff to investigate where additional parking can be done for Block 34. Ms. Schumann shared that in the early stages of developing Block 52 the city hosted downtown rounds showing drawings of proposals for citizens to review. Business and property owners were able to mark up the drawing and their input is a direct result of what we see on Block 52. She noted we have not done that in depth community engagement on Block 34. Ms. Schumann asked the EDA where they want staff to take community engagement on the redevelopment of Block 34. She stated that staff can present a plan but asked if they have any input. Mr. Johnson stated that asking for community input from people outside of downtown would help everyone understand what will attract them. Mr. Morphew stated that if this is done it should be a big picture vision, not specific induvial uses but how the block is used. He is not opposed to public involvement but does not feel it is a prerequisite. Mr. Hilgart stated the market will show what it needs to be. Ms. Schumann gave a couple of examples of questions that would be posed to the public. Mr. Morphew agreed that those types of questions would be good questions. Ms. Hinz pointed out the timing of this development is so different than when we started in 2017. Ms. Sittig stated that she participated in all the Downtown Rounds before she became an EDA Commissioner. She feels once Block 52 was built it became a reminder to the public that this was their vision. She does not feel outreach is necessary. Ms. Schumann suggested ways to reach the public like community events (Walk and Roll, Trick Treat) and dot events. Another suggestion is to reach out to specifically the businesses and property owners near Block 34. Ms. Sittig asked if Block 52 would look different if there weren’t Downtown Rounds. Ms. Schumann and Mr. Thares felt it would. Mr. Johnson pointed out that several of the businesses who attended the Downtown Rounds are no longer there and that Block 52 is completely occupied. Mr. Morphew suggested the time lag of community input to completion of a project is a factor in community outreach. Ms. Hinz stated she felt there community involvement fatigue which the EDA needs to consider. Staff don’t want to miss the mark of the EDA’s expectations because there are developers with proposals. Staff want to ensure we know what your expectations are in reaching out to the public. Mr. Morphew would not support general public outreach, but the big picture input would be ok. Ms. Schumann suggested instead of outreach and asking what the community wants but instead telling them what we are doing. Ms. Schumann suggested a study of what would bring visitors downtown, a similar study that was done for the Local Option Sales Tax for BCOL. Mr. Hilgart suggested asking downtown businesses if they have noticed a difference from the building of Block 52. Ms. Sittig stated she sees foot traffic on the west side of Hwy 25 going across the road but not on the east side. Mr. Barger inquired if she thought Hwy 25 was a barrier, Ms. Sittig said she did not feel it was. Mr. Barger listed several successful downtown River town areas; Red Wing, Hastings, Wabasha, Hopkins, their downtown areas are walkable. Parking is available off street and walk. He feels Hwy 25 is a barrier. Mr. Johnson suggested the Parks are a destination for downtown. 4. Interview-Discussion-Krause-Anderson Development Block 34 RFI Submittal Mr. Thares introduced Stefan Michno, Director of Development for Kraus-Anderson. For transparency, Mr. Thares introduced Charles Burdick, President of Streetfront Development, another developer who is presenting this evening. Mr. Michno gave an overview of Kraus-Anderson’s history and experience. They have all of the resources to be a “one stop shop.” Their vision for Block 34 to be a place people want to work but also spend time. To get the best value of the site would be to move the wells or create a structure around them like underground parking. Phase one would be an office component on pine street with surface parking solution. Phase 2 is concentrating on office over retail or a housing. Kraus-Anderson may be interested in purchasing the apartment building at fair market value. Mr. Michno shared a vision of mixed use, being able to work in a place where you can go downstairs to a coffee shop or other small retailers, and green spaces with potential patio areas. He addressed their plans for employee and retail parking, and green space. Mr. Michno presented illustrations of what Block 34 could look like. They would create an area which doesn’t stand out but blends with the feel of the community. Mr. Johnson suggested that a positive for apartments would be underground parking. Mr. Hilgart stated this isn’t proposing residential. Mr. Michno stated if Kraus- Anderson was not able to get business office commitments then they would look into residential. Ms. Sittig shared she felt that the phasing would fit into the site without overstepping. Mr. Johnson asked if the parking ramp is only partially underground. Mr. Michno addressed that there would be an underground parking ramp with the top level at grade level. Mr. Hilgart confirmed with Mr. Michno that the employee parking would be underground, and public and retail parking would be on the main. Mr. Barger inquired if the underground parking space is sufficient for retail employee parking. Mr. Michno said it would be determined at a later time. Mr. Johnson gave an example of parking in a St. louis Park area where the street parking is tight but there is underground parking so you can park under the retail you want to go to. Ms. Hinz asked if Kraus-Anderson could talk about another project they are working on, similar to Block 34. Mr. Michno shared the West Transit Village project they have been working on in Rochester for 2 years. Building public spaces, green spaces and parking. Ms. Sittig inquired with Block 52 not populated would they be able to bring in retailers or do they hope businesses would come. Mr. Michno stated they would work with the city in hopes of obtaining commitments. Ms. Sittig shared that Monticello has a unique opportunity right now as we have experienced growth and are able to support those convenience businesses like Chipotle, Panera, and Starbucks. Since these businesses have moved to Monticello, it may attract more retailers who would like an area like Block 34. Mr. Johnson stated that the concept could change. 5. Interview-Discussion-Street front Development Block 34 RFI Submittal Mr. Burdick shared Streetfront’s vision for Block 34. Streetfront’s proposal includes office space, mixed use, 24-unit apartments and 20 town homes. Mr. Hilgart confirmed the existing building would stay in place. Mr. Hilgart confirmed the wells would remain where they are. Mr. Johnson asked if there is a residential demand within the city. Mr. Burdick said he believes so. The proposal has mixed income level housing, supporting 60% and 80%. Mr. Johnson asked if the townhomes are planned to be rented. Mr. Burdick said yes at this point. It could be reviewed in 5-10 years. Ms. Hinz asked if hesitation to making the townhomes property owner occupied is due to the infancy of developing downtown. Mr. Burdick addressed with the price point would be too high because of the existing housing and amenities. Mr. Johnson asked for a timeline. Mr. Burdick addressed in 2025 will be planning and design, starting construction in 2026 and completion in 2027. Ms. Kopchek-White asked for clarification of where the other well is. Mr. Burdick showed it in the drawing. Mr. Barger inquired if the existing apartment building owner would sell the property, how would it change their plans. Mr. Burdick said it would open up opportunities. Ms. Hinz shared her concern that if seems we have saturated housing within the City and was surprised by their proposal. The market research they have they feel there is a demand. Mr. Morphew asked does the housing draw retail and commercial or the retain and commercial draw housing? Mr. Burdick feels it could be a correlation. If the area is populated the location is more desirable. Ms. Sittig like the proposal. Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Schumann if Monticello is still in need of affordable housing. Ms. Schumann referred to the housing study which said there is a need for additional affordable housing. The high demand threshold has been met. Ms. Sittig feels that adding housing on that corner and retail on the other misses the mark for the property given how busy the streets are. She likes the plan but for a different block. Mr. Barger agreed that he also liked the plan but for a different block. Mr. Johnson feels that there is retail on the other side of Broadway and Block 34 may be a good place to have residential. Mr. Hilgart does support the concept. He doesn’t feel like the public would like it. If there is housing it needs to be above commercial. He likes the two levels, office on second floor. Mr. Thares introduced Jake Olinger, Christianson Insurance, who has an interest in a potential Block 34 site. Mr. Olinger explained what his needs were. He feels Broadway is difficult to cross and feels the Block 34 side would be more advantageous. Mr. Olinger stated he would like to own a building for his business. Mr. Hilgart reiterated Mr. Olinger would like to own the building they occupy. Mr. Johnson inquired if Mr. Olinger would be interested in owning the first floor of offices. Mr. Olinger explained it would depend on the size and the visibility. He would not like to be apart if there is residential above the office. Mr. Hilgart feels that a business like this would bring in additional retail. Mr. Michno said it would like to know more about Christianson Insurance needs and could make changes to the concept if needed. Ms. Schumann interjected, and Mr. Thares confirmed there were 35 developers who received the packet. These are the 2 developers who submitted responses. There were other developers who contacted the City, however, their interest in the entire Block concept faded near the response deadline. Ms. Sittig likes both proposals. She can see the Streetfront’s proposal on another site. She appreciated the work both developers put into these presentations. The entire group thanked all guests for presenting. 6. Block 34 Redevelopment Next Steps Discussion Mr. Thares explained this part of the agenda is intended to be a wrap up. Ms. Sittig thought Mr. Olinger’s presentation was valuable in expressing what his needs are. Ms. Sittig stated she feels the Streetfront’s proposal misses the mark. Mr. Barger agreed, and stated the EDA has this opportunity to create a space for downtown businesses and to develop residential buildings around Block 34 rather than in it. Ms. Hinz feels residential at MN-TH 25 would not be desirable and would limit the spaces for businesses in the downtown are. Mr. Johnson agreed, and the EDA needs to decide what they choose to invest in. Ms. Sittig felt the Krause-Anderson concept provides an opportunity for people to move around and attract people downtown. Ms. Sittig repeated that Monticello is growing and pointed out the opening of new places like Chipotle and Starbucks; citizens would like the opportunity to visit and shop and smaller more intimate retail places. She feels the Kraus-Anderson proposal would bridge the gap between residential and small businesses. Mr. Johnson asked if the Christianson group wanted to own an office, would it be batter to move that to another area downtown. Ms. Sittig feels if they would like to be at the corner of 3rd and Pine then that would be advantageous to the vision she sees for Block 34 and would bring in more foot traffic. Mr. Barger asked if the staff knows how many employees they have. Ms. Schumann stated they did provide us with this information however, she didn’t recall it at the time. Mr. Johnson said they asked for 40 parking spaces. Mr. Barger did not want to give up this prime office space to a small group of 4-5 people and the amount of parking required satisfies his vision. Ms. Sittig agreed. Ms. Schumann said that when the Christianson Group first approached the city their initial need was smaller, and they would look at leasing the additional space and eventually expand into this space. Mr. Johnson did not disagree with Ms. Sittig and the concept of a one-story building on that corner. He did state that it might depend on when they want to build. It would create revenue right away as opposed to finding a tenant however, they may not be sufficient to support other retail. Ms. Schumann interjected Staff would like to hear from other Commissioners and asked them if they would want to hear form other potential developers, before continuing these 2 proposals. The consensus was that the staff should work with these two developers. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the other developers might be interested in only the office space and the rest will fill in. Ms. Sittig stated she felt this is a good opportunity to weed out those that listen and verses that don’t. The put out an RFP stating this is our need and what the EDA is looking to do and these were the developers responded. Mr. Hilgart feels the EDA concern is whether it is willing to allow a 10,000 square foot office building on the SW Corner of Block 34. Mr. Hilgart feels that with this building in that location there is still enough space for either of the developer’s concept and how does this fit with EDA’s desired vision. At this point we don’t know if the owner of the apartment building is interested in selling. Mr. Barger wanted clarification on Mr. Hilgart’s point. Is he saying that if they build the office space and the apartment building doesn’t sell is the remaining block still developable. The developers said they could work around the possibility if the remaining properties in the Block could not be acquired. Mr. Hilgart suggested that this may be a discussion as to whether the EDA would want development without all the property. Ms. Hinz asked If anyone had spoken to the owner. Ms. Schumann said yes. There was a time the Hammer’s approached us and asked if we are interested in purchasing the property. At that time the EDA was not. Ms. Schumann stated is was a large challenge when then were talking about building the Water Treatment Plant. With the Plant is become feasible but expensive. Staff don’t recall the timeline of the Water Treatment Plant. The soil samples have to be done and then a decision can be made. Mr. Thares said they are exploring other sites; some of them are EDA owned parcels. Ms. Schumann asked if the EDA is interested in engaging Streetfront on the Cedar Street parcel? Ms. Kopeck-White, Mr. Barger, and Ms. Hinz agreed. Mr. Hilgart felt we should have a conversation with the flower shop. Ms. Schumann stated staff has and the flower shop and presented a concept that would provide an expansion and move the parking lot closer to Broadway and they were deciding on whether the city would like that to happen. Staff have kept them informed on Block 34 and will continue that conversation. Ms. Sittig felt that building a relationship with Krause-Anderson would be beneficial for the EDA in the long term. Mr. Barger stated that phase one would get rid of the DMV. Mr. Hilgart interjected that he felt they don’t have to get rid of the DMV. Mr. Barger asked what the backup is for keeping the DMV and relocating the current tenant. Mr. Hilgart reiterated he feels the DMV does not need to go. Ms. Schumann referred to Mr. John’s comment of what concept you see today is not what will be built. Mr. Morphew wasn’t expecting a housing proposal. He doesn’t know if that is that right use for that spot. Mr. Johnson feels that the business and retail would be the best use. Staff felt this was good feedback. Ms. Hinz asked staff if they have all the action items written down for staff needs for Krause-Anderson and Streetfront. Ms. Schumann asked for clarity; staff is to talk with Kraus-Anderson to refigure their concept to include the wells, existing building and DMV with Phase 1 focusing on getting the office building completed in 2025. Mr. Hilgart stated K-A does not need to be the contractor for the Christenson office building. Ms. Schumann said she believes they are interested in that role though. Schumann stated that another conversation is asking the business owner. The EDA owns and controls the property. Whether they want Krause-Anderson to build the building on Block 34 is also part of the discussion. She also asked if staff should ask Krause Anderson to incorporate the various suggestions into a new concept for additional discussion. Ms. Schumann said that the EDA indicated that they want Christiansen Group to be on the block. Mr. Barger said he preferred to keep him on the block. Mr. Johnson has not made his decision. Mr. Hilgart stated he believes the developers understand costs and realistic pricing. Ms. Schumann stated she had heard that one commissioner wanted to develop block by block and the rest of the members want it built as one whole development reflecting the market today. Mr. Hilgart felt it is fine to build block by block if they hit the price point. Ms. Schumann stated the developers may come back and tell the EDA how they plan to build this project and in what timeline and phases. Mr. Johnson said that staff should go to the developer with the questions the EDA has and have them back to see if they say what the EDA wants to hear. Ms. Sittig stated the developers know what learned and heard in the discussion and that Mr. Olinger would have the option to get an additional bid. Mr. Thares said there is something called Open Book. Mr. Johnson feels that Mr. Olinger knows what he can afford. Ms. Schumann stated that staff can go back to Kraus-Anderson with those cost questions and points, though the EDA needs to think if they want this built in quarter sections or in one package. 7.Adjournment TRACY HINZ MOTIONED TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY HALI SITTIG, CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY AT 7:39 P.M. EDA Agenda: 1/22/25 4A. Consideration of authorizing a Master Development format and process with Kraus Anderson Development (K-A) related to a Block 34 Redevelopment project and affirm the concept proposal including the Christiansen Group office development in the Block 34 Redevelopment plans Prepared by: Economic Development Manager Meeting Date: 1/22/25 ☒ Regular Agenda Item ☐ Consent Agenda Item Reviewed by: Community Development Director, Community Economic Development Coordinator Approved by: City Administrator ACTION REQUESTED 1. Motion to authorize a Master Development format and process with Kraus Anderson Development (K-A) for the Block 34 Redevelopment project and affirm the concept proposal including the Christiansen Group office development in the Block 34 Redevelopment plans. 2. Motion of other. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND In an effort to clarify the EDA’s intent for the Block 34 Redevelopment process and allow efficient planning efforts to move forward, the EDA is asked to consider authorizing a Master Development format and process with Kraus Anderson Development (K-A). The EDA is also asked to clarify their intent on the inclusion of the Christiansen Group office development in the Block 34 Redevelopment plans. The benefits of K-A acting as a Master Developer throughout the multiple development phases envisioned for the entirety of Block 34 are related to achieving the vision for the Block as described within the adopted Downtown Small Area Plan, as well as efficiencies gained by one entity completing the various tasks which are essential to the entire redevelopment effort. These tasks include integrated site planning, coordinated parking and landscaping, land entitlement review and actions, and finally building demolition and environmental clean-up activities. Staff proceeded with discussion with K-A based on prior consensus direction from the EDA resulting from a November 6, 2024, workshop. During the November workshop, the EDA reviewed two distinct proposals for Block 34 and reached consensus to pursue discussions with K-A for the publicly owned portions of the block. EDA Agenda: 1/22/25 Staff recently presented the K-A concept submittal to the EDA in a workshop (January 8, 2025) for EDA affirmation of the concept components and phasing. K-A’s proposal suggests separate phases of development, each with different timelines, different users and ultimately different financial assistance agreements. At the January 8, 2024, EDA meeting, authorization was given to have a Pre-Development Agreement between the EDA and Kraus Anderson drafted by the EDA attorney. A Pre- Development Agreement allows the parties to such an agreement to understand basic commitments and responsibilities as a progression to a formal development agreement. It further identifies tasks and due diligence items that are to occur by all parties. If progress is made in completing those various identified tasks, it will clarify the items and terms that are to be negotiated and included in a formal development agreement. While the project may be developed in phases with separate financial assistance agreements and final ownership, staff are requesting the EDA to provide clear direction with regard to K-A serving as the Master Developer. In summary, the EDA would have a single preliminary development agreement with K-A, rather than separate agreements with end owners/users for each phase. The EDA is also asked to provide clear direction with regard to the potential first phase of redevelopment. The Block 34 RFI packet noted that there was an existing Monticello office user with a strong interest in constructing a new building on Block 34. Developers were asked to respond to this condition in their proposal submittals. This information was pointed out in the initial EDA Workshop on November 6, 2024, and the user was present during the workshop to discuss their desired development parameters. The office development involves the Christiansen Group proposal for a 10,000 square foot Class A office building targeting the southwest quarter of the Block. Christiansen Group is planning to house 40 employees in a new building. They currently occupy approximately 5,500 square feet in their existing Monticello location. The K-A proposal illustrated the accommodation of office space of this nature within the SW quadrant of Block 34. The proposed second phase of development involves the remainder of the land area in Block 34 controlled by the EDA and the City. K-A proposes utilizing this area as a multi-story office and retail development. Parking in the K-A submittal packet is proposed as a mix of below grade parking structures as well as mid-block courtyard surface parking and grade level garage parking areas. Public cross-parking is a requirement of all new development in the CCD (Central Community District). Financial incentive negotiations are viewed as a separate but somewhat related element for each development Phase. Because the Christiansen Group wants to own their building and the land underneath it, the EDA will negotiate directly with them on an assistance package as the EDA Agenda: 1/22/25 Master Developer, K-A would be involved in the site configuration and planning, though not the ultimate conveyor of the site. If the EDA’s direction is to continue with a first phase of development including Christensen Group, the EDA would convey the land. It should be noted that this site conveyance format may be adjusted based on new information or understandings by all involved parties. To help the EDA with early pre-development financial analysis planning steps, staff requested Northland Securities complete two preliminary Tax Increment Financing (TIF) estimates of the proposed Phase 1 development office building. That information is attached to this staff report. The TIF analysis illustrates potential financial options related to the SW quarter Block phase 1 development. Staff are not asking for EDA decisions related to those elements at this meeting. Also, staff want to note that while the City also owns land in Block 34, the EDA attorney advised that it is not necessary to overcomplicate various decision steps and development documents in the early pre-development stage by involving numerous parties to the agreement. Ultimately the EDA will ask the City to transfer the land that it owns to the EDA for conveyance to the developers-end users. I. Budget Impact: The budget impact of seeking a reaffirmation and clarification of the Master Developer role by K-A and further authorizing Christiansen Group’s office proposal to be included in the southwest quarter of the Block is minimal at this point in time. The costs involve a consultation with the EDA attorney estimated at $450.00. The 2025 EDA General Fund includes dollars in a line item for Professional Services and Redevelopment related activities. The budget implications related to preparation of a Pre-Development Agreement will occur with consideration of the document at the February EDA meeting. II. Staff Workload Impact: The Community Development Director, Community Economic Development Coordinator and Economic Development Manager have a modest amount of time committed to completing tasks related to further clarifying the role of K-A as a Master Developer in the Block 34 efforts and also reaffirming the Christiansen Group office proposal for the southwest quarter of the Block. If the EDA authorizes this step, then additional time will be allocated to this effort by the Economic Development Manager. No other staff are required to complete the work in this effort. III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: Redevelopment of portions or the entirety of Block 34 is identified as a goal within the 2017 Downtown Small Area Plan, an appendix of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, which calls for a creating a vibrant Downtown. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommend the EDA act to clarify the role of K-A Development as a Master Developer for the entirety of Block 34 and to further reaffirm that the Phase 1 Christiansen Group office EDA Agenda: 1/22/25 proposal is intended for the southwest quarter of the Block. By taking this action, the EDA will allow immediate next steps to related to Block 34 Redevelopment activities to occur. This critical decision point will allow all parties involved to move to the next project planning steps as well as undertake proper due diligence and ultimately identify the negotiation points that are to be resolved as part of entering into a formal Master Development Agreement and sub- Development Agreement. SUPPORTING DATA A. Block 34 Property Ownership Map B. RFI Proposal C. RFI Proposal Exhibits D. RFI Submittal - K-A E. EDA Workshop Minutes, November 6, 2024 (included as part of Item 2A F. EDA-Held Property Summary, November 8, 2023 G. TIF Projections – Scenario A and B 1 | Page REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO REDEVELOPMENT SITE RFI DUE DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY The City of Monticello and Monticello Economic Development Authority (EDA) are soliciting informational proposals for a redevelopment concept for the majority of “Block 34”. Block 34 is a development parcel of approximately two acres in the city’s core downtown. The development site is located at the intersection of MN TH 25 (Pine Street) and CSAH 75 (Broadway) and one block from the Mississippi River. See Exhibit A – Site Location. DOWNTOWN VISION The City has adopted a Small Area Plan for its Downtown. See Exhibit B – Downtown Small Area Plan. The Small Area Plan sets the following vision for Downtown: Downtown Monticello is and shall remain the heart of the community. It is the birthplace of the City and the focus of civic activity. The Plan builds off those foundational qualities with a clear vision for the future of the core blocks of Downtown. The vision includes a commitment to retaining Broadway as Monticello’s Main Street, supporting existing businesses, improving connections to and relationship with the River, and creating new downtown housing opportunities along Walnut and Cedar Avenues for existing and new Monticello residents. The Plan envisions a Downtown that is lively throughout the day and into the evening, 12 months of the year. A downtown that serves many purposes for many people – including dining, recreation, celebrating, gathering, shopping and living. The Small Area Plan also outlines four primary goals for Downtown revitalization: The City of Monticello and Economic Development Authority welcomes the establishment of new businesses, supports existing businesses and encourages the creation of opportunities for housing in the Downtown. 2 | Page PROPERTY DESCRIPTION See Exhibit C – Site Detail. Site Opportunities The subject site, known as “Block 34”, is in the heart of a reenergized downtown, situated at southeast corner of the busiest intersection in Monticello. Over 37,000 vehicles per day travel through the MN TH25 (Pine Street) and CSAH 75 (Broadway) intersection. The site is less than one half mile from I-94 and one block from the Mississippi River. The City and EDA have been gradually acquiring property within the block to facilitate redevelopment, with over 85% of the block currently in public ownership. Data from a 2020 Ninigret Partners market study for the region found a $124 Million dollar sales capacity within the 2-mile area surrounding the core of Monticello, Site Constraints There are currently two operational municipal wells located on the block within the redevelopment area. The footprint of the wells is a relatively small area. However, sanitary sewer lines and other building development must be located beyond a 50’ radius of the well itself (not the well house). See Exhibit D – Municipal Well Development Radius. Redevelopment of the block will require removal of existing vacant one and two-story buildings and environmental remediation. The City has completed a series of environmental evaluations on the property. Additional environmental study and completion of the required environmental permit and remediation/response action processes is expected. Site Data Owner: City of Monticello/City of Monticello Economic Development Authority Acreage: 2 acres (approximate) Buildable footprint is variable based on parking requirements Land Use: Downtown Mixed Use; Please refer to Exhibit F – Monticello 2040 Zoning: Central Community District, Pine Street and Walnut & Cedar Sub-Districts Please refer to Exhibit G – CCD Zoning for full details on the zoning district Utilities: Electric, natural gas, water, sanitary sewer, etc. are all available on site Height: Two to four stories; additional stories by Conditional Use Permit Roads: Directly adjacent to MN TH 25/Pine Street (west); no direct access Directly adjacent to CSAH 75 (east), right in/right out only 3 | Page Directly adjacent with full access to Cedar Street (east) and Third Street (south) Public Parking: On-street public parking Trails: Mississippi River Trail one block to the north along the Mississippi River; Broadway trail (sidewalk) along CSAH 75 frontage; sidewalks on Cedar and Third Streets Parks: The Bridge Parks fronting the Mississippi River are located one block north SITE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Site Partnerships The City and EDA have confirmed the interest of a local professional office user to relocate to this block. This user requires ownership of their building and site pad and is seeking 10,000 square feet of single-story main floor Class A office space with dedicated daytime parking for 40 employees. Proposals should directly address locating this user within their redevelopment concept. There are two existing privately owned and occupied buildings on the block. Submitters will evaluate and identify how they will address these existing properties within their redevelopment concept. Site Configuration and Phasing The City and EDA are seeking to maximize this site’s potential given its location and proximity to amenities. Submitters will provide a site plan and narrative which clearly identifies the proposed uses desired by the developer and the location of the intended uses. The developer’s submittal must be clear in site layout, intended development square footage and floor area ratio, and parking requirements and location. Submitters will identify the proposed phasing of development, including how the development will address both the existing uses on the block and the prospective office user. DESIRED PROPERTY USE The City and EDA are interested in the developer’s perspective on the uses most likely to be successful on the block, with development massing, layout and phasing to support those uses. The City and EDA have indicated that a mix of uses is preferred, including office professional and specialty eating and retail. These commercial uses are preferred along the Broadway and Pine frontages. The variety of uses should accommodate employment during the daytime, as well as shopping and dining for evenings and weekends. This mix of uses would create activity on the 4 | Page block at all times of day and complement other existing and future uses in the area and accommodate varying parking demand. If residential opportunity is desired by developers, the goal would be to focus residential to the Cedar Street side and at a medium density scale to the extent possible. It is anticipated that development may occur in quarter block components, although depending on the developer’s goals, a half block configuration could be possible. Massing of buildings to maximize usable square footage and noted partnerships is desired. Design of spaces should make the adjacent vehicle corridors less intimidating and scaled for pedestrians, including the addition of green and plaza spaces within the block. AMENITIES AND SURROUNDING BUSINESS COMMUNITY A recently completed (2024) mixed-use development is adjacent to the northwest. This $25 million project Includes 87 residential units and 30,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and office space. Core Downtown retail, restaurant and professional office spaces are located within 3 block walking distance. The majority of Downtown commercial space is occupied. A concentration of multi-family and single-family residential is in direct proximity. The Monticello Community Center is located four blocks to the southwest, within walking distance. MCC is home to a recreational fitness center, indoor pool, climbing wall, meeting space and senior center. The City’s premier riverfront parks, Bridge Parks, are located one block to the north. The parks are home to an arboretum, fishing pier, skating rink, basketball court, playground and are located directly on the national Mississippi River Trail (MRT). CITY INVESTMENT The City of Monticello and the Monticello Economic Development Authority are making significant investments for the redevelopment of this site. Previous investments include: 1. Acquisition of 118 East Broadway - $665,000 3. Acquisition of 216 Pine Street - $465,000 4. Acquisition of Corner Montgomery Farms Property - $665,000 5. Acquisition of BL Bikes/Bait Shop - $181,950 6. Acquisition of 130 East Broadway (Zoo) - $275,000 7. Relocation Expenses - $518,207 9. Environmental Study (to date) – 35,541 10. Demolition Expenses (to date) – 47,550 Total City/Eda Investment To-Date: $2,853,248 5 | Page REQUESTED INFORMATION SUBMITTAL To be considered complete, all proposals must include the following elements: 1. Cover letter describing your interest, your team and your concept. 2. Description of the development concept with specifics as to proposed: a. Square footage b. Floor area ratio and building height c. Use types d. Phasing plan 3. Conceptual site plan showing the layout of the proposed project as described in item 2 4. Market justification of the proposed use(s) 5. Estimated market value of the project when completed 6. Estimated project timeline 7. Developer’s financial capability to complete the project. In this regard, the respondent should provide: a financing plan, anticipated sources of project financing (including proposed City/EDA participation), and financial capacity of respondent to perform obligations. PROPOSAL REVIEW AND SCORING At its sole discretion, the City of Monticello reserves the right to accept or reject any submitted proposal. Proposals will be evaluated and scored on a 1-10 scale for each of the following criteria: 1. Qualifications and experience of the developer(s) 3. Proposed use of the lot and fit with the City’s vision for downtown 4. Conceptual design and site configuration / architectural style of proposed project 5. Market justification for the proposed use(s) and estimated investment 6. Financial capacity of the developer(s) 7. Proposed timeline for the project: start of construction / project completion Proposals will be reviewed by City Staff and the Monticello Economic Development Authority, and a recommendation for continued process will be coordinated with the Monticello Economic Development Authority and City Council. A final timeline for review and next steps will be at the sole discretion of those boards. ANTICIPATED PROCESS The proposal process is a preliminary step to determine development interest, capacity and alignment with City goals. The Monticello EDA will review all submitted proposals and select 6 | Page development teams to proceed to interview. The goal of the EDA will be to select a development team for further negotiations on site acquisition and development. SUBMISSION INFORMATION & CONTACTS Responses are due on Monday, September 30th, 2024. The Monticello EDA will review the information responses on behalf of the City and EDA. Respondents are required to submit one (1) original and one (1) electronic copy of their information proposal to the contact person listed below. To facilitate effective evaluation by the City/EDA responses shall be limited to no more than ten (10) pages. All questions shall be emailed to the contact listed below and all questions will be answered in writing by email to all parties. Direct questions to: Jim Thares Economic Development Director jim.thares@ci.monticello.mn.us 763-271-3254 Direct submissions to: Angela Schumann Community Development Directo angela.schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us 505 Walnut Street, Monticello MN 55362 At the discretion of the City, a short list of the most qualified respondents may be developed, and respondents may be asked to give a short presentation or interview as part of the evaluation and selection process. Respondents may be asked to provide additional information. EXHIBITS A. Site Location B. Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan, Excerpts C. Site Detail D. Municipal Well Development Radius E. Site Images F. Monticello 2040, Excerpts G. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Excerpts H. Environmental Documents - Available Upon Request Exhibit A—Site Location I-94 & MN TH 25 Interchange Block 34 Site Mississippi River City of Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan Monticello, MN Prepared for: The City of Monticello ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 Prepared by: Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. Tangible Consulting Services 1 Become a River TownImprove Pine Street for All Users Encourage Small and Medium Scaled Investments Shift the Center of Town to Walnut and Broadway Background and Purpose Goals Th e purpose of this Plan is to attract and direct investments on the core blocks of Downtown Monticello, MN over the next 10 years. Th e Plan advocates for solidifying Downtown as the heart of the community with a series of coordinated public and private investments. Together, these investments will create a human-scaled environment that encourages gathering, socializing, visiting and enjoying on a daily basis - throughout the year. Th e improvements outlined in this Plan aim to build on the unique qualities of Monticello to make the Downtown yet more attractive to those who have chosen to live and do business in the community. Specifi cally, the Plan seeks to promote Broadway Street as a storefront district with restaurants and specialty retail, celebrate the River for its recreational, connective and economic qualities, reinvigorate a downtown housing market with multiple, appropriately scaled, infi ll projects, and improve the experience of Pine Street for all users. Th e plan is ambitious, but achievable. Over time and upon completion, the plan would usher in up to 500 new units of downtown housing, new restaurants overlooking the river, and unique retail and services on Broadway. Momentum can be established in the next few years. Primary projects to be completed within fi ve years include: redevelopment of Block 52, Walnut Street connection to River Street and infi ll housing on Walnut Street. Implementation of this Plan will create two legacies. Th e fi rst will be a revitalized Downtown with an economy and attractions that benefi t all residents of Monticello. Equally important, however to the physical improvements described above will be the legacy of new partnerships and civic cooperation that are essential to and will result from coordinated actions. Th e ideas set forth in this Plan come from the vested interest of the Monticello community through a broad public outreach eff ort. Th e realization of these ideas rely on a coordinated, cooperative, and active public sector working in tandem with an entrepreneurial private sector Th e result will be a lively Downtown for all in Monticello, a place that embodies both its history and future aspirations. Pin e S t r e e t Wa l n u t S t Broa d w a y NOTE: This illustration depicts new deveopment on both private and public properties. The plan does not compel private property owners to change anything regarding how they use their land. Rather, the Plan is a guide for change if the property owner chooses to do so. Please see page___for an illustration of the Master Plan as it applies to publicly held properties only. The City will endeavor to work with existing business who wish to remain, revitalize and expand in the downtown. City of Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan | Executive Summary 2 Character Areas Character Area: Pine Street (TH 25) Th e community will reclaim Pine Street by maintaining it’s width and adding pedestrian amenities and local serving commercial uses. Wa l n u t S t Ce d a r S t Bro a d w a y 3rd S t r e e t Pin e S t r e e t Riv e r S t r e e t 4th S t r e e t Similar to the Embracing Downtown Plan, the Plan divides the study area into four diff erent character Areas. Th e purpose of this is to create sub-areas in downtown, each with its own identity and purpose and direction. Th e character areas are developed based on their context and their future role in the downtown. Typically each character area is a mix of uses, but also has a dominant use. Character Area: Broadway Monticello’s Main Street will transition over time from a street with primarily services, to one with unique retail and restaurants. Character Area: Riverfront A redesigned Park with an amphitheater and better relationship to Downtown will help connect the River to Downtown Character Area: Walnut Street and Cedar Street Walnut and Cedar Streets will fi ll in with new housing (2-4 stories) that adds to the market strength of downtown and provides additional housing choices for new and existing residents of Monticello. Th eir intersections with Broadway will be improved to make it easier to walk to the Riverfront D A C ) it’ idth A B C D B Illustrative Master Plan Th e Plan above describes a potential long term build out of the core blocks of Downtown Monticello. Downtown Monticello is and shall remain the heart of the community. It is the birthplace of the City and the focus of civic activity. Th is Plan builds off those foundational qualities with a clear vision for the future of the core blocks of Downtown. Th e vision includes a commitment to retaining Broadway as Monticello’s Main Street, supporting existing businesses, improving connections to and relationship with the River, and creating new downtown housing opportunities along Walnut and Cedar Avenues for existing and new Monticello residents. Th e Plan envisions a Downtown that is lively throughout the day and into the evening, 12 months of the year. A downtown that serves many purposes for many people – including dining, recreation, celebrating, gathering, shopping and living. Downtown is For Everyone C City of Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan | Executive Summary Existing Buildings New Buildings 1212City of Monticello Small Area Plan | Goals and Objectives Project Goals Pin e S t r e e t Wa l n u t S t Broa d w a y Shift the Center and Double Down on Broadway. Over time the travel and use patterns of Downtown have changed - altering the overall experience of downtown. Up until 1960, despite Broadway’s designation as a State Highway (152) most travel was local. However, as the region grew, Monticello became a crossroads - thereby burdening Broadway and Pine Street with high volumes of through traffi c and widened streets. Today, the Broadway / Pine Street intersection is one of the most traveled intersections in the region. Whereas that quality makes for great visibility, it also makes for a poor pedestrian experience and poor access to adjacent properties. Broadway, west of Pine Street, is relatively lightly traveled and unlike Broadwway east of Pine Street, it has retained its pedestrian scale. Furthermore, the City has developed successful parks at the end of Cedar Street and Walnut Street. Th erefore, an opportunity exists to fully extend Walnut and Cedar Street down to the park and grow the downtown mercantile district towards the riverfront along Broadway. Engage and love the riverfront. Go beyond the Swan. Great places have unique assets that diff erentiate them from others. Monticello has the Mississippi River. Th is defi ning feature can be further utilized to the benefi t of Monticello residents and businesses. A riverfront that is well connected with blue and green trails, is publicly accessible and is activated throughout the day and the year can become a defi ning feature for the City and an important driver of economic activity. Lots of Small Investments, a few medium ones and just one or two big ones. Monticello, despite it’s growth, is proud to be a small town. Small towns develop charm and character through a series of small incremental investments that together add up to help a place become memorable and beloved. Simple investments such as new awnings, improved lighting and well maintained landscaping can make a big impression. Small buildings that fi t on vacant parcels or otherwise underutilized land can happen quickly - adding vitality to a community. By promoting a high quantity of smaller investments (1/4 block and smaller) and medium scaled redevelopment projects (up to 1/2 block in scale), the Downtown will become more diverse, more lively, more responsive and adaptable to changes in the market place. A few medium scaled investments, warranted by a strong market or a strategic need, are important and valuable. But they should be carefully scaled and implemented so as to not disrupt the fragile fabric of the small town. Improve the Pine Street Experience for Everyone. Whether passing through Monticello along Pine Street (TH 25), trying to cross Pine Street by foot, or going to a business along Pine Street, the experience of using Pine Street is generally a negative one for all users. Th e environment of Pine Street projects a negative image and it is a divider between the east and west side of the town. Whereas Pine Street will always be a heavily traveled street, it does not need to be a negative experience. Th e community can take it back, claiming it for more appropriate development types, making it safer, more pleasant, and attractive for all users. 18 Primary Recommendations Walnut Street and Cedar Street Walnut Street and Cedar Street are important corridors to the River as well as transitions between the commercial areas of downtown and the in-town neighborhoods. In order to perform in this capacity, the Plan encourages new housing to infi ll vacant lots and eventually for single family housing to transition to medium density housing. Live/work units or small service/production (such as insurance agent or jewelry maker) are permitted. In addition, the Plan recommends improvements to the street that will accommodate pedestrian and bike access to the River. Th is includes parallel parking, aligned sidewalks and crosswalks, and curb extensions at Broadway. Create a pedestrian promenade to the Riverfront with wide continuous sidewalks and well marked crosswalks Infi ll vacant lots and redevelop underutilized parcels with housing in small apartments or townhouses. Small service or production uses are permitted within these and existing buildings. Encourage new housing to face Walnut and Cedar Street, with multiple doors facing the street. Locate all parking towards the middle of the block, accessed via a rear lane shared with other properties on the block. Encourage small and medium scaled residential buildings (3-5 stories, 1/4 to 1/2 block) that prioritize pedestrian scale and walkability. W a l n u t S t r e e t Walnut Street Promenade to the River Perspective along Walnut Street, looking north towards the River. Proposed Parallel Parking Section of Walnut and Cedar Street On-street parking is important throughout Downtown. Parallel parking will not require an easement and is desireable in front of residential buildings. Diagonal parking requires an easement and yields 50% more parking spaces. 8’12’24’8’ 8’12’8’ 80’ ROW PPBi k e Bi k e River Street Broadway Co n v e r t i b l e S t r e e t wi t h p a r k i n g Di a g o n a l P a r k i n g (e x i s t i n g ) Pa r a l l e l o r D i a g o n a l P a r k i n g (s e e s e c t i o n a b o v e ) 3rd Street 4th Street 5th Street tracks 7th Street Walnut and Cedar Streets Character Area: Th e recommendations and guidelines on this page pertain to the area colored on this diagram City of Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan | Character Areas D A B C D A B C E Pin e S t Wa l n u t S t Ce d a r S t Riv e r S t Bro a d w a y 4th S t r e e t 3rd S t r e e t E 19 Facade and Frontage • Porches and/ or dooryards are encouraged for all ground fl oor residential units. • Dormers and bay windows are encouraged to create a pedestrian scaled facade • Upper story balconies are encouraged. • Courtyards are permitted along 1/2 of a front property line. Public Realm • 6’-10’ sidewalk, aligned across intersections and along the front of blocks. • On street parking for visitors to Downtown • Clearly marked crosswalks to accommodate pedestrian and bike access between the Community Center and the Riverfront Building Use and Location • Primarily residential uses between the Civic Center and Walnut Street. Small scale service and commercial businesses permitted on corner of 4th and Cedar and 4th and Walnut. • Buildings oriented toward front (street) and front corners Massing and Orientation • Buildings should be between 2 and 4 stories. • Buildings should be primarily oriented to Walnut and Cedar Street to create a comfortable pedestrian environment. • Dormers and roof articulations should be used to reduce the scale of buildings if buildings are longer than 100’ in length. Massing a n d O r i e n t a t i o n Use and L o c a t i o n Public Re a l m Facades a n d F r o n t a g e s Massing a n d O r i e n t a t i o n Use and L o c a t i o n Public Re a l m Facades a n d F r o n t a g e s Walnut Street and Cedar Street Guidelines City of Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan | Character Areas Precedent Images 20 Perspective along Pine Street, looking north towards the River. Pine Street Character Area: Th e and recomendations guidelines on this page pertain to the area colored on this diagram City of Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan | Character Areas Pine Street Pine Street (Minnesota State Hwy 25) is an important and heavily traveled roadway in Monticello and Sherburne County. It is one of only two river crossings between Minneapolis and Saint Cloud and it connects to I-94 in Monticello. It also has an important local role because it is Downtown’s connection to the rest of Monticello that lies south of I-94. Th e original plat of Monticello did not foresee the growth of Pine Street and as a result, the steady growth of traffi c along it has had a strong impact on the community. While it connects Monticello to the region, it also divides the community between east and west. Th is Plan recognizes Pine Street as a regional roadway, but seeks to manage its impacts as it crosses through Downtown. Th e Plan does not recommend any additional widening and supports additional river crossings that would better serve both Downtown and the region. Work with MnDOT to maintain a 5 lane section(2 through lanes both directions with a center turning lane), do not increase speeds Work with MNDot to improve pedestrian crossings wherever possible, preferably with traffi c signals at 4th Street. Encourage redevelopment on the corners of blocks, with entrances facing the street, and shared parking in the middle of the block. Reduce the impact of parking to pedestrians by minimizing the width to 180’ and buff ering parking from the sidewalk with a low fence and streetscaping. Reduce direct property access to Pine Street and encourage property access from side streets with through block easements. 15’70 ’15’ 100’ ROW Proposed Section of Pine Street New development along Pine Street should be regional serving, but locally scaled. Buildings should be located on the corners with pedestrian refuges along Pine Street that improve the appearance and the experience of all along Pine Street. Th e Plan discourages additional property access to Pine Street and encourages side street access with through block (north/south) easements. Pine S t r e e t D A B C E DA B C E Pin e S t Wa l n u t S t Ce d a r S t Riv e r S t Bro a d w a y 4th S t r e e t 3rd S t r e e t 21 Public Realm • 10’-15’ sidewalk; trees clustered in planters with ground cover or low shrubs. • Sidewalks buff ered from parking lots with low wall or hedge. • Gateway treatments at River Street and 7th Street. Building Use and Location • Larger retail/ commercial, offi ce or hospitality uses that desire visibility, parking and regional access are encouraged. Th is does not apply to Block 52 which is located in the Riverfront character Area. • Buildings located towards front corners of Pine Street blocks. • Parking lots in mid block should not be wider than 180’, but should be clearly visible from Pine Street and easilly accessible from side streets. Massing and Orientation • Buildings should be between 2 and 5 stories. • Buildings should be oriented to Pine Street. Secondary entrances can be located on side streets or facing parking lots. If located on the Broadway/Pine Street corner, buildings should have dual orientations - one towards Pine Street and one towards Broadway. Massing a n d O r i e n t a t i o n Use and L o c a t i o n Public Re a l m Facades a n d F r o n t a g e s Massing a n d O r i e n t a t i o n Use and L o c a t i o n Public Re a l m Facades a n d F r o n t a g e s Pine Street Guidelines City of Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan | Character Areas Facade and Frontage • Primary entrance to building should be clearly visible from Pine Street accomplished with careful design. • One story base level articulation is encouraged to create a pedestrian scale frontage. • Storefronts on the ground fl oor are encouraged to face Pine Street. If storefronts face mid block parking, there must be pedestrian access to the storefronts. • Corner treatments such as entrances, cornice feature, or towers are encouraged at the corners of the bocks. Precedent Images 23 Block 34 Access Way Surface Parking Block 34 (public ownership in blue) Most of the properties on Block 34 are publicly owned. In addition, there are two wells on the block that impact development. Redevelopment is further challenged by limitations on property access created by medians on Broadway and Pine Street. Th e site is attractive for “outbound” retail and the plan recommends such a use to be located in the base of a multi use building on the corner of Pine and Broadway. Pin e S t r e e t Broad w a y St r e e t E 4th S t r e e t E Ceda r S t r e e t Pin e S t r e e t Broad w a y Str e e t E 4th S t r e e t E Ce d a r S t r e e t Mi n : 5-Fe et Ma x : 10-Feet Min : 5-F e et Ma x :15-Fe e t Min : 5-F e e t Ma x :15-Fe e t Ma x : 15 - Fe e t Min : 5 - Fe et Pin e S t r e e t Broad w a y St r e e t E 4th S t r e e t E Ceda r S t r e e t Pin e S t Wa l n u t S t Ce d a r S t Riv e r S t Bro a d w a y 4th S t r e e t 3rd S t r e e t Pin e S t Ce d a r S t Bro a d w a y 3rd S t City of Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan | Character Areas Frontage And Ground Floor Uses Active (retail) uses are encouraged at Pine Street and Broadway. Residential frontages are encouraged on Cedar Street. Th e remainder of the block is fl exible. Setbacks, Pocket Parks & Open Space Buildings should defi ne the perimeter of the block with a front facade zone between 5’ and 15’ of the front property line. Th e two wells on site have 50’ setbacks and shou ld be incorporated into courtyards or parking areas. Parking & Servicing Primary access to mid block parking should occur from Cedar Street and 4th Street. Flexible Frontage (either Active or Residential) Active Frontage Well Setback Building Setback Options Th e two illustrations above show potential options for development on Block 34 - both adhering to the guidelines. Th e top illustration shows a development pattern that assumes the property on Cedar Street remains. Residential Frontage Active Frontage Broad w a y Broadw a y 3 r d s t r e e t 3 r d s t r e e t Pin e S t r e e t Pin e S t r e e t Ceda r S t r e e t Ceda r S t r e e t 26 Frameworks: Purpose Land Use, Open Space and Transportation are the three frameworks that organize and defi ne the physical environment. As with systems in the human body, each must function independently - and together with - the others. If one fails, others are impacted. Th is is why it is important to understand frameworks as individual systems that must function as part of a single Downtown. Th e Plan is also divided into frameworks in order to allow diff erent agencies, departments, and investors to act in concert with each other. Th is will help ensure public and private investments are coordinated, less risky, and more publicly acceptable. General Approach Th e Land Use Plan promotes a development pattern that recognizes the essential role that Downtowns plays in the communities they serve. Successful Downtowns tend to be places that serve many functions for the full cross section of the community throughout the year and across generations. Th ey are places to gather, eat, live, shop, celebrate, protest, recreate, meet, be entertained, and to visit. Th ey are places that promote social interactions and the unique creative expression of the community. At their best, Downtowns are places that exude pride because they represent the best the community has to off er. In order to promote these ideals, this Plan favors policies and development patterns that improve downtown for those who currently use it and patterns that support the places that people value. Th erefore, development patterns and land uses in this Plan seek to support the Main Street character of Broadway, the importance of Walnut Street as a promenade to the River, regional and local needs of Pine Street, and the riverfront as the birthplace of the City. Th is Plan also recognizes the traditional (and still relevant) role of Downtown Monticello as well as the changing nature of small Downtowns throughout the country. In doing so, the Plan is committed to retaining the small scale shopfront District on Broadway by encouraging uses that value “experience” over “convenience”. At the same time, the Plan encourages Pine Street (the regional face of downtown) to develop as a corridor that emphasizes convenience and accessibility. Development patterns that support social interaction, local character, and a compact connected and walkable environment. Together, both Broadway and Pine Street can complement each other to create a downtown that attracts a wide range of investments. Physically, the Plan favors compact walkable small town design with a fi ne grained mix of uses. Th e Plan arranges development types and land uses so valued places are supported, and new investments can add to the overall vitality of downtown. Recommendations • Create a Center to Downtown that is active throughout the day and into the evening - year round. Th e Walnut / Broadway Intersection should become the heart of this area. • Improve connections to the River by locating uses that benefi t 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 fl oor and wither housing or offi ces above. • Create a development pattern on Pine Street that benefi ts from high visibility and regional access. • Infi ll Walnut Street and Cedar Street with mid scale housing (2-4 stories) that creates an eff ective transition between the in-town neighborhoods and the Downtown. Wa l n u t S t r e e t Ce d a r S t r e e t Bro a d w a y Riv e r S t r e e t 3rd S t r e e t 4th S t r e e t Frameworks: Land Use and Development Commercial Mixed-Use Small Retail Opportunities Required Retail Frontage Multi-Family Housing Public Employment Park/OpenSpace/Cemetery Central Community District (CCD) Core Study Area City of Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan | Character Areas Exhibit C—Site Detail City and EDA Owned Property Municipal Well Location Exhibit D—Municipal Well Development Radius This first phase of the Comprehensive Plan process, the Visioning phase, included a community engagement process to identify common values, growth aspirations and a vision to inform the planning direction for the next 20 years. The vision, value statements and preferred development scenario will serve as the foundation for creating the new Comprehensive Plan during the second phase of the planning process. The Comprehensive Plan provides a set of goals, policies and strategies for achieving Monticello’s vision for the future. PHASE ONE | JANUARY 2020 In 2040 the City of Monticello is an inclusive community focused around sustainable growth while maintaining its small-town character. Monticello is a Mississippi River town known for its schools, parks, biking and walking trails and vibrant downtown. Monticello is an evolving, friendly and safe community that respects the quality of its environment, fosters a sense of belonging and connection, encourages a healthy and active lifestyle and supports innovation to promote a prosperous economy. A balanced land use and transportation framework that provides options and connectivity. A range of attainable housing options in terms of type, cost, and location. A respected school and education system serving the community. A healthy community focused on physical and mental health and wellness of its residents. A safe, clean, and beautiful community supported by caring and helpful residents. A network of parks, open space and trail connections that provide recreation opportunities. An inclusive community welcoming people of all ages, races, religions and ethnic backgrounds. A diversified and strong local economy competitive at regional, state and national levels. A vibrant downtown that embraces the River and provides a focal point for the community. A thriving arts and culture scene that reflects the creativity of the community and supports a sense of place. VISION STATEMENT VALUE STATEMENTS VISIT CI.MONTICELLO.MN.US/MONTI2040 TO LEARN MORE! PREFERRED SCENARIO PRIORITY GREENWAYSMIXED RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIALCOMMERCIAL PLANNED DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INTERCHANGE LEGEND:DETACHED RESIDENTIAL MIXED COMMERCIAL/ OFFICE/LIGHT INDUSTRIALATTACHED RESIDENTIAL RIVER ACCESS • Sustainability - Focus on sustainability, open space and wetland preservation throughout City. • Infill Development - New service commercial and light industrial infill. • Conservation Neighborhoods - Single-family housing developed as conservation subdivisions in a clustered fashion mitigating impacts to sensitive areas. • Industrial Expansion - Full build out and expansion of Otter Creek Industrial Park and growth around future Interchange. • Multi-Family Housing - New multi-family infill development near core of downtown and other focus areas. • New School - New elementary and middle school campus with environmental focus. • Downtown - Downtown plan implementation thriving with new commercial, mixed-use and public realm improvements. • Mississippi River - Focus on River with new access, connections and riverfront trail. • New Employment Center - New industrial business park developed around new interchange with green technology, renewable energy, manufacturing and other uses. • Xcel Facility - The Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant is licensed through 2030 and will seek relicensing to 2040. • Annexation Area - Portions of the Orderly Annexation Area are designated as an Urban Reserve for future development. Development would likely include conservation single-family cluster subdivisions. Note: The Preferred Scenario guidance and mapping provided in the Vision Report will be further refined during the Comprehensive Plan process. This map is not the City of Monticello’s final Land Use Plan. This map provides initial guidance for the next phase of the project, the Comprehensive Plan, and will be further detailed and refined. The preferred development scenario is the result of community feedback on the four previous scenarios and the community’s vision. The community envisions Monticello in 2040 as an environmentally and economically sustainable community that has experienced strong, balanced growth. A B C D E F G H I J K PHASE ONE | JANUARY 2020 Development Assumptions Key Preferred Scenario Aspects URBAN RESERVE INCREMENTAL, SUSTAINABLE Growth Scenario Downtown Focus New School Industrial and Employment Conservation Neighborhoods Retail and Commercial Trails and Open Space VISIT CI.MONTICELLO.MN.US/MONTI2040 TO LEARN MORE! 0 1,300 2,600650 1 inch = 2,500 feet ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! NORTHSTARLINE BIG LAKE 25 68 131 43 14 10 SCHOOL BLVDSCHOOL BLVD CHE L S E A R D CHE L S E A R D ED M O N S O N A V E ED M O N S O N A V E FE N N I N G A V E FE N N I N G A V E PIN E S T PIN E S T ELM S T ELM S T BRO A D W A Y S T BRO A D W A Y S T 17 2 N D S T N W 17 2 N D S T N W 16 5 T H A V E S E 16 5 T H A V E S E LAK E S T S LAK E S T S JEFFERSON BLVDJEFFERSON BLVD 157TH ST SE157TH ST SE LA B E A U X A V E N E LA B E A U X A V E N E COU N T Y R D 3 9 N E COU N T Y R D 3 9 N E 80TH ST NE80TH ST NE JA S O N A V E N E JA S O N A V E N E 9494 9494 COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE BR I A R W O O D A V E BR I A R W O O D A V E BERTRAMCHAIN OFLAKES BERTRAMCHAIN OFLAKES 85TH ST NE85TH ST NE COUNTY RD 39 NECOUNTY RD 39 NE COUNTY RD 37 NECOUNTY RD 37 NE MI S S I S S I P P I R I V E R MI S S I S S I P P I R I V E R Downtown Mixed Use 10-18 Unit/Acre10-18 Unit/Acre Service Commercial and Light Industrial Infill Regional Oriented Commercial Multi-Family 10-18 Unit/Acre10-18 Unit/Acre Medium and Small Lot Conservation Developments 4-10 Units/Acre4-10 Units/Acre Potential School Site withEnvironmental Focus Medium and Small Lot Conservation Developments 4-10 Units/Acre4-10 Units/Acre Otter Creek Industrial Park Commercial/Residential Mix (Neo Traditional) Development Residential (South) Residential (South) 8-10 Units/Acre8-10 Units/Acre A B CC C D E F G H H I J K K K Technology, Renewable Energy, Manufacturing & Distribution Warehousing COMPREHENSIVE PLAN | NOVEMBER 23RD, 2020 ADOPTION CHAPTER 3: LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 47 LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 60 2017 DOWNTOWN SMALL AREA PLAN LAND USE FRAMEWORK COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS There are four commercial and mixed land use designations as follows: Community Commercial A Community Commercial designation applies to existing commercial uses along State Highway 25, School Boulevard and Chelsea Road, as well as other small pockets of Monticello that include existing shopping centers, retailers and entertainment uses. The intent of Community Commercial is to provide locations for everyday retail goods and services generally oriented to a city-wide basis. Regional Commercial A Regional Commercial designation applies to areas targeted for uses that serve the traveling public and larger retail uses and commercial development intended for a regional market. This designation is generally applied to various areas along the Interstate 94 corridor with high visibility. The development character of the regional commercial development will continue to be auto-oriented, large format commercial uses such as ‘big-box’ uses and other uses that require a large parking area. Looking to the future, opportunities for connectivity and design linkages between such development and nearby uses and neighborhoods will be emphasized. Downtown Mixed-Use The Downtown Mixed-Use category identifies and designates the downtown area as a primary development focus for downtown intended to improve, revitalize and redevelop Downtown Monticello as envisioned in the 2017 Downtown Small Area Plan. The goal is to transform downtown into a thriving commercial area with new mixed-use, specialty retail and restaurant uses with enhanced streetscape and pedestrian amenities. Entertainment uses, co-working spaces, boutiques and cafes are also envisioned. New downtown development should also embrace and be oriented towards the river whenever possible. Commercial/Residential Flex The Commercial/Residential Flex designation encourages the mix of flexible and compatible development of commercial, office, retail and residential uses in limited areas of the city on the same or adjacent properties. The purpose of this designation is to give the city and property owners flexibility for future land use based on market demand. The Commercial/Residential Flex designation is applied to a few of the remaining large vacant parcels in the City including the parcels located south of Chelsea Road and north of School Boulevard and centered along Dundas Road. This designation is also applied to parcels located between Interstate 94 and 7th Street West. These properties may be developed as commercial, residential, or mixed land uses under the city’s PUD zoning, subject to review and approval of the City. Land Use Categories Acreage Community Commercial 125 Regional Commercial 433 Downtown Mixed-Use 48 Commercial and Residential Flex 174 TABLE 3.3: FUTURE LAND USE COMMERCIAL ACREAGES Source: Monticello Downtown Small Area Plan (2017) LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 76 DOWNTOWN MIXED-USE (DMU) The Downtown Mixed-Use designation applies to the area of Monticello commonly known as the Downtown and further identified in the 2017 Downtown Monticello “Small Area Plan”. This designation includes a commitment to retain Broadway as Monticello’s Main Street, supporting existing businesses, improving connections to and relationship with the River, and creating new downtown housing opportunities along Walnut and Cedar Avenues. The purpose is to create a Downtown that is lively throughout the day and into the evening at all times of the year. Typically uses include retail, restaurants, local serving offices and services, as well as residential uses above the ground floor. Some ground floor residential uses may be allowed along Walnut, Cedar, 3rd or 4th Streets among others, subject to the location and discretion of the City. VISUAL EXAMPLE LOT PATTERN DEVELOPMENT FORM • Density - 25+ units/acre (Medium to High Density Residential) • Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.50 to 4.0 • Height - Up to 6 stories • Lot Area - N/A 2018 Correlating Zoning DistrictZONING INFORMATION 2018 Correlating Zoning District CCD Community Commercial District Primary Mode Pedestrian-friendly streetscape Vehicular (slow speeds) Secondary Mode Bicycle facilities and parking Transit or shuttle service MOBILITY Commercial • Retail • Offices • Personal Services • Professional Services • Restaurants/Cafes • Recreation and Entertainment LAND USE MIX Residential • Multi-Family Residential Recreational • Parks/Playgrounds LAND USE MIX MN T H 25 MN T H 2 5 Vin e S t 5th S t Be n t o n S t Pa l m S t Lo c u s t S t Min n e s o t a S t Was h i n g t o n S t Wri g h t S t Elm S t 3rd S t E E R i v e r S t Lin n S t Marv i n R d O l d T e r r i t o r a l R d Ma p l e S t M a r v i n R d Lo c u s t S t Fa l l o n Av e Wri g h t S t Pin e St Wal n u t S t Wa l n u t S t Pa l m S t 6th S t Lin n S t Pin e S t 5th S t W Min n e s o t a S t Ra m s e y S t Pin e S t W R i v e r S t W B r o a d w a y S t Vin e S t Ce d a r S t He n i p i n S t W B r o a d w a y S t Pin e S t E B r o a d w a y S t W 4 t h S t W 3 r d S t 4th S t E Fro n t S t E B r o a d w a y S t Sa n d b e r g R d Ma r v i n R d Pin e S t Golf Course Rd Pin e S t 7th S t General CCD Walnut & Cedar Riverfront Broadway Walnut & Cedar Pine Street General CCD Walnut & Cedar General CCD Date: 12/18/2023 CCD Sub-Districts Broadway General CCD Pine Street Riverfront Walnut & Cedar MN Wild and Scenic River Districts Freeway Overlay District City of Monticello CCD Sub-District : Do c u m e n t P a t h : J : \ g i s \ c i t y \ M O N T \ A r c G I S P r o _ P r o j e c t s \ U t i l i t y U p d a t e s \ U t i l i t y U p d a t e s . a p r x D a t e S a v e d : 1 2 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 3 1 0 : 4 2 A M 1 inch = 550 feet Front Interior Side Street Side Rear ft.)area) All Uses 6 6 6 6 2 stories 30 feet [1] (Reserved)(Reserved) [1]: Multi-story buildings may be allowed as a conditional use pursuant to § 153.028(D) contingent upon strict adherence to fire safety code provisions as specified by the International Building Code as adopted in the Monticello City Code. Accessory Structures - See § 153.092(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures. Other Regulation to Consult (not all inclusive) - § 153.042, Common District Requirements - § 153.043(B), Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts - § 153.060, Landscaping and Screening Standards - § 153.064, Signs - § 153.067, Off-Street Parking - § 153.068, Off-street loading spaces - § 153.070, Building Materials (G) Central Community District, CCD. (1) (a) The purpose of the “CCD”, Central Community District , is to provide for a wide variety of land uses, transportation options, and public activities in the downtown Monticello area, and particularly to implement the goals, objectives, and specific directives of the Comprehensive Plan, and in particular, the 2017 Downtown Monticello “Small Area Plan” Comprehensive Plan Amendment and its design and performance standards. (b) All proposed development or redevelopment in the CCD shall be subject to the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and other standards identified in the Small Area Plan report. It is not the intent of this chapter to abrogate any general Zoning Ordinance requirements in the CCD, and all such requirements of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance apply fully within the CCD unless addressed separately by a more detailed CCD zoning regulation. (c) Projects that benefit from public investments and/or subsidies will have a greater burden to provide higher levels of both private and public amenities. (d) Sub-districts. The CCD is hereby divided into five subdistricts, four of which comprise the study area of the Small Area Plan. The CCD regulations shall apply uniformly across all sub-districts unless specific sub-district requirements apply. The City Council shall, in accordance with the process providing for zoning map amendments in the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, adopt a zoning map for the CCD area identifying the subdistrict boundaries. The subdistricts are known as: 1. Riverfront; 2. Broadway; 3. Walnut and Cedar Streets; 4. Pine Street; and 5. “General” shall be any area within the CCD that is not identified as being within one of the four named subdistricts. (e) Base lot area. No minimum. (f) Base lot width. No minimum. (2) Process requirements. (a) New development or redevelopment projects within the Central Community District shall require a site plan review by the Planning Commission. (b) At the proposer’s option, or as required by this chapter, any proposed project may combine the required site plan review as a part of a concept plan review before a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council. (c) Existing buildings shall be subject to the permitted and conditional use allowances of this chapter. (d) Projects which do not meet the requirements of this chapter may utilize the Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. (3) General requirements. (a) Character areas. The Central Community District shall be further regulated by four character sub-areas: Pine Street, Broadway, Walnut/Cedar and Riverfront and shown in the Official Zoning Map. (b) Projects across character area boundaries. By conditional use permit, uses and standards may extend across character area boundaries (but not into other zoning districts) a maximum distance of up to one-half block for project purposes, provided the majority of the project square footage lies within the permitted character-area, and the intent and character of the downtown plan is maintained. Where projects extend across character area boundaries, projects must show compatibility to both character area standards relating to adjoining districts and uses. (c) Private joint-parking use. All new non-residential parking areas shall be designed to accommodate cross-access and joint use throughout the CCD zoning district to minimize the need for parking infrastructure. (d) Accessory service/appurtenance uses. Building mechanical, waste-handling, and delivery service areas shall not face the public street or public spaces (with the exception of public parking lots), and shall be screened from view of adjoining property with materials equivalent to those of the principal building. (e) Buildings adjacent to single-family. Building side walls adjacent to single- family residentially zoned properties, or directly across a public street from such properties, shall have side wall heights of no greater than the horizontal distance to the nearest single-family structure. Buildings abutting single-family residentially zoned properties shall have roofs sloping toward the abutting single- family use, or shall employ at least one of the transitional features in § 153.066. (f) Building materials. Building materials for all uses shall be predominantly glass, brick, natural or cultured stone, or equivalent masonry material. 1. Materials for lapped siding, board-and-batten, or shake exteriors shall be composite, maintenance free materials, and shall be limited in overall exterior use to no more than 30% of building exterior for residential structures. 2. Commercial and other structures, no more than 15% of building exterior may be comprised of architectural metal, which shall be integrated into the building design. 3. Mixed use buildings shall comply with the commercial building requirements. (4) Performance standards. (a) Character area standards. 1. Broadway. a. All buildings should have a storefront or entrance on Broadway. b. Buildings shall be oriented toward the front of the lot, with a maximum ten-feet setback. Setbacks may be increased to accommodate outdoor seating or activity spaces approved by Planning Commission during site plan review. Such spaces shall be improved with enhanced paving and landscaping materials and other elements. c. Storefronts facing any public street shall consist of a minimum of 50% window/door transparency on ground floor. d. Buildings shall be between two to four stories, additional stories may be authorized by conditional use permit. Single-story buildings may be approved through site plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council where multiple stories are impractical for the specific use. In such cases, the building architecture should incorporate a façade that mimics multiple stories through additional window openings or similar features. e. Buildings shall have a maximum width of 60 feet, or shall be articulated by setback, materials or window treatments roofline variation, or other design methods to reflect the appearance of separate buildings, in approximately 30 to 60-foot increments. f. Ground floor commercial buildings which front on public streets or open space shall not be entirely comprised of office uses, but shall include other retail, hospitality or entertainment uses. g. Sidewalks and/or pathway connections shall be provided for all development projects. 2. Walnut/Cedar. a. Features such as upper balconies, dormers, courtyards, porches and dooryards shall be incorporated for residential uses. b. Buildings shall be between two to four stories; additional stories may be authorized by conditional use permit. Single-story buildings may be approved through site plan review by the Planning Commission and the City Council where multiple stories are impractical for the specific use. In such cases, the building architecture should incorporate a façade that mimics multiple stories through additional window openings or similar features. c. Buildings shall be oriented toward Walnut and Cedar Street and toward front corners where applicable. 3. Pine Street. a. Buildings shall be between two to four stories; additional stories may be authorized by conditional use permit. Single-story buildings may be approved through site plan review by the Planning Commission and the City Council where multiple stories are impractical for the specific use. In such cases, the building architecture should incorporate a façade that mimics multiple stories through additional window openings or similar features. b. Buildings shall be oriented to Pine Street with secondary entrances located on side or interior facades. Corner properties shall have dual orientation. 4. Riverfront. a. Features such as upper balconies, dormers, courtyards, porches and dooryards shall be incorporated for residential uses. b. Buildings shall be between two to four stories; additional stories may be authorized by conditional use permit. Single-story buildings may be approved through site plan review by the Planning Commission and the City Council where multiple stories are impractical for the specific use. In such cases, the building architecture should incorporate a façade that mimics multiple stories through additional window openings or similar features. c. Buildings shall be oriented toward river and public right of way corners where applicable. (b) Use type standards. 1. Residential. a. Single/two-family: Where permitted, the requirements of the R-2 District will apply. b. Townhouse. (i) Permitted where the subject property has no direct frontage on Broadway or Walnut/Cedar. (ii) Must preserve open space to coordinate with public spaces. (iii) Building heights up to 25 feet or two stories above grade. (iv) Setbacks – 15 feet from abutting single-family, minimum of eight feet from public street. Interior side setbacks may be zero. (v) Variable roofline and front building walls. (vi) Classic row-house; living space to front; no garage-front design. (vii) All parking in attached garages. (viii) Parking ratio of two spaces per du, off-street. c. Multi four-12 du. (i) Only allowed where the subject property has no frontage on Broadway, Walnut/Cedar. Conditionally permitted where the property has direct frontage on Broadway or Walnut/Cedar. (ii) Must preserve open space to coordinate with public spaces. (iii) Building heights up to 35 feet or three stories above grade; additional stories authorized through conditional use permit. (iv) Setbacks – 15 feet from abutting single-family, minimum of eight feet from public street. Interior side setbacks may be zero. (v) Variable roofline and front building walls. (vi) Garage entrances may not face a public street. (vii) Garages which face a single-family residential zoning district must screen the garage entrance from the eye-level view of the abutting property. (viii) All parking in attached garages within building footprint (no surface parking). (ix) Parking ratio of 1.7 spaces per du, off-street, or a minimum of no less than one space per bedroom, off- street, whichever is greater. As part of site plan review, the Planning Commission may impose a different (higher or lower) standard where the nature of the use supports such standard. (x) Residential units on upper, non-ground floors of buildings in the Riverfront Character Area are permitted as a part of mixed-use buildings by conditional use permit. d. Multi 13+ du. (i) Only allowed where the subject property has no frontage on Broadway, Walnut/Cedar. Conditionally permitted where the property has direct frontage on Broadway or Walnut/Cedar. (ii) Must preserve open space to coordinate with public spaces. (iii) Building heights up to 50 feet or four stories above grade; additional stories authorized through conditional use permit. (iv) Setbacks – shall be – 15 feet from abutting single- family, minimum of eight feet from public street. Interior side setbacks may be zero. (v) Variable roofline and front building walls. (vi) Garage entrances may not face a public street. (vii) Garages which face a single-family residential zoning district must screen the garage entrance from the eye-level view of the abutting property. (viii) All required parking shall be located in attached garages within building footprint (no surface parking). (ix) Parking ratio of 1.1 spaces per dwelling unit bedroom including adjacent on-street parking, or a minimum of no less than one space per bedroom, off-street, whichever is greater. As part of site plan review, the Planning Commission may impose a different (higher or lower) standard where the nature of the use supports such standard. (x) Multiple-family housing limited to seniors may reduce parking supply to half spaces per dwelling unit, off- street. As part of site plan review, the Planning Commission may impose a different (higher or lower) standard where the nature of the type of senior living use supports such standard. (xi) Residential units on upper, non-ground floors of buildings in the Riverfront and Broadway Character Area are permitted as a part of mixed-use buildings. e. Ground floor residential units. When allowed, subject to: (i) Common areas, lobbies, etc. (if any) should be oriented toward street. (ii) Street levels should include additional window and doorway glass exposure toward streets. 2. Commercial and mixed-use, generally. a. Uses adjacent to single-family residential zoned properties which include dining/drinking service spaces shall have one outdoor areas facing public open space use areas. b. Building heights of up to 50 feet or four stories shall be permitted. c. Buildings heights exceeding 50 feet or four stories may be allowed by conditional use permit. d. Residential units in mixed-use commercial buildings shall include balcony spaces. e. Building setbacks shall be 15 feet from abutting single-family homes, minimum eight feet from public streets. Interior side setbacks may be zero. (c) Landscaping. 1. Site improvements in the CCD shall include landscaping consistent with the requirements of § 153.060 – Landscaping and Screening. 2. Pedestrian, plaza/patio, and bicycle spaces on the property shall integrate alternative pavement materials, designs, or features consistent with the surrounding streetscape. (d) Parking. 1. Off-street parking areas shall be developed and constructed according to the requirements of § 153.067. Parking supply shall be as identified in this chapter, or where not specified herein, as in § 153.067 – Off-Street Parking. 2. A commercial use which propose to vary from the requirements of this section by deferring its required off-street supply and contributing to the public parking fund shall be accompanied by a parking study, subject to review and approval by Community Development staff, which illustrates an adequate amount of available unused public parking within 400 feet of the establishment’s primary entrance. “Adequate amount” shall be established by the city on a case-by-case basis in review of the applicant’s individualized parking study, but shall include the following elements, as a minimum: (1) an examination of the public parking supply commonly available for use by the proposed business during its peak usage hours; (2) the likely demand placed on said supply by the proposed business based on contemporary resources for parking utilization; and (3) an estimate of competing demand on said supply. 3. An existing business, as of the date of this chapter, which has a parking supply which is substandard according to § 153.067 - Off-Street Parking, shall be considered a legal nonconformity. The business may expand or change to another business that increases the parking supply deficiency only by participating in the parking fund, according to the requirements of this Section and § 153.067(E)(4)(c) for such deficiency. 4. Parking shall not be located on a parcel between the front building line of the principal building and the public street, except where expressly provided for by the City Council after recommendation from the Planning Commission. (e) Other performance standards. 1. All other performance standards as identified in §§ 153.060 through 153.072 shall apply, unless otherwise addressed in this section. 2. Maximum residential density: 25.0 dwelling units per gross acre. 3. Maximum building height: 60 feet. a. Buildings may exceed 50 feet in height by conditional use permit, with enhanced site improvements, architecture, and building materials. 4. Lot coverage, buildings. a. Minimum building lot coverage: 20%. b. Maximum building lot coverage: 90%. 5. Accessory structures. a. For commercial uses, trash handling equipment shall be located within buildings wherever practical. If located in a structure attached to, or detached from, the principal building, such structure shall screen the trash handling equipment from the view of all neighboring property and public rights-of-way, and shall be constructed of materials which comprise the principal building. Gates and/or doors shall be constructed of permanent opaque materials, matching the principal building in color, and shall be kept closed at all times other than when being used for access. Roofs for such structures are encouraged, but not required when the screening wall of the enclosure is at least eight feet in height. b. For mixed-use and multi-family residential uses, trash handling equipment shall be located within the principal building. c. Any other accessory structures allowed in the CCD (see Table 5-4 – Accessory Uses by District) shall meet all requirements of the CCD district applicable to principal buildings. (Ord. 799, passed 2-27-2023) § 153.090 USE TABLE. (A) Explanation of use table structure. (1) Organization of Table 5-1. Table 5-1 organizes all principal uses by use classifications and use types. (a) Use classifications. The use classifications are: agricultural uses; residential uses; civic and institutional uses; commercial uses; and industrial uses. The use classifications provide a systematic basis for assigning present and future land uses into broad general classifications (e.g., residential and commercial uses). The use classifications then organize land uses and activities into specific “use types” based on common functional, product, or physical characteristics, such as the type and amount of activity, the type of customers or residents, how goods or services are sold or delivered and site conditions. (b) Use types. The specific use types identify the specific uses that are considered to fall within characteristics identified in the use classifications. For example; detached dwellings, parks and recreational areas, and schools are “use types” in the Single-family Residence District. (2) Symbols used in Table 5-1. (a) Permitted Uses = P. A “P” indicates that a use is permitted by right, subject to compliance with all other applicable provisions of this chapter. Uses may be subject to special regulations as referenced in the “additional requirements” column. (b) Conditionally Permitted Uses = C. A “C” indicates that a use is permitted provided the city can establish conditions necessary to ensure the use is compatible to the proposed location and surrounding properties. Inability of the city to establish conditions to adequately control anticipated impacts is justification for denial of a conditionally permitted use. Conditional uses may also be subject to special regulations as referenced in the “additional requirements” column. (c) Interim Permitted Uses = I. An “I” indicates that a use may be permitted for a brief period of time provided certain conditions are met, and a specific event or date can be established for discontinuance of the use. Inability of the city to establish conditions to adequately control anticipated impacts is justification for denial of an interim permitted use. Interim permitted uses may also be subject to special regulations as referenced in the “additional requirements” column. (d) Prohibited Uses = Shaded cells. A shaded cell indicates that the listed use is prohibited in the respective base zoning district. (e) Uses not provided for within zoning districts. In any zoning district, whenever a proposed use is neither specifically allowed nor denied, the use will be considered prohibited in which case an amendment to the ordinance text would be required to clarify if, where and how a proposed use could be established. TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Base Zoning Districts Additional Requirements General warehousing See Table 5- 1A See Ordinance No. C P P § 153.091(F) (6) Heavy manufacturing C § 153.091(F) (7) Industrial services C P None Industrial self- storage facilities C C § 153.091(F) (8) Land reclamation C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C § 153.091(F) (9) Light manufacturing P P P § 153.091(F) (10) Machinery/tru ck repair and sales C § 153.091(F) (11) Recycling and salvage center C § 153.091(F) (14) Truck or freight terminal C § 153.091(F) (15) Waste disposal and incineration C § 153.091(F) (16) Wrecker and towing services C P § 153.091(F) (17) TABLE 5-1A: CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT (CCD) USES SUB-AREA Riverfront (A)Broadway (B)Walnut & Cedar (C)Pine (D)General CCD Notes Use Types Entertainment and open space, supported by retail Retail, supported by entertainment; housing 2nd Retail, supported by housing and services Office, large space retail users, and retail service Housing, supported by limited retail and services TABLE 5-1A: CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT (CCD) USES SUB-AREA Riverfront (A)Broadway (B)Walnut & Cedar (C)Pine (D)General CCD Notes Use Types Entertainment and open space, supported by retail Retail, supported by entertainment; housing 2nd Retail, supported by housing and services Office, large space retail users, and retail service Housing, supported by limited retail and services Additional use requirements applicable per § 153.091 Uses: Residential Uses Single- family P*CUP *Upper floors only Multi 3 du or under P*CUP*P *Upper floors only Townhouse CUP CUP*CUP P *Townhous es on Broadway east of Pine only Multi 4-12 du CUP CUP CUP CUP Multi 13+ du CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Ground floor CUP*P P *Allowed on ground floor for townhouses on Broadway east of Pine Commercial Brew Pub <10,000 sq. ft.P P P P Brew Pub >10,000 sq. ft.CUP P CUP P Commercial Day Care CUP CUP P Commercial Lodging P CUP CUP P Uses: Commercial Entertainme nt/Recreation, Indoor Commercial (including theaters) CUP*CUP*CUP*CUP <10,000 sq. ft. only Entertainme nt/Recreation Outdoor Commercial Event centers CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Subject to § 153.091(F) (14 ) Funeral services CUP Personal services P P P P CUP Places of public assembly CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Production brewery/ taproom P P P P Micro- distillery/ cocktail room P P P P Professional office - services and retail CUP*P P P P Upper floors preferred Commercial office CUP* - not allowed on ground floor P/CUP* on ground floor P/CUP* on ground floor P Upper floors preferred Financial P P P P Drive thru by CUP Restaurants, bars <10,000 sq. ft.P P P P CUP Restaurants, bars > 10,000 sq. ft.CUP P CUP P CUP Retail Sales <10,000 sq. ft.P P P P P Retail Sales >10,000 sq. ft.CUP CUP CUP P CUP Retail with service CUP P P P P Specialty Eating Establishments <10,000 sq. ft. P P P P CUP Vehicle fuel sales CUP Veterinary facilities < 10,000 sq. ft.CUP CUP CUP CUP No outdoor uses Industrial Uses Industrial PUD PUD Only PUD Only Civic and Institutional Uses Clinics/ medical services CUP CUP P P Public buildings or uses (incl. public parks)P CUP P CUP CUP Schools Pre- K-12 CUP CUP CUP TABLE 5-1B THE POINTES AT CEDAR DISTRICT (PCD) See § 153.048 (Ord. 762, passed 8-23-2021; Ord. 780, passed 7-25-2022; Ord. 791, passed 11-14-2022; Ord. 797, passed 2-13-2023; Ord. 799, passed 2-27-2023; Ord. 804, passed 8-14-2023) REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Statement of Qualifications “BLOCK 34” September 30, 2024 September 30, 2024 Angela Schumann Community Development Director City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 554362 via email: angela.schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us Dear Ms. Schumann, We are excited to present this proposal to the City of Monticello to transform Block 34 into a vibrant new development that will help shift the heart of downtown towards Broadway St and Walnut St. We believe that Kraus-Anderson’s project experience, project team, financial stability, and vision for the site are a great fit to meet the needs of the City of Monticello. Kraus- Anderson’s 127-year history is founded on iconic projects and urban buildings, including a full city block redevelopment project which includes Kraus-Anderson’s own corporate office building. Partnerships are ingrained in the way we work and communicate. We are excited to be your partner. As a project team, we live, work, and play here in Minnesota , and we couldn’t be more thrilled to make Block 34 special in your City. Kraus-Anderson Development Company will be the single point of contact for coordinating and managing the Block 34 site with city leaders. As our own general contractor, we will also combine the proper flexibility and common goals to deliver a project that will meet and exceed all stakeholder expectations. Our proposal includes information on our team, Kraus-Anderson Development Company’s abilities, several programming concepts, and proposals for the site's development. If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me. Sincerely, KRAUS-ANDERSON® DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Stefan Michno, MBA Director of Development C:612-400-5111 | stefan.michno@krausanderson.com Office 612-332-7281 | www.krausanderson.com | Fax 612-332-8739 BUILDING ENDURING RELATIONSHIPS AND STRONG COMMUNITIES TABLE OF C ONTENTS COMPANY INFORMATION 04 KEY PROJECT MEMBERS 05 PROJECT EXPERIENCE 07 VISION & NARRATIVE 11 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN 13 MARKET JUSTIFICATION 15 FINANCIAL C APABILITY 16 PROJECT TIMELINE 17 COMPANY INFORMATION Monticello | KA Statement of Qualifications | 4 KRAUS-ANDERSON is a Twin Cities-based developer with significant experience working with communities on catalytic projects. Kraus-Anderson Family of Companies is an integrated real estate, construction, and risk management enterprise that strengthens the communities we serve. Kraus- Anderson (KA) has been in business for 127 years. Headquartered in Minneapolis, our team members are trusted advisors, inspired, accountable, grounded in Midwestern ingenuity, and take ownership of our clients’ goals and expectations. We are relationship-driven, value integrity, and client service excellence; 80% of our customers are repeat clients. With 45 years of development experience, KA Development is a comprehensive real estate services provider with expertise in site selection, master planning, land and building acquisition, financing, facilitation of municipal processes and entitlements, portfolio and property management, and leasing. KA focuses on real estate development opportunities to expand our portfolio. Over the past five years, KA has developed and built 1,130 market-rate and mixed-income apartment units for our portfolio with the intent to own and operate these buildings long-term. We currently own and operate a portfolio of over 90 properties, with over 5 million square feet of retail, office, multifamily residential, and industrial/flex properties, mainly in the Twin Cities. Headquartered in Minneapolis with offices in Rochester, Duluth, Bemidji, MN, Bismarck, ND, Madison, Milwaukee, WI, and Phoenix, AZ, KA can leverage the depth of resources and talent of 600 personnel company-wide. This includes senior management, project managers, business development, superintendents, project coordinators, preconstruction, cost-estimating, technical support professionals, accountants, and administrative support staff. Monticello | KA Statement of Qualifications | 5 KEY PROJECT MEMBERS STEFAN MICHNO Director of Development Primary Contact 612-400-5111 stefan.michno@krausanderson.com Stefan Michno will be your primary point of contact for this development project. Stefan joined Kraus-Anderson (KA) in 2015 and has extensive experience across multiple industries. With a professional background in civil engineering and construction management, Stefan Michno profoundly understands the complexities of how design and construction impact real estate development. He has worked on numerous high-profile project types, from market-rate residential buildings, luxury hotels, professional sports facilities, corporate offices, and retail buildouts. Stefan Michno holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Minnesota Twin Cities and a Master of Business Administration (MBA) from the University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management, with a focus on Finance and Management. BOB CUNNINGHAM Senior Vice President of Development 612-963-9401 bob.cunningham@krausanderson.com Bob leads and oversees the development, redevelopment, and real estate investment management functions and strategy at Kraus-Anderson. His leadership, experience, and expertise in commercial real estate development and investment management spans over 40 years, including executive positions at Melrose Company, TOLD Development Company, Opus Corporation, and Partnership at Inland Development Company. Bob holds a B.A. in Economics from the University of Wisonsin-Madison and a Master of Business Administration (MBA) from Drake University. Monticello | KA Statement of Qualifications | 6 KEY PROJECT MEMBERS JOHN DREHER Development Manager 612-477-2363 john.dreher@krausanderson.com John Dreher joined KA Development in June 2022 as an Investment Analyst. In his role as Development Manager, he is engaged in the entire development process, from identifying opportunities, financial analysis, design, entitlement, and financing, to construction and stabilization for sale. John assists in developing investment strategies and project concepts for KA. Prior to KA, John spent almost two years at Johnson Financial Group as a Commercial Real Estate Portfolio Manager. His core responsibilities included managing a portfolio of commercial real estate loans concentrated in the Twin Cities and Greater Minnesota markets, analyzing new loan opportunities, and assisting in the closing process from start to finish. John holds a B.S. in Agricultural and Food Business Management from the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities and an M.S. in Real Estate from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. NATE ENGER Design Phase Manager 612-335-2755 nate.enger@krausanderson.com KA’s team of technical experts is readily available to offer comprehensive support across various areas, including market trends, cost estimating, value management, Building Information Modeling (BIM), MEP coordination, constructability, quality management, and safety. Nate Leads these teams of technical experts to deliver timely project support. With over twenty years of experience in architectural leadership and design collaboration, Nate Utilizes his roles as Design Phase Manager during the pre- construction phase of the either the Design/Build or CMr project, to educate team members and stakeholders in the design process and assist in innovations outside traditional project delivery. Nare works proactively with Owners, developers, and architects to provide comprehensive project evaluation and alignment while ensuring other project services are engages at the right time to deliver effective and efficient design. Monticello | KA Statement of Qualifications | 7 PROJECT EXPERIENCE MODA ON RAYMOND APARTMENTS Project Details MODA on Raymond is a new 251,619 SF, six-story wood-frame mixed-use apartment redeveloped on 1.175 acres with 2,315 SF commercial tenant space on the first floor. The 220 boutique -style market -rate luxury rental housing units are located just one block from the Green Line Station in the St. Anthony Park neighborhood. Rental offerings include studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom apartments ranging from 500 -1,100 square feet, with some larger units. Amenities include underground parking, a fitness center, an outdoor courtyard with a spa pool, a wellness studio, a resident lounge, fully automated building access systems, a micro mart, a rooftop patio, a sky lounge with bar and game area, a community co-working and incubator space, a community Maker’s Studio for art and creativity projects, and a paw spa, paw pantry, and private bark park. Location: St. Paul, MN Size: 6-story, 251,619 SF Monticello | KA Statement of Qualifications | 8 PROJECT EXPERIENCE ``` KA BLOCK Project Details The Kraus-Anderson Block Development is anchored by KA’s new 102,886 SF, five-story headquarters. In 2015, the company announced plans to consolidate its Twin Cities operations under one roof in a new, build -to-suit facility. The new headquarters houses approximately 300 employees, doubling the size of the former downtown staff, with room for future expansion. The new building creates a highly collaborative environment with leading -edge technology. Amenities include a fitness center, educational training center, rooftop deck, cafeteria, formal and informal meeting areas, and two levels of underground parking. A 17-story, 306 -unit market-rate apartment building, the HQ Apartments have been constructed facing Portland Avenue. The apartment building will help to fulfill a vision by Minneapolis developers and civic and business organizations bring more foot traffic and vitality to the Elliot Park downtown area . The KA Block also includes a seven -story 148-room hotel, “The Elliott.” The boutique hotel has a restaurant and bar by a well -known local restaurateur. Adjacent to The Elliott Hotel is a three-story building housing the Mosaic Event Center,9,500 SF of event area complimented with a permanent full bar, large prep kitchen with two distinct working zones to allow for multiple caterers to use the space for the same event, two alcoves with furniture vignettes, a large coat room, two suites complete with counters for hair and makeup, lounge furniture, space to relax and prepare for your event, and an expansive terrace overlooking the beautiful Minneapolis skyline Location: Minneapolis, MN Size: One city block. KA HQ 102,886 SF 5 -story building. Elliot Park Hotel, 8 -story, 165-unit boutique hotel. Mozaic Event Center, 4-story 43,500 SF event center. HQ Apartments, 17-story 293,300 SF multi-family apartment building. Cost and Financing: KA HQ, $20,816,684. Elliot Park Hotel, $29,051,106. Mosaic Event Center, $9,333,194. HQ Apartments, $52,807,828 Monticello | KA Statement of Qualifications | 10 PROJECT EXPERIENCE ``` ```` KA BLOCK - HQ OFFICE Supplemental Project Details The Kraus -Anderson Office Headquarters building, composed of 102,886 square feet of Class A office space , is located on the KA BLOCK development site. KA owns and operat es office building properties across the Midwest . We seek to deliver spaces tailored to our clients' needs to help them create a vibrant office culture. VISION & NARRATIVE Monticello | KA Statement of Qualifications | 11 ``` With the amount of traffic that passes in front of the Block 34 site, the nearby park, river amenities and the envisioned heart of downtown being just a block away from this site, Kraus-Anderson believes that this site as a great opportunity for development that activates the street fronts of Pine St and E Broadway St. The Block 34 site shall incorporate an ecosystem of spaces that people not only want to work at but also want to spend time there and enjoy retail and shared green space. The activation on the street level for the full build-out of the development will include retail, such as restaurants with outdoor patio space and shops for both the local community and commuters traveling through Monticello to stop and enjoy. We envision at least two possible development scenarios for this site on top of the street front activation. One would be for market-rate multifamily housing to be located above the retail spaces. The other would be for office buildings to be located above these retail spaces. We plan to work with the City and the Community to make sure that what we propose to develop meets the community's needs. All these options would be low-rise developments that would fit nicely with the City’s nearby historic architecture. This development will help the city's vision to generate a downtown feel that is away from Interstate 94 and towards Walnut Street. To achieve this vision, we plan to develop this block in phases. Figure 1 below outlines the Phases of the site, over an arial of the current site condition: Phase 1 We understand that the city has identified an interested user who requests 10,000sf of Class A office space and at least 40 dedicated parking spaces on this site. This would be the first phase of our development project, and we would use this new anchor building to attract other tenants and build future phases around this office. Both existing buildings would be cleared for this phase of development. Additional information on programming is provided in the following Conceptual Design section. Figure 1: Phasing Plan VISION & NARRATIVE Monticello | KA Statement of Qualifications | 12 ``` Phase 2 Two municipal wells on site will be protected while they remain in service during our first development phase. No new structures or sanitary pipes can be located within 50’ of those wells if they remain operational. We understand that the City plans to relocate water service to new municipal wells. Once the wells on Block 34 can be abandoned and filled, we feel this will be the best time for new development to occur surrounding Phase 1. With the wells no longer being an obstacle redevelopment area on site, we ideally would build out the rest of the site in one final phase. We would also be most interested in purchasing the apartment building, at fair market value, that currently isn’t owned by the City at the corner parcel of E Broadway St and Cedar St, removing this structure, and activating the street front with new development at this corner as well. We are proposing two feasible options that we feel meet the needs of the City as well as current market demand: Phase 2 - Option 1 The remainder of the site could accommodate retail spaces, activating the street fronts that line the corner of Pine St and along E Broadway St with office spaces above. These buildings would be designed to complement the phase 1 office building so that the site has a seamless flow of programming and aesthetics throughout. Kraus-Anderson would work closely with the City and also community stakeholders to gather commitments from perspective tenants that would like to have their businesses be a part of such a great development in a great location. We will work to get an adequate amount of commitments from future tenants prior to when we close on this second phase. Additional information on programming is provided in the following Conceptual Design section. Phase 2 - Option 2 The remainder of the site could accommodate retail spaces, activating the street fronts that line the corner of Pine St and along E Broadway St with multifamily residential above. Multifamily rents are strong in this area of Monticello, and we also feel that retail is as well. A mixed-use site with residential would greatly compliment the activated intersection of Pine St and E Broadway St. We understand that other completed development on Block 52 is having success with leasing, both for retail and multifamily tenants. Additional information is provided in the following Conceptual Design section. Monticello | KA Statement of Qualifications | 13 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ` Below are two unique initial designs that fit the vision for the exciting opportunities that Block 34 presents for the City of Monticello. Design Option 1 In Figures 2 and 3 below, at the corner of 3rd and Pine Street, for phase 1, there would be a new 10,000 sf (min) Class A office building for a single tenant. Southwest of that would be over 40 stalls of surface parking for that user. We envision the office building to be designed for the ability of the user to expand their building vertically if they want more space in the future as their business grows. There would be either a dedicated rooftop or street level amenity space for the office user employees to gather outdoors for lunches, meetings, and and events. Phase 2 shown in Figure 2 and 3 (aka Phase 2, Option 1) would include retail spaces that line the corner of Pine St and along E Broadway St with an office above. Right now, we’re showing a restaurant at the corner of Pine St and Broadway that could also have an outdoor patio component. Office floorplates are typically deeper than required for retail, so, therefore, the office could expand over structured parking behind it. Here we could either have tuck-under parking or structured parking. In each scenario, structured parking for office and retail may also need to go below grade to meet code requirements for off-street parking counts. Figure 2: Office Over Retail (North Facing View) This option would include greenspace that bisects through the site. This would allow for a public pedestrian pathway through the site, and a connection from Cedar St to Pine Street. Depending on parking needs, we could potentially reduce parking shown in this concept to include more green space. This green space could be activated with benches, shade, and other amenities for office users, retail employees, and the public to enjoy the outdoors. Figure 3: Office Over Retail (North Facing View) Monticello | KA Statement of Qualifications | 14 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ` Design Option 2 In Figures 4 and 5 below, at the corner of 3rd and Pine Street, for phase 1, the same concept could apply to the new 10,000 sf Class A office building for a single tenant. Here, for phase 2 shown in Figure 3 (aka Phase 2, Option 2), along Pine St and E Boardway St, we show a multifamily housing component overtop structured parking and an amenity deck on the parking's rooftop. This new proposed multifamily site compliments the intersection of Pine St and E Broadway St with the recent new multifamily development directly North of this site across the intersection. This option also would include a similar greenspace that bisects through the site. We’re also showing a potential 3rd phase, a building in red, which could either be a future office, neighborhood restaurant, or a retail destination location such as a boutique fitness center. This area could also be designated for additional greenspace if that becomes the highest and best use of this area. Figure 4: Residential Over Retail (North Facing View) Figure 5: Residential Over Retail (South Facing View) MARKET JUSTIFICATION Monticello | KA Statement of Qualifications | 15 The market justification for the redevelopment of this site is based on the following: 1. The vehicle traffic from Pine St and E Broadway St will be attractive to retail users. The Walgreens across the street also serves as a catalyst for new retail development across Broadway. We feel that we, along with our commercial broker partners, can market this site successfully for lease commitments to be made ahead of construction. 2. An office building user has identified this site as an attractive location for their new class A office space. We understand that this user would like to own their property when the project is completed. 3. We understand that the existing structures on the property would make this a blighted site, and therefore would qualify under the rules of the redevelopment TIF district. To make this site economically feasible, we will need to establish a Tax-Increment Financing (TIF) District over all phases of this site. 4. Rents in this area for new Multifamily product are trending positively. Our analysts have pulled rent comp information from recent developments such as Block 52, Savannah Vista, and the Dylan (St Michael), which all were built in the last year, and are successful with rental rates, and lease up volume as well. 5. Rents in this area for new office product are trending positively as well. We understand that Block 52 has had success leasing office space in their building, just across the intersection from Block 34. 6. Timing of phase 2, and the removals of the municipal wells on site, will allow for our development team to start marketing the site to potential future retail and office users. The amount of support for office will determine whether or not we develop office over retail or multifamily over retail. Having multiple options by the time we’re ready to develop phase 2 gives the development a higher success rate. FINANCIAL CAPABILITY Monticello | KA Statement of Qualifications | 16 With a management portfolio of over 90 commercial properties comprising approximately 5 million square feet of retail, commercial office, multifamily residential, senior housing, medical office, and industrial/flex properties, Kraus-Anderson has an impeccable financial track record of financing development projects and delivering projects to the finish line. KA’s portfolio currently has, and consistently maintains, an occupancy level of more than 90%. Kraus-Anderson Development was formally structured to provide strategic growth to KA’s portfolio of assets. This structure also leverages our development expertise for construction clients and third-party real estate holders. As part of our financing capabilities, Kraus-Anderson has strong relationships with Capital Market partners, including Goldman Sachs, Elion Partners, CB Richard Ellis, and private investors. Kraus-Anderson is financially strong, with a more than $900 million bonding capacity. As part of the Kraus-Anderson family of companies, Kraus-Anderson Development is backed by the resources of one of the nation’s largest, most trusted construction companies, one with a century-long tradition of service excellence. We operate under total transparency. We are a 100% open-book developer and contractor and can pass project savings to our clients. Because of KA’s financial stability, our customers benefit from our stellar credit rating, which affords our construction group special buying power during our procurement process. Full company financials can be supplied on request. To make this site economically feasible, we will need to establish a Tax-Increment Financing (TIF) development District over all phases of this site. Other sources of funding will come from the following: Phase 1: Equity from the office user and traditional debt sources procured by the office user Phase 2: Equity from Kraus-Anderson and investment partners and traditional debt sources Monticello | KA Statement of Qualifications | 17 PROJECT TIMELINE The project timeline below is based on the two phases outlined above. It assumes that the project will be awarded by early November 2024 and that the initial planning meetings between stakeholders will start then. Since an office user has already been identified for phase 1, this phase would happen first. As Phase 1 is being developed, Kraus-Anderson would concurrently work on phase 2, starting with planning meetings with the City. Once we’ve agreed upon a concept plan and the master plan works seamlessly with phase 1 included, a purchase agreement can be completed for phase 2, and we can start marketing the property to potential future users. To maximize the potential for developable area, we would plan to start phase 2 construction after the existing municipal wells on site have been abandoned and are no longer active. Figure 6: Development Timeline for Block 34 MINUTES (DRAFT) WORKSHOP - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) Wednesday, November 6, 2024 – 5:00 p.m. Academy Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: President Steve Johnson, Treasurer Hali Sittig, Ollie Koropchak-White, Rick Barger and Councilmembers Lloyd Hilgart and Tracy Hinz Commissioners Absent: Vice President Jon Morphew Staff: Executive Director Jim Thares, Angela Schumann, Tyler Bevier 1. Call to order: 5:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Block 34 Redevelopment Evaluation Framework - Review and Discussion Economic Development Manager Jim Thares introduced Angela Schumann, Community Development Director, to lead the Block 34 redevelopment evaluation framework review and discussion. Ms. Schumann began her presentation by stating staff released an RFP for Block 34 redevelopment. The goal of the RFP is to mirror development as illustrated in the 2017 Small Area Downtown Area Plan, with buildings at the four corners of Block 34. The Plan also shifts the center of downtown to Walnut and Broadway, though it recognizes that Cedar is intended to be a street similar to Walnut Street. The Plan intends to bring access to the parks and the downtown. The EDA is reviewing large, small and medium-sized investments. While the largest investment Downtown is Block 52, the EDA has also been involved in smaller ones such as the façade program and will continue to make small improvements. The Downtown Improvement Plan also intends to bring the community back to being a River Town. Ms. Schumann continued, stating when surveying the Public, they wanted to also see the development of Block 34. Considerations include the building architecture, public uses as well as structure locations and types. In recent City Council and EDA discussions, Block 34 redevelopment was noted as a priority. Those discussions focused on the land, various uses and density options as well as the timeline. EDA asked staff to reach out to developers and also with local businesses to regarding potential conceptual ideas and realistic goals. Two of the developers are present to present their proposals. Ms. Schumann stated that the intent of the workshop is to discuss the proposals and get EDA direction on next steps. Ms. Schumann led the EDA through an exercise to induce discussion about the relative goals for down. • What do you hope to accomplish on this block relative to the goals for downtown? • How does this proposal support a larger Downtown revitalization? • What is important to communicate to the development partner and community about the redevelopment of this block? • How do proposals concepts relate to the existing Downtown landscape and surrounding uses in the area? • What details of the proposals require mor discussion? • Do the presented projects seem feasible? • What is the timeline for development? • What type of public input would you like? • Other considerations. Chair Steve Johnson stated the EDA will need to consider the intensity of the use as it is the center of the city, and it is a less than desirable use of that spot. The EDA has a once in a lifetime opportunity for development Block 34 and needs to consider the right intensity for the block. Mayor Lloyd Hilgart feels that the type of use mix is important and continues what was developed on Block 52. The mix of uses to bring citizens there during the day every day and every evening. Council Member Tracy Hinz states this creates an opportunity to capitalize on retention since the EDA does not own all of the Block 34 land. Commissioner Olie Koropchak-White stated connecting Downtown to the River is an important part of revitalizing this area for pedestrians. Mr. Johnson feels that it is important to augment the use of Pine Street and Broadway to be more pedestrian friendly. They are currently an impediment to foot traffic. Mr. Johnson pointed out the importance of the safety crosswalks and flashing lights provided for pedestrians related to a recent downtown community event and suggested another be added at the intersection of E Broadway and Cedar Street. He feels these types of improvement would entice pedestrians and development on Block 34. Commissioner Jon Morphew stated the EDA has to work within the confines of property neither the City nor EDA own. Ms. Schumann asked if the EDA felt developers and businesses know what they know about the block. Mr. Hilgart stated he feels the developers and potential businesses are aware of the wells on this property. Mr. Johnson inquired about what the City’s plans are for the wells. Ms. Schumann addressed this question stating City Council authorized soil testing to evaluate potential locations to move the wells to see if there is a possibility of doing so. Mr. Johnson asked if the well could be incorporated into underground parking and that he feels parking will be an issue for intense development. Commissioner Hali Sittig stated she would like to see the architecture and development to provide a continued feel of downtown…coinciding with Block 52, not mirroring Block 52. Ms. Sittig expressed she would like to see green space on Block 34. Ms. Schumann asked what the EDA feels would bring citizens downtown. Mr. Johnson stated he feels convenience type of retail (not convenience stores) as well as offices. Each brings different parking needs and entrance/exits traffic. Ms. Schumann asked what type of convenience stores Mr. Johnson is thinking about. He stated coffee shops, places selling goods and is concerned with parking. It was a consensus that being able to access one parking area to the next is important. Ms. Sittig expressed the ease and new improved safety features built into Broadway provide the ease of parking across the street and has created additional pedestrian traffic. Ms. Schumann asked what the importance of developing Block 34 is to downtown revitalization. Mr. Morphew stated this will bring additional people downtown. Mr. Barger feels a mix uses will be important. Ms. Sittig said having community activities would help bring citizens to the area. Ms. Hinz stated that Block 34 currently is a detractor whereas Block 52 is attractor. Mr. Johnson stated parking with a mix of pedestrians and office employees could be a problem. Ms. Schumann asked if after looking at the proposals, is there anything the EDA would like to focus on. Mr. Barger said the intent to bring down the current apartment building should be a focus. Mr. Johnson stated that with the intensity of a developer buying the property and be able to do something with it the EDA has to consider the return on their investment. Mr. Johnson, Ms. Sittig, and Mr. Barger expressed their agreement. Ms. Schuman asked the EDA how important it is to them to recover their investment should all of their other goals be met and what are the nonnegotiable. Mr. Morphew addressed the first question stating it may depend on how far the gap is. Mr. Barger agreed. Mr. Johnson suggested that it could depend on who the investment has helped. Mr. Morphew stated we will know it when we see it. Ms. Hinz stated she does not recall that the EDA has not routinely supported a project with a firm thought that we need to get our investment back and that the EDA is all on the same page is most important. Ms. Sittig stated the mission of the EDA is not to make money but rather revitalize the community with economic growth and being thoughtful in their decisions where to invest. Investing in revitalizing is the goal. Mr. Johnson stated the long-term goal is to reinvest in the future. Mr. Hilgart noted that redevelopment is expensive and requires subsidy. Mr. Hilgart addressed the wells and underground car park. He feels underground parking is a necessity, however, research will need to be done on how the wells could fit into this. Moving the wells will be expensive. The land the EDA doesn’t have control over is like Block 52. There was also a sliver of land not owned by the EDA/City. We know we can develop with this situation. Mr. Hilgart stated that if the EDA is concerned about money than putting an apartment building on the property may not provide the desired return. He agreed that “we will know it when we see it.” Mr. Johnson stated if a developer wants to come in, the EDA will need to price the property to help make it possible. The goal is it fits a public purpose. Mr. Hilgart stated there is no way to know the total impact of Block 52, however, we know that when Beef o Brady’s was built with the apartments, the businesses felt a positive impact. Mr. Johnson stated this is an example of the parking balance between business and retail space. Ms. Schumann shared staff work with businesses on ensuring they have adequate parking. Mr. Hilgart shared when he was at Block 52 the prior week, they were finishing the parking. He stated the parking lot is 70-80% full during the day because of the offices downtown. Because they were finishing the parking lot no cars were parked there. All of the spots on River and Walnut were taken showing all of these excess parking was within 2 blocks. Ms. Schumann stated at a prior meeting, Commissioner Barger asked do we want businesses….or parking. Staff addressed the city-created companion parking on Block 51 to accommodate the Block 52 parking and created parking on River, reconfigured the parking from Walnut to Locust. She suggests directing staff to investigate where additional parking can be done for Block 34. Ms. Schumann shared that in the early stages of developing Block 52 the city hosted downtown rounds showing drawings of proposals for citizens to review. Business and property owners were able to mark up the drawing and their input is a direct result of what we see on Block 52. She noted we have not done that in depth community engagement on Block 34. Ms. Schumann asked the EDA where they want staff to take community engagement on the redevelopment of Block 34. She stated that staff can present a plan but asked if they have any input. Mr. Johnson stated that asking for community input from people outside of downtown would help everyone understand what will attract them. Mr. Morphew stated that if this is done it should be a big picture vision, not specific induvial uses but how the block is used. He is not opposed to public involvement but does not feel it is a prerequisite. Mr. Hilgart stated the market will show what it needs to be. Ms. Schumann gave a couple of examples of questions that would be posed to the public. Mr. Morphew agreed that those types of questions would be good questions. Ms. Hinz pointed out the timing of this development is so different than when we started in 2017. Ms. Sittig stated that she participated in all the Downtown Rounds before she became an EDA Commissioner. She feels once Block 52 was built it became a reminder to the public that this was their vision. She does not feel outreach is necessary. Ms. Schumann suggested ways to reach the public like community events (Walk and Roll, Trick Treat) and dot events. Another suggestion is to reach out to specifically the businesses and property owners near Block 34. Ms. Sittig asked if Block 52 would look different if there weren’t Downtown Rounds. Ms. Schumann and Mr. Thares felt it would. Mr. Johnson pointed out that several of the businesses who attended the Downtown Rounds are no longer there and that Block 52 is completely occupied. Mr. Morphew suggested the time lag of community input to completion of a project is a factor in community outreach. Ms. Hinz stated she felt there community involvement fatigue which the EDA needs to consider. Staff don’t want to miss the mark of the EDA’s expectations because there are developers with proposals. Staff want to ensure we know what your expectations are in reaching out to the public. Mr. Morphew would not support general public outreach, but the big picture input would be ok. Ms. Schumann suggested instead of outreach and asking what the community wants but instead telling them what we are doing. Ms. Schumann suggested a study of what would bring visitors downtown, a similar study that was done for the Local Option Sales Tax for BCOL. Mr. Hilgart suggested asking downtown businesses if they have noticed a difference from the building of Block 52. Ms. Sittig stated she sees foot traffic on the west side of Hwy 25 going across the road but not on the east side. Mr. Barger inquired if she thought Hwy 25 was a barrier, Ms. Sittig said she did not feel it was. Mr. Barger listed several successful downtown River town areas; Red Wing, Hastings, Wabasha, Hopkins, their downtown areas are walkable. Parking is available off street and walk. He feels Hwy 25 is a barrier. Mr. Johnson suggested the Parks are a destination for downtown. 4. Interview-Discussion-Krause-Anderson Development Block 34 RFI Submittal Mr. Thares introduced Stefan Michno, Director of Development for Kraus-Anderson. For transparency, Mr. Thares introduced Charles Burdick, President of Streetfront Development, another developer who is presenting this evening. Mr. Michno gave an overview of Kraus-Anderson’s history and experience. They have all of the resources to be a “one stop shop.” Their vision for Block 34 to be a place people want to work but also spend time. To get the best value of the site would be to move the wells or create a structure around them like underground parking. Phase one would be an office component on pine street with surface parking solution. Phase 2 is concentrating on office over retail or a housing. Kraus-Anderson may be interested in purchasing the apartment building at fair market value. Mr. Michno shared a vision of mixed use, being able to work in a place where you can go downstairs to a coffee shop or other small retailers, and green spaces with potential patio areas. He addressed their plans for employee and retail parking, and green space. Mr. Michno presented illustrations of what Block 34 could look like. They would create an area which doesn’t stand out but blends with the feel of the community. Mr. Johnson suggested that a positive for apartments would be underground parking. Mr. Hilgart stated this isn’t proposing residential. Mr. Michno stated if Kraus- Anderson was not able to get business office commitments then they would look into residential. Ms. Sittig shared she felt that the phasing would fit into the site without overstepping. Mr. Johnson asked if the parking ramp is only partially underground. Mr. Michno addressed that there would be an underground parking ramp with the top level at grade level. Mr. Hilgart confirmed with Mr. Michno that the employee parking would be underground, and public and retail parking would be on the main. Mr. Barger inquired if the underground parking space is sufficient for retail employee parking. Mr. Michno said it would be determined at a later time. Mr. Johnson gave an example of parking in a St. louis Park area where the street parking is tight but there is underground parking so you can park under the retail you want to go to. Ms. Hinz asked if Kraus-Anderson could talk about another project they are working on, similar to Block 34. Mr. Michno shared the West Transit Village project they have been working on in Rochester for 2 years. Building public spaces, green spaces and parking. Ms. Sittig inquired with Block 52 not populated would they be able to bring in retailers or do they hope businesses would come. Mr. Michno stated they would work with the city in hopes of obtaining commitments. Ms. Sittig shared that Monticello has a unique opportunity right now as we have experienced growth and are able to support those convenience businesses like Chipotle, Panera, and Starbucks. Since these businesses have moved to Monticello, it may attract more retailers who would like an area like Block 34. Mr. Johnson stated that the concept could change. 5. Interview-Discussion-Street front Development Block 34 RFI Submittal Mr. Burdick shared Streetfront’s vision for Block 34. Streetfront’s proposal includes office space, mixed use, 24-unit apartments and 20 town homes. Mr. Hilgart confirmed the existing building would stay in place. Mr. Hilgart confirmed the wells would remain where they are. Mr. Johnson asked if there is a residential demand within the city. Mr. Burdick said he believes so. The proposal has mixed income level housing, supporting 60% and 80%. Mr. Johnson asked if the townhomes are planned to be rented. Mr. Burdick said yes at this point. It could be reviewed in 5-10 years. Ms. Hinz asked if hesitation to making the townhomes property owner occupied is due to the infancy of developing downtown. Mr. Burdick addressed with the price point would be too high because of the existing housing and amenities. Mr. Johnson asked for a timeline. Mr. Burdick addressed in 2025 will be planning and design, starting construction in 2026 and completion in 2027. Ms. Kopchek-White asked for clarification of where the other well is. Mr. Burdick showed it in the drawing. Mr. Barger inquired if the existing apartment building owner would sell the property, how would it change their plans. Mr. Burdick said it would open up opportunities. Ms. Hinz shared her concern that if seems we have saturated housing within the City and was surprised by their proposal. The market research they have they feel there is a demand. Mr. Morphew asked does the housing draw retail and commercial or the retain and commercial draw housing? Mr. Burdick feels it could be a correlation. If the area is populated the location is more desirable. Ms. Sittig like the proposal. Mr. Johnson asked Ms. Schumann if Monticello is still in need of affordable housing. Ms. Schumann referred to the housing study which said there is a need for additional affordable housing. The high demand threshold has been met. Ms. Sittig feels that adding housing on that corner and retail on the other misses the mark for the property given how busy the streets are. She likes the plan but for a different block. Mr. Barger agreed that he also liked the plan but for a different block. Mr. Johnson feels that there is retail on the other side of Broadway and Block 34 may be a good place to have residential. Mr. Hilgart does support the concept. He doesn’t feel like the public would like it. If there is housing it needs to be above commercial. He likes the two levels, office on second floor. Mr. Thares introduced Jake Olinger, Christianson Insurance, who has an interest in a potential Block 34 site. Mr. Olinger explained what his needs were. He feels Broadway is difficult to cross and feels the Block 34 side would be more advantageous. Mr. Olinger stated he would like to own a building for his business. Mr. Hilgart reiterated Mr. Olinger would like to own the building they occupy. Mr. Johnson inquired if Mr. Olinger would be interested in owning the first floor of offices. Mr. Olinger explained it would depend on the size and the visibility. He would not like to be apart if there is residential above the office. Mr. Hilgart feels that a business like this would bring in additional retail. Mr. Michno said it would like to know more about Christianson Insurance needs and could make changes to the concept if needed. Ms. Schumann interjected, and Mr. Thares confirmed there were 35 developers who received the packet. These are the 2 developers who submitted responses. There were other developers who contacted the City, however, their interest in the entire Block concept faded near the response deadline. Ms. Sittig likes both proposals. She can see the Streetfront’s proposal on another site. She appreciated the work both developers put into these presentations. The entire group thanked all guests for presenting. 6. Block 34 Redevelopment Next Steps Discussion Mr. Thares explained this part of the agenda is intended to be a wrap up. Ms. Sittig thought Mr. Olinger’s presentation was valuable in expressing what his needs are. Ms. Sittig stated she feels the Streetfront’s proposal misses the mark. Mr. Barger agreed, and stated the EDA has this opportunity to create a space for downtown businesses and to develop residential buildings around Block 34 rather than in it. Ms. Hinz feels residential at MN-TH 25 would not be desirable and would limit the spaces for businesses in the downtown are. Mr. Johnson agreed, and the EDA needs to decide what they choose to invest in. Ms. Sittig felt the Krause-Anderson concept provides an opportunity for people to move around and attract people downtown. Ms. Sittig repeated that Monticello is growing and pointed out the opening of new places like Chipotle and Starbucks; citizens would like the opportunity to visit and shop and smaller more intimate retail places. She feels the Kraus-Anderson proposal would bridge the gap between residential and small businesses. Mr. Johnson asked if the Christianson group wanted to own an office, would it be batter to move that to another area downtown. Ms. Sittig feels if they would like to be at the corner of 3rd and Pine then that would be advantageous to the vision she sees for Block 34 and would bring in more foot traffic. Mr. Barger asked if the staff knows how many employees they have. Ms. Schumann stated they did provide us with this information however, she didn’t recall it at the time. Mr. Johnson said they asked for 40 parking spaces. Mr. Barger did not want to give up this prime office space to a small group of 4-5 people and the amount of parking required satisfies his vision. Ms. Sittig agreed. Ms. Schumann said that when the Christianson Group first approached the city their initial need was smaller, and they would look at leasing the additional space and eventually expand into this space. Mr. Johnson did not disagree with Ms. Sittig and the concept of a one-story building on that corner. He did state that it might depend on when they want to build. It would create revenue right away as opposed to finding a tenant however, they may not be sufficient to support other retail. Ms. Schumann interjected Staff would like to hear from other Commissioners and asked them if they would want to hear form other potential developers, before continuing these 2 proposals. The consensus was that the staff should work with these two developers. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the other developers might be interested in only the office space and the rest will fill in. Ms. Sittig stated she felt this is a good opportunity to weed out those that listen and verses that don’t. The put out an RFP stating this is our need and what the EDA is looking to do and these were the developers responded. Mr. Hilgart feels the EDA concern is whether it is willing to allow a 10,000 square foot office building on the SW Corner of Block 34. Mr. Hilgart feels that with this building in that location there is still enough space for either of the developer’s concept and how does this fit with EDA’s desired vision. At this point we don’t know if the owner of the apartment building is interested in selling. Mr. Barger wanted clarification on Mr. Hilgart’s point. Is he saying that if they build the office space and the apartment building doesn’t sell is the remaining block still developable. The developers said they could work around the possibility if the remaining properties in the Block could not be acquired. Mr. Hilgart suggested that this may be a discussion as to whether the EDA would want development without all the property. Ms. Hinz asked If anyone had spoken to the owner. Ms. Schumann said yes. There was a time the Hammer’s approached us and asked if we are interested in purchasing the property. At that time the EDA was not. Ms. Schumann stated is was a large challenge when then were talking about building the Water Treatment Plant. With the Plant is become feasible but expensive. Staff don’t recall the timeline of the Water Treatment Plant. The soil samples have to be done and then a decision can be made. Mr. Thares said they are exploring other sites; some of them are EDA owned parcels. Ms. Schumann asked if the EDA is interested in engaging Streetfront on the Cedar Street parcel? Ms. Kopeck-White, Mr. Barger, and Ms. Hinz agreed. Mr. Hilgart felt we should have a conversation with the flower shop. Ms. Schumann stated staff has and the flower shop and presented a concept that would provide an expansion and move the parking lot closer to Broadway and they were deciding on whether the city would like that to happen. Staff have kept them informed on Block 34 and will continue that conversation. Ms. Sittig felt that building a relationship with Krause-Anderson would be beneficial for the EDA in the long term. Mr. Barger stated that phase one would get rid of the DMV. Mr. Hilgart interjected that he felt they don’t have to get rid of the DMV. Mr. Barger asked what the backup is for keeping the DMV and relocating the current tenant. Mr. Hilgart reiterated he feels the DMV does not need to go. Ms. Schumann referred to Mr. John’s comment of what concept you see today is not what will be built. Mr. Morphew wasn’t expecting a housing proposal. He doesn’t know if that is that right use for that spot. Mr. Johnson feels that the business and retail would be the best use. Staff felt this was good feedback. Ms. Hinz asked staff if they have all the action items written down for staff needs for Krause-Anderson and Streetfront. Ms. Schumann asked for clarity; staff is to talk with Kraus-Anderson to refigure their concept to include the wells, existing building and DMV with Phase 1 focusing on getting the office building completed in 2025. Mr. Hilgart stated K-A does not need to be the contractor for the Christenson office building. Ms. Schumann said she believes they are interested in that role though. Schumann stated that another conversation is asking the business owner. The EDA owns and controls the property. Whether they want Krause-Anderson to build the building on Block 34 is also part of the discussion. She also asked if staff should ask Krause Anderson to incorporate the various suggestions into a new concept for additional discussion. Ms. Schumann said that the EDA indicated that they want Christiansen Group to be on the block. Mr. Barger said he preferred to keep him on the block. Mr. Johnson has not made his decision. Mr. Hilgart stated he believes the developers understand costs and realistic pricing. Ms. Schumann stated she had heard that one commissioner wanted to develop block by block and the rest of the members want it built as one whole development reflecting the market today. Mr. Hilgart felt it is fine to build block by block if they hit the price point. Ms. Schumann stated the developers may come back and tell the EDA how they plan to build this project and in what timeline and phases. Mr. Johnson said that staff should go to the developer with the questions the EDA has and have them back to see if they say what the EDA wants to hear. Ms. Sittig stated the developers know what learned and heard in the discussion and that Mr. Olinger would have the option to get an additional bid. Mr. Thares said there is something called Open Book. Mr. Johnson feels that Mr. Olinger knows what he can afford. Ms. Schumann stated that staff can go back to Kraus-Anderson with those cost questions and points, though the EDA needs to think if they want this built in quarter sections or in one package. 7. Adjournment TRACY HINZ MOTIONED TO ADJOURN, SECONDED BY HALI SITTIG, CARRIED UNAMIOUSLY AT 5:39 P.M. 1 | Page EDA-HELD PROPERTY WORKSHOP | NOVEMBER 8, 2023 SUMMARY _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. RIVER STREET a. 2040 Economic Development Goals: Depending on the use of the property both Downtown Vitality, Life-cycle Housing b. Priority: LOW (5 -10 years) c. Notes/Discussion: • Hold for possible integration with a larger redevelopment project in the area, including townhomes similar to those to the north. • Proximity to the river is an advantage for higher amenity housing, less likely for affordable housing. • Location makes it ideal to support/work outward from downtown activities. • Located in Mississippi Wild Scenic and Recreational River District, which limits impervious and height, some uses. d. Next Steps: • Continue to illustrate on available property maps. • Monitor acquisition opportunity and private development interest. e. Marketing/Development Strategies: • Continue to illustrate on available property maps. 2. 349 WEST BROADWAY (FORMER FRED’S AUTO) a. 2040 Economic Development Goals: Downtown Vitality, Redevelopment & reinvestment, Opportunity Area b. Priority: LOW (5-10 years) c. Notes/Discussion: • Hold for potential combination with redevelopment/revitalization of adjacent former post office site. • EDA would consider additional land acquisition in the area depending on timing and price. • Would consider re-use of existing site depending on the use and surrounding revitalization opportunity. d. Next Steps: • Monitor acquisition opportunity and private development interest. • Concept development rendering; clearly depicting private properties (discussion with adjacent property owner). • EDA should define desired users, if any. (Refer to zoning ordinance.) e. Marketing/Development Strategies: • Continue to illustrate on available property maps. 2 | Page 3. BLOCK 36 a. 2040 Economic Development Goals: Downtown Vitality, Promotion & Partnerships b. Priority: LOW (5-10 YEARS+) c. Notes/Discussion: • Utilize as a connection between existing parking and Broadway – small improvements on the parcel with that function as the focus. • Involve PARC in concept development. d. Next Steps: • Discuss priority for parklet improvements as part of current PAR Master Planning for specific concepts and initiatives. • Staff to research and advise EDA on funding opportunities and restrictions for improvements to/on property. • Budget for improvements in EDA CIP request. e. Marketing/Development Strategies: • Continue to illustrate on available property maps. 4. CEDAR STREET SITE a. 2040 Economic Development Goals: Downtown Vitality, Life -Cycle Housing, Redevelopment & Reinvestment b. Priority: HIGH (1-3 YEARS) c. Notes/Discussion: • Ideal use is two-story “brownstone” townhomes, fronting Broadway, deck over rear-load garages. • Market rate housing with affordable component preferred. • Continue to look for opportunities to manage traffic and safe access across both Hwy. 25 and CR75; look at alternative traffic control at River and Cedar. • More environmental review needed; review DEED, MPCA or other state assistance. • No additional acquisition is likely needed for successful development. • Zoning currently allows townhouses and multi-family units of 4-12 units by CUP in this sub-district of the CCD. d. Next Steps: • Obtain quote for additional environmental work, complete work. • Determine priority and eligibility for remediation grants. • Contract for debris and fence removal; understand snow storage. • Discuss desired housing program/projects at Housing Workshop in 2024. e. Marketing/Development Strategies: • Continue to illustrate on available property maps. • Design, construct and place “for sale” sign. • Develop a concept rendering of intended product and other development parameters. • Develop a list of possible developers and/or contractors. • Prepare RFP. 3 | Page 5. BLOCK 34 a. 2040 Economic Development Goals: Downtown Vitality, Redevelopment & Reinvestment, Business Expansion & Retention b. Priority: HIGH (1-3 YEARS) c. Notes/Discussion: • Quarter to half block redevelopment is an option. • Evaluate opportunity to relocate one or both municipal wells, including cost and timeframe. • Two -story development design preferred (not 4+ stories). • Professional office uses preferred, residential not preferred. • Additional acquisition is an opportunity on the block. • Parking for existing multi-family will need to be a consideration with redevelopment. • Develop the perimeter, leaving the center for parking (and wells if not relocated); small structured parking something to look at in terms of design and cost. • More environmental work is likely needed d. Next Steps: • Continue to illustrate on available property maps. • Obtain quote for remaining TIF qualification and environmental work, complete. • Determine priority and eligibility for remediation grants. • Workshop with City on intended uses, parking and wells. • Consider amendment to the Downtown Small Area Plan for intended uses. • Zoning allows a mix of commercial and residential uses; block is split between Pine Street and Walnut & Cedar sub-districts. • Continue to monitor acquisition opportunity. e. Marketing/Development Strategies: • Develop a concept rendering of intended product, site plan incorporating wells and development parameters. 6. 4TH & PALM a. 2040 Economic Development Goals: Life-Cycle Housing, Tax Base Expansion b. Priority: MEDIUM (5 YEARS) c. Notes/Discussion: • Medium density housing preferred (not apartments). • Senior living opportunity. • Market rate with affordable housing component preferred. • Evaluate well relocation to this site and any development footprint impact. • Potential to utilize Palm Street ROW for access. • Owner-occupied preferred. d. Next Steps: • Work with Engineering/Public Works to understand well relocation. 4 | Page • Discuss desired housing program/projects at Housing Workshop in 2024. e. Marketing/Development Strategies: • Continue to illustrate on available property maps. 7. RIVERWOOD BANK PROPERTY a. 2040 Economic Development Goals: Tax Base Expansion, Workforce Development, Business Retention & Expansion b. Priority: HIGH (1-3 YEARS) c. Notes/Discussion: • Commercial uses preferred, light industrial or campus opportunity. • Develop to take advantage of I-94 visibility. • Be mindful about competing with private property owners; focus on diversification of business types. • No outdoor sales and display uses. d. Next Steps: • Consider re-guiding and rezoning property following acquisition. • Defer 7th Street assessments to development. e. Marketing/Development Strategies: • Continue to illustrate on available property maps. • Consider developing a concept rendering of intended products and uses. • Install a for sale/development sign. 8. OTTER CREEK a. 2040 Economic Development Goals: Business Expansion & Retention, Workforce Development b. Priority: MEDIUM (3-5 YEARS) c. Notes/Discussion: • No additional expansion of park needed at this time given the existing supply; work to develop private industrial properties in the community. d. Next Steps: • Complete shovel-ready certification. Site visit is next task (likely spring 2024). e. Marketing/Development Strategies: • Implement Integrated Marketing & Communications Plan; prioritize actions from plan. • Review site selection marketing opportunities. • Partner with Xcel’s site selection team to further marketing. EDA Agenda: 1/22/2025 5A. Economic Development Manager’s Report Prepared by: Economic Development Manager Meeting Date: 1/22/2025 ☒ Other Business Reviewed by: N/A Approved by: N/A REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND 1. Prospect List – Please see Exhibit A. Date of Contact Company Name Business Category Project Description Building‐Facility Retained Jobs New Jobs Total Investment Project Status 5/22/2018 Karlsburger Foods Food Products Mfg.Facilty Expansion 20,000 sq. ft. +/-42 10 to 20 $4,500,000 On Hold 2/28/2022 Project Emma II Light Ind-Assembly New Construction 20,000 sq. ff.0 4 $1,350,000 Active Search 10/28/2021 Project Stallion Technology Service New Construction 42,000 sq. ft.40 $3,600,000 Active Search 4/28/2022 Project Cougar Precision Machining-Mfg.New Construction 35,000 to 45,000 sq. ft.38 $4,700,000 Active Search 8/11/2022 Project Sing Precision Machining New Construction 400,000 sq. ft.0 500 $90,000,000 Active Search 11/9/2022 Project Tea Mfg New Construction 25,000 sq. ft.55 20 $5,800,000 Active Search 4/20/2023 Project Lodge DH1 Lodging-Service New Construction ???$9,500,000 to $12,500,000 Active Search 5/30/2023 Project Flower-M & M Commercial Concept Expansion ????Concept 6/9/2023 Project Pez Mfg New Construction 6,000 to 8,500 sq. ft.12 2 $1.300,000 Active Search 7/1/2023 Project V-MOB MOB New Construction 175,000 + sq. ft.?$21,000,000 Identified Site 8/16/2023 Project Lodge RT4 Lodging-Hopsitality New Construction 98 Room Hotel N/A 30 $19,500,000 Identified Site 9/19/2023 Project Panda #4 SZ Childcare Facility New Construction ?N/A ?$2,000,000 +/-Active Search 1/17/2024 Project Tex Industrial New Construction 500,000 sq. ft.0 100 $500,000,000 Active Search PROSPECT LIST 01/17/2025 Date of Contact Company Name Business Category Project Description Building‐Facility Retained Jobs New Jobs Total Investment Project Status PROSPECT LIST 01/17/2025 1/17/2024 Project G Industrial New Construction 1,000,000 sq. ft.0 ?$120,000,000 Focused Search 2/12/2024 Project Lodge- MSMWDC Lodging-Hospitality New Construction ?0 10 $12,000,000 Identified Site 3/5/2024 Project Panda 20- MS Child Care Facility New Construction 20,000 sq. ft. 0 20 $2,000,000 Active Search 3/29/2024 Project ET-BB-12-9 Industrial Relocate ‐ Existing Bldg 12,000 sq. ft.12 $1,150,000 Identified Site 4/12/2024 Project Rest B52 Restaurant New build out‐Finish 5,000 sq. ft. +/-0 15 1500000 +/-Identified Site 5/30/2024 Project EP-BDDC LACW Data Center New Construction ??????Identified Site 5/31/2024 Project DC2-NWG-GB Data Center New Construction ??0 40 ??Active Search 7/3/2024 Project Hair Obsess Service Property Acquisition and Renovation 2,100 sq. ft.14 6 $600,000 Identified Site 7/30/2024 Project EPG 40x2-50 Industrial New Construction 40,000 sq. ft. 0 40 $4,000,000 Active Search 12/3/2024 Project LEI Pack Industrial New Construction 35,000 sq. ft. 0 21 $15,500,000 Active Search Contacts: M = 01 YTD = 01