Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 12-06-2011 REGULAR MEETING MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, December 6th, 2011 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Staff: Angela Schumann, Bruce Westby, Megan Barnett, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman - NAC 1. Call to order. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes. a. Regular Meeting of November 1st, 2011 b. Planning Commission and City Council Special Meeting of November 1st, 2011. 3. Citizen Comments. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 5. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for R-1 (Single- Family) District lots. Applicant: McCann, Steve/Sunset Ponds, LLC 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Development Stage Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for R- 1A (Single-Family) District lots. Applicant: Keyland Homes 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Concept Stage Planned Unit Development. (Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2, Carcone Addition, 1005 State Hwy 25) Applicant: Weinhold Investments, LLC 8. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Co-location of a Wireless Telecommunication Service Antenna. Applicant: RKZ Consulting 9. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan for the adoption of the Embracing Downtown Plan. Applicant: City of Monticello 10. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance as related to Permitted and Conditional Uses in the B-3 (Highway Business) District. Applicant: City of Monticello 11. Community Development Director’s Report a. Development Cost Study b. Permit Cost Study 12. Adjourn. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, November 1, 2011 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Rod Dragsten, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Barry Voight Commissioners Absent: William Spartz Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman-NAC 1. Call to order Rod Dragsten called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of October 4, 2011 BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF OCTOBER 4, 2011. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BARRY VOIGHT. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. 3. Citizen Comments a. Paxmar Development Kent Roessler, representing Paxmar Development, of 5160 Viking Boulevard in Anoka, asked if the Planning Commission would be open to discussing the possibility of amending existing ordinance and PUD standards to motivate builders to make a commitment to Monticello. Paxmar is a real estate land development company that has been purchasing distressed properties from banks to provide lot inventory for builders. They purchased the neighborhoods of Carlisle Village and Sunset Ponds in Monticello. Paxmar has had a number of builders initially interested in these neighborhoods who then lose interest when they learn the particulars of Monticello’s building standards. In this economy builders are looking for concessions such as reduced fees or relaxed code requirements and will go elsewhere if accommodations cannot be readily made. Builders also seem to be quite hesitant to go through the formal process of addressing the Planning Commission and City Council to request a variance or a special use permit with little expectation of success. The Planning Commission and Paxmar seemed to agree that it is important to support growth in the City and to ensure that the quality of development is as good as or better than that which already exists. Several Commissioners pointed out that they’d have to see what a plan looked like before making any determination about concessions. Planning Commission Minutes – 11/1/11 2 Paxmar indicated that they too are making concessions in significantly reducing prices of the lots for sale. Staff reminded the commissioners that both of these neighborhoods were approved as part of the previous zoning ordinance and, as such, are governed by those older standards. Barry Voight stated that he’d prefer not to amend the base code language but would consider rewriting the PUD to reflect current code standards and actual conditions. Charlotte Gabler agreed. Barry Voight noted that making some concessions may be workable as long as the overall look of the property was aesthetically pleasing. Lloyd Hilgart said that he would be open to looking at the fee structure. Paxmar have been directing builders to Angela Schumann and Ron Hackenmueller to get an initial read on a number of building scenarios. Staff recommended that two commissioners also work with the developer and builders to preliminarily discuss proposals to encourage success prior to taking the issue through the formal public process. Rod Dragsten and Barry Voight agreed to represent the Planning Commission in any such upcoming meetings with Paxmar, City staff, and builders to consider some building proposals. Steve Grittman suggested that a neighborhood meeting might help establish some parameters for development. Staff pointed out that Carlisle Village has an active neighborhood group which may have some valuable input. Brad Fyle asked about the building fees and development costs in other communities. Staff agreed to provide this information as part of the December agenda packet. b. Letter from Master’s 5th Avenue Staff noted that Master’s 5th Avenue had sent a letter to the Planning Commission supporting the Embracing Downtown Plan and recommending that the City move forward in support of the plan. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None 5. Community Development Director’s Report The Planning Commission had previously called for a Public Hearing on the PUD amendment to be held at the December Planning Commission meeting. Angela Schumann asked that action on this item be tabled until the January meeting. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PUD AMENDMENT TO THE JANUARY 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BRAD FYLE. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes – 11/1/11 3 6. Adjourn BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 6:37 PM. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY CHARLOTTE GABLER. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. Recorder: Kerry T. Burri __ Approved: December 6, 2011 Attest: ___________________________________________ Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 1 5. Public Hearing - Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for R-1 (Single-Family) District lots. Applicant: Sunset Ponds, LLC (AS) Property: Legal: Lots 6, 10, 11 and 14, Block 2, and Lot 4, Block 3, Sunset Ponds Address: 9433, 9391, 9381, 9351 Gifford Court and 6766 94th St. NE Planning Case Number: 2011-030 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Planned Unit Development Amendment allowing for modifications to required finishable square footage, garage door size and floor area of principal structure relative to garage floor area. Deadline for Decision: January 9th, 2012 Land Use Designation: Places to Live Zoning Designation: R-1, Sunset Ponds Planned Unit Development The purpose of the "R -1," Single-Family Residence, District is to provide for low-density, single-family detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary uses. Current Site Use: The five lots proposed for amendment are vacant residential properties. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Residential, including township and R-1 East: Residential, R-1 South: Residential, mix of R-1, R-2A (T-N) and R-2 West: Residential, Interstate Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 2 Analysis: The Planned Unit Development for Sunset Ponds was approved in 2003, under the previous version of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Very few modifications were made under the Planned Unit Development to the General Building and Performance Requirements and Lot Size requirements for the development. Instead, the PUD was used to allow a mixing of zoning districts within the development. In 2005, City officials and staff met with the previous property owner/developer (MW Johnson) to ensure that the product being built at Sunset Ponds reflected what was approved in the 2003 PUD, particularly as related to the townhome product. This meeting resulted in a requirement that townhome units adjacent to the interstate include more definition in roofline and window detail than those previously constructed and an affirmation of existing code standards for the three zoning districts in place at Sunset Ponds. This included the R-1 District. As of December 2010, out of 280 buildable residential lots at Sunset Ponds, City records show 106 remaining vacant lots, 10 of which are zoned R-1. Sunset Ponds, LLC owns five of these remaining R-1 lots. At this time, Sunset Ponds, LLC is seeking to amend the PUD to allow limited flexibility in building and performance standards for those five lots. The applicant is requesting that the City approve three specific home plans/designs presented for the five remaining lots, which reflect the standards in the table provided in this report. The designs are labeled “Hickory Standard”, “Hickory Deluxe” and “Hickory Premium”. The table illustrates the base code standards (previous ordinance), any variation approved under the original PUD and the proposed amendment sought be the applicant. The standards are listed in the order they appear within the zoning code. Representatives from Sunset Ponds, LLC, the Planning Commission, and City Council met prior to the application submittal to discuss the proposed amendments. There was general consensus that any reduction in square footage requirements or other code flexibility needed to be offset by other structure enhancements. In addition, any such reductions should be essentially “invisible” in terms of negative impact in mass and sizing relative to the surrounding neighborhood. Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 3 R-1 Building & Performance Standards Standard Base Ordinance PUD Proposed Amendment Roof Pitch 5/12 5/12 6/12 Minimum Finished Floor Area 1050 sq. ft. 1050 sq. ft. Total finished square footage is approx. 1328 sq. ft. 600 main floor 728 second floor Finishable Space 2,000 sq. ft., exclusive of mechanical, garage or unfinished space, must be above grade 2,000 sq. ft., exclusive of mechanical, garage or unfinished space, must be above grade Approx. 1721 sq. ft., exclusive of mechanical, garage or unfinished space 600 main floor 728 second floor 383 basement Building Materials 15% of front facade covered in brick or stone – wood or stucco finished homes may be reduced to 5% 15% of front facade covered in brick or stone – wood or stucco finished homes may be reduced to 5% No change requested Garage Size 450 sq. ft. 450 sq. ft – three stall garages encouraged 660 sq. ft. Garage Size Relative to Principle Structure No attached garage may exceed the gross square footage of the building footprint of the principal structure No attached garage may exceed the gross square footage of the building footprint of the principal structure Proposing a garage that is approximately 10% larger than the footprint of the home 600 sq. ft. - building footprint of principal structure 660 sq ft - attached garage footprint Garage Door Size 16’ opening – dual door 16’ opening – dual door 15’ opening – dual door Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 4 The Planning Commission will note that the application for amendment was specific to the five lots owned by Sunset Ponds, LLC and does not include the 5 other R-1 single- family properties. If approved, the amended PUD agreement will be applicable to only these five properties. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for R-1 (Single-Family) District lots for Sunset Ponds, subject to the following conditions: a. Approval is limited to the five lots legally described as Lots 6, 10, 11 and 14, Block 2, and Lot 4, Block 3, Sunset Ponds. b. Approval is limited to building and performance standard modifications as illustrated in the “Hickory Standard”, “Hickory Deluxe” and “Hickory Premium” home plans as provided by the applicant. c. No homes on abutting properties may be constructed of the same home plan. 2. Motion to recommend denial of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for R-1 (Single-Family) District lots for Sunset Ponds, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on the request for further study. STAFF RECOMMNDATION The applicant is requesting flexibility in three primary areas – an approximately 14% reduction in total finishable space, a larger garage footprint than principal structure footprint, and a smaller than required garage door. The applicant has proposed to offset these variations with upgraded exterior modifications, increased initial finished square footage, and a three-stall garage. Planning Commission will need to determine whether these modifications will provide the needed balance between ensuring the construction of homes which blend into the existing Sunset Ponds neighborhood and the applicant’s desire for a marketable home product. Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 5 SUPPORTING DATA A. Aerial Parcel Image B. Plat Map C. Applicant Narrative D. Proposed PUD Home Plan Designs a. “Hickory Standard” b. “Hickory Deluxe” c. “Hickory Premium” E. Monticello Zoning Ordinance – Excerpt 3-2 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/3 County Assessor. All adjoining property owners and the Monticello HRA shall be provided notice of plans to expand non-conforming residential structure. Expansion may occur only after completion of a 30-day notice period. Expansion of non-conforming residential structures is limited to one expansion after the date of June 12, 1989. All setbacks associated with residential structure expansion must meet R-1 yard requirements.(#176, 6/12/89) [K]Any proposed structure which will, under this ordinance and subsequent amendments, become non-conforming but for which a building permit has been lawfully granted prior to the effective date of this ordinance, may be completed in accordance with the approved plans, provided construction is started within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this ordinance and subsequent amendments, is not abandoned for a period of more than one hundred twenty (120) days, and continues to completion within two (2) years. Such structure and use shall thereafter be a legally non-conforming structure and use. 3-2:GENERAL BUILDING AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS: [A]PURPOSE: The purpose of this section of the zoning ordinance is to establish general development performance standards. These standards are intended and designed to assure compatibility of use and to enhance the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the community. [B]DWELLING UNIT RESTRICTION: 1.No cellar, basement, garage, tent, trailer, motor vehicle or accessory building shall at any time be used as an independent residence or dwelling unit, temporarily or permanently. (#395, 7/28/03) 2.Tents, play houses, or similar structures may be used for play or recreational purposes. 3.The following architectural controls shall apply in R-2, R-3, and PZ-R Districts: (a)Minimum building width of 24 feet. (b)Minimum 3:12 roof pitch with minimum six (6) inch soffit in the R-2, R-3 and PZ-R Districts. Roof pitch for R-1 and R-2A District: No portion of any roof of any structure in the R-1 and R-2A District shall be less than 5/12, that is 5 inches of vertical rise for each 12 inches of horizontal length. MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/4 Roof pitch for R-1A District: No portion of any roof of any structure in the R-1A District shall be less in pitch than 6/12, that is 6 inches of vertical rise for each 12 inches of horizontal length. (#377, 4/8/02) (c)Building must be anchored to a permanent concrete or treated wood foundation. (d)No metal siding shall be permitted wider than 12 inches or without a one-half (1/2) inch or more overlap and relief. (e)Except for the R-1, R-1A and R-2A Districts minimum floor area shall be 1,000 square feet. R-1 District: No single family home constructed in the R-1 District shall be built that does not consist of at least 1,050 square feet of finished floor space at the time of initial occupancy, and 2,000 square feet in finishable interior floor area, exclusive of mechanical, garage, or unfinished storage space. All such finished space shall be at or above the finished exterior grade, or in the case of lower levels, no less than 42 inches below such grade. No rambler style home (whether full basement below grade or slab-on-grade) in the R-1 District shall have finished floor space of less than 1,400 square feet at the time of initial occupancy, exclusive of garage space. Basements that are neither “walk-out” or “look-out” levels may be finished, but shall not be included in the finished square footage calculation. To qualify as “finished,” space must have heat, flooring such as carpet, vinyl, tile, wood or other similar floor covering, and ceiling and walls covered with gypsum board, plaster, or wood, and be stained, painted or covered with other residential wall covering prior to occupancy. R-1A District: No single family home constructed in the R- 1A District shall be built that does not consist of a least 2,000 square feet in interior finished floor area, exclusive mechanical, garage, or unfinished storage space. All such finished space shall be at or above the finished exterior grade, or in the case of lower levels, no less than 42 inches below such grade. In addition to the finished square footage requirements, no building in the R-1A District shall have a foundation size of MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/5 less than 1,400 square feet, exclusive of garage space. Basements that are neither “walk-out” or “look-out” levels may be finished, but shall not be included in the finished square footage calculation. To qualify as”finished,” space must have heat, flooring such as carpet, vinyl, tile, wood or other similar floor covering, and ceiling and walls covered with gypsum board, plaster, or wood, and be stained, painted or covered with other residential wall covering prior to occupancy. R-2A District: No single family home constructed in the R- 2A District shall be built that does not consist of at least 1,200 square feet in finished floor area, exclusive of mechanical, garage, or unfinished storage space. All such finished space shall be at or above the finished exterior grade, or in the case of lower levels, no less than 42 inches below such grade. Basements that are neither “walk-out” or “lookout” levels may be finished, but shall not be included in the finished square footage calculation. To qualify as “finished,” space must have heat, flooring such as carpet, vinyl, tile, wood or other similar floor covering, and ceiling and walls covered with gypsum board, plaster, or wood, and be stained, painted or covered with other residential wall covering prior to occupancy. (#372,4/8/02) (f)All dwellings shall meet all regulations of the Minnesota Uniform Building Code. 4.In all districts, all buildings shall be finished on all sides with consistent architectural quality, materials, and design. R-1 District: Building Materials. No less than 15% of the front building facade of any structure in the R-1 District shall be covered with brick or stone. Any accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone coverage to 5%. The Zoning Administrator may approve optional facade treatments when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing may include usable front porches, extraordinary roof pitch or other features. R-1A and R-2A Districts: Building Materials. No less than 20% of the front building facade of any structure in the R-1A District shall be covered with brick or stone. Any accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/6 brick or stone coverage to 10%. (#372, 4/8/02) 5.In all residential zoning districts, all single and two-family dwelling units must include development of an attached or detached garage. Minimum size requirement for garage floor is 450 sq ft with a minimum garage door opening of 16 ft. except in: R-1 District: An attached garage of at least 480 square feet shall be constructed as part of any single family home. R-1A District: An attached garage of at least 700 square feet shall be constructed as part of any single family home. Garage frontage: From side building line to side building line of any singlefamily structure, no more than 40% of such building width shall consist of Garage doors that face the street. Side or rear loaded garages are not subject to this regulation. An exception shall be made for garage doors that face the street, but are set back at least ten feet in back of the front building line of the principal use. No portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the principal single family use. R-2A District: A garage of at lest 450 square feet, attached or detached, shall be constructed as a part of any single family home. Garage frontage: From side building line to side building line of any single family structure, no more than 50% of such building width shall consist of garage doors that face the street. Side or rear loaded garages, or detached garages in the rear yard, are not subject to this regulation. An exception shall be made for garage doors that face the street, but are set back at least ten feet in back of the front building line of the principal use. No portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the principal single family use. (#377, 5/13/02), (#212, 7/22/91) (#213, 10/15/91) (#372, 4/8/02) [C]PLATTED AND UNPLATTED PROPERTY: 1.Any person desiring to improve property shall submit to the Building Inspector a survey of said premises and information on the location and dimensions of existing and proposed building, location of easements crossing the property, encroachments, and other information which may be necessary to insure conformance to City MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/7 ordinance. 2.All buildings shall be so placed so that they will not obstruct future streets which may be constructed by the City in conformity with existing streets and according to the system and standards employed by the City. 3.A lot of record existing upon the effective date of this ordinance in a residential district which does not meet the requirements of this ordinance as to area or width may be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes provided the measurements of such area or width are within seventy-five (75) percent of the requirements of this ordinance. 4.Except in the case of planned unit development as provided for in Chapter 20 of this ordinance, not more than one (1) principal building shall be located on a lot. The words "principal building" shall be given their common, ordinary meaning; in case of doubt or on any question or interpretation, the decision of the Building Inspector shall be final, subject to the right of appeal to the Planning Commission and City Council. 5.On a through lot (a lot fronting on two (2) parallel streets), both street lines shall be front lot lines of applying the yard and parking regulations of this ordinance. [D]ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, USES, AND EQUIPMENT: 1.An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the principal building either directly or by an enclosed passageway. 2.No accessory building shall be erected or located within any required yard other than the rear yard. 3.Detached accessory buildings shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height, shall be six (6) feet or more from all side and rear lot lines, shall be ten (10) feet or more from any other building or structure on the same lot, and shall not be located within a utility easement. (#396, 7/28/03) 4.Except by Conditional Use Permit issued pursuant to Section 3-2[D]5 for single family residential uses, no detached accessory building shall exceed ten percent (10%) of the rear yard of the parcel on which it is located, nor shall any combination of attached garage and detached accessory building exceed the following maximum area, whichever is less: MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/8 (a)1,200 square feet; or (b)The gross square footage of the building footprint of the principal use. (#360, 3/12/01) 5.The size limitations for detached and attached accessory building area listed in Section 3-2[D]4 may be increased, up to a maximum square footage of 1,500 square feet, by the issuance of a Conditional Use permit when the following conditions are found to exist: (a)Accessory building space is to be utilized solely for the storage of residential personal property of the occupant of the principal dwelling, and no accessory building space is to be utilized for commercial purposes. (b)The parcel on which the accessory building is to be located is of sufficient size such that the building will not crowd the open space on the lot. (c)The accessory building will not be so large as to have an adverse effect on the architectural character or reasonable residential use of the surrounding property. (d)The accessory buildings shall be constructed to be similar to the principal building in architectural style and building materials. (#360, 3/12/01) 6.Each applicant for a building permit to construct any dwelling shall be required to provide off-street parking space for at least one (1) automobile per family to be housed, in addition to any garage space to be used. Subject to the following exceptions, no permit shall be issued for the construction of more than one (1) private, detached accessory structure for each dwelling, except: (a)By conditional use permit, or (b)For conforming single family dwellings, one (1) detached accessory structure of not more than 120 square feet shall be permitted as a second accessory structure without a conditional use permit, subject to all other applicable codes and standards. (#211, 7/22/91)(#281, 6/10/96) (#283, 8/26/96) 7.No accessory uses or equipment such as air conditioning cooling structures or condensers which generate noise may be located in a side yard except for side yards abutting streets where equipment is fully screened from view.(#283, 8/26/96) [E]DRAINAGE PLANS: In the case of all apartment, business, and industrial developments, a minimum of 3 sets of drainage plans shall be submitted to MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/9 the City Engineer for review, and the final drainage plans shall be subject to written approval. Except as otherwise approved by the City Engineer and/or Building Official and upon demonstration of positive drainage, all dwellings and commercial and industrial buildings shall be constructed such that the ground elevation at the building site will be a minimum of twelve (12) inches above finished street elevation at the building access point. The exact elevation will be determined by the Building Official. All garages and parking facilities shall be situated such that there will be direct and positive drainage to the street access at finished grade elevation. All elevations shall be established prior to issuance of a building permit. Occupancy shall not be granted until the builder certifies conformance with the grading plan for the lot. The developer shall have a registered land surveyor or engineer certify that the development has been rough graded to within tolerance limits according to the grading plan. (#279, 6/10/96) [F]FENCING: 1.A building permit is required for the construction of a fence or wall that will be more than six (6) feet in height above grade, or for construction of a retaining wall that is more than four (4) feet in height from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall. Fence and wall heights are to be measured from the adjoining average grade. In the case of grade separation such as the division of properties by a retaining wall, the height shall be determined on the basis of measurement from the average point between the highest and lowest grade. 2.No fence or wall shall exceed 8 feet 6 inches in height except as approved for commercial and industrial properties, and tennis courts which may have chain link fences not exceeding 10 feet in height. (#248, 3/14/94) 3.Fences and walls may be constructed anywhere on private property except as provided below: a.Front Yard Fences: In front yards, fences and walls exceeding 36 inches in height must be set back at least 15 feet from the front property line. (#410, 7/12/04) b.Corner Lots and Double Fronting Lots: In yards other than the front yard which abut a public street, fences and walls Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 1 6. Public Hearing - Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for R-1A (Single-Family) District lots. Applicant: Key Land Homes (AS) Property: Legal: Lots 5, 6, and 10, Block 2 and Lot 5, Block 1, Hillside Farm 2nd Addition Address: 8605, 8585, and 8626 Elk Avenue and 5903 Badger Street Planning Case Number: 2011-031 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Planned Unit Development Amendment allowing for modifications to required garage frontage. Deadline for Decision: January 17th, 2012 Land Use Designation: Places to Live Zoning Designation: R-1A, Hillside Farms Planned Unit Development The purpose of the "R-1A," (now R-A) Single-Family Residence, District is to provide for low-density, single- family detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary uses in areas of high natural residential amenities including such conditions as woodlands wetlands, and significant views. Current Site Use: The four lots proposed for amendment are vacant residential properties. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Vacant, guided Places to Live, previously planned as R-A East: Residential, R-1 South: Vacant, guided Urban Reserve West: Vacant, guided Urban Reserve Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 2 Analysis: Key Land Homes is seeking an amendment to standards applicable to garage design for R-1A properties within the Hillside Farm development. Key Land is requesting that the following standard be amended as stated below: R-1A District: An attached garage if at least 700 square feet shall be constructed as part of any single family home. Garage frontage: From side building line to side building line of any single family structure, no more than 40% 50% of such building width shall consist of garage doors that face the street. Side or rear loaded garage doors are not subject to this regulation. An exception shall be made for garage doors which face the street, but are set back at least ten feet in back of the front building line of the principal use. It should be noted that the above ordinance requirement is contained within the previous version of the zoning ordinance as a base code standard. The Planned Unit Development for Hillside Farm was approved in 2001, under the previous version of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance and as such, the previous code is applicable to Hillside Farm. This maximum width requirement for garage doors was not carried forward to the newly approved Zoning Ordinance. Hillside Farm was platted and approved as Monticello’s first R-1A zoned development. It is important to note that the development was platted with R-1 sized lots in terms of lot area, setbacks and width, but with R-1A General Building and Performance Requirements applicable for home construction. Other than the lot area, setback and width variations, the initial PUD did not include any variations from the R-1A standards. For Planning Commission’s reference, there have been two other amendments to the Hillside Farms developments since its original approval. In 2004, the City approved an amendment for the entire development with the following design standard changes:  Two-story and modified two-story residential dwellings must provide: o A minimum finished first floor size of 1100 square feet; o A minimum of 2200 square feet finished area above grade; and, o Full basements. Then, in 2008, Key Land Homes, at that time owner of six vacant lots in the 1st and 2nd Additions, received approval on an amendment specific to their remaining lots. The amendment allowed for relaxation of the following code provision: “No portion of any Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 3 garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the principal single-family use.” The 2008 amendment was approved as follows:  No split entry homes shall be allowed on the balance of the lots owned by the applicant.  The garage shall not extend more than 12’ beyond the front building line of the home itself for the balance of the lots owned by the applicant. Based on these amendments, Hillside Farm 3rd and 4th Additions are responsible to the original PUD and the PUD as amended in 2004. The 2008 amendment applied only the six lots owned by Keyland Homes in the 1st and 2nd Additions. If the currently proposed amendment is approved by the City, the four remaining lots owned by Key Land will be responsible to all three amendments. The applicant has provided a house plan reflecting the proposed garage modification. All other code and PUD standards (including amended standards noted above) have been met for the home, including finished square footage, finishable square footage, exterior detailing, etc. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to recommend approval of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for R-1A (Single-Family) District lots for Hillside Farms, subject to the following conditions: a. Approval is limited to the four lots legally described as Lots 5, 6, and 10, Block 2 and Lot 5, Block 1, Hillside Farm 2nd Addition. b. The applicant is required to meet and/or exceed all other code and PUD design standards. c. Approval of the PUD amendment is limited to: i. Garage frontage: From side building line to side building line of any single family structure, no more than 50% of such building width shall consist of garage doors that face the street. Side or rear loaded garage doors are not subject to this regulation. An exception shall be made for Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 4 garage doors which face the street, but are set back at least ten feet in back of the front building line of the principal use. 2. Motion to recommend denial of an Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development as related to residential design standards for R-1A (Single-Family) District lots for Hillside Farms, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 3. Motion to table action on the request for further study. STAFF RECOMMNDATION The applicant is requesting flexibility via PUD amendment for one code standard, which is specific to the ratio of garage door to home as measured from side to side on the front façade. Staff recommends Alternative 1. The required 700 square foot garage, coupled with the R-1 lot sizing standard does create the potential for design constraints relative to the 40% requirement. The applicant will still be required to push the garages back to within 12’ of the home in an effort to minimize a “garage-dominant” look. Additionally, as this 40% garage requirement was not carried forward into the new code for R-A homes, staff believes that such an amendment would be consistent with any R-A construction allowed today. SUPPORTING DATA A. Aerial Parcel Image B. Plat Map C. Applicant Narrative D. Sample Home Plan Design E. Monticello Zoning Ordinance – Excerpt 3-2 MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE 3/6 brick or stone coverage to 10%. (#372, 4/8/02) 5.In all residential zoning districts, all single and two-family dwelling units must include development of an attached or detached garage. Minimum size requirement for garage floor is 450 sq ft with a minimum garage door opening of 16 ft. except in: R-1 District: An attached garage of at least 480 square feet shall be constructed as part of any single family home. R-1A District: An attached garage of at least 700 square feet shall be constructed as part of any single family home. Garage frontage: From side building line to side building line of any singlefamily structure, no more than 40% of such building width shall consist of Garage doors that face the street. Side or rear loaded garages are not subject to this regulation. An exception shall be made for garage doors that face the street, but are set back at least ten feet in back of the front building line of the principal use. No portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the principal single family use. R-2A District: A garage of at lest 450 square feet, attached or detached, shall be constructed as a part of any single family home. Garage frontage: From side building line to side building line of any single family structure, no more than 50% of such building width shall consist of garage doors that face the street. Side or rear loaded garages, or detached garages in the rear yard, are not subject to this regulation. An exception shall be made for garage doors that face the street, but are set back at least ten feet in back of the front building line of the principal use. No portion of any garage space may be more than five feet closer to the street than the front building line of the principal single family use. (#377, 5/13/02), (#212, 7/22/91) (#213, 10/15/91) (#372, 4/8/02) [C]PLATTED AND UNPLATTED PROPERTY: 1.Any person desiring to improve property shall submit to the Building Inspector a survey of said premises and information on the location and dimensions of existing and proposed building, location of easements crossing the property, encroachments, and other information which may be necessary to insure conformance to City Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 1 7. Consideration of a request for a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development. Applicant: Weinhold Investments (NAC) Property: Lot 2, Block 1, Carcone Addition, and Lot 2, Block 2, Carcone Addition The proposed PUD property consists of the former Monticello Ford dealership property, including the building site and sales display lot at the corner of Trunk Highway 25 and Chelsea Road, along with the Ford storage lot directly west of the dealership, west of Sandberg Road. Planning Case Number: 2011-027 REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Planned Unit Development Concept Stage approval Deadline for Decision: January 13, 2012 (60 days) Land Use Designation: Places to Shop Zoning Designation: B-3, Highway Business District The purpose of the B-3, Highway Business District is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. Proposed Zoning: The applicants have proposed to be rezoned to Planned Unit Development. The purpose of the PUD zoning district is to provide greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and non-residential areas in order to maximize public values and achieve more creative development outcomes while remaining economically viable and marketable. Current Site Use: The site is currently occupied by the former, now vacant, Ford dealership building. The parcel between Highway 25 and Sandberg Road also includes a large sales/display area where two new buildings are proposed. To the west of Sandberg Road is a paved area, formerly used for vehicle storage by the Ford dealership. Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 2 Surrounding Land Uses: North: Automobile dealership, zoned B-3, Highway Business East: Mix Commercial Retail, zoned B-3, Highway Business South: Commercial Service, zoned B-3, Highway Business West: Commercial Service, zoned B-3, Highway Business Project Description: The proposed PUD consists of a remodeling of the existing Ford dealership building for multiple tenant occupancy, including utilization of a portion of the building for automotive services (detailing and car wash), and other portions for commercial uses including retail, office, and commercial services. The property would be subdivided to establish two new parcels on what was the former sales/display lot, one of which would be used for restaurant, and the southern-most parcel to be used for professional office space or other commercial uses. The applicants propose that all of the allowed uses within the current B-3 and B-4 zoning districts be eligible uses in the new PUD district created for this site. The remnant parcel west of Sandberg Road would be used for overflow parking for the currently proposed project, and then subject to future development by PUD amendment. No building is proposed on this parcel (Lot 2, Block 2) as a part of this project. PUD is being requested for this project to provide for more flexible land uses, including both B-3 and B-4 district uses (highway and regional business), as well as for shared parking, off-site parking, and shared access locations. The applicant has indicated that the PUD will allow the development to ensure architectural consistency with the PUD and with neighboring commercial development, Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 3 utilize parking and other accessory services more efficiently, and intensify development on an underutilized, highly visible commercial property. Ordinance Requirements: When a proposal is made for Planned Unit Development, the applicants are required to generally describe their project, including a description of proposed uses, buildings, site improvements, and other elements. The first step in the PUD approval process is to conduct a collaborative Planning Commission/City Council workshop meeting with the developer at which a Public Values Statement is developed. This meeting was held on November 1, 2011, from which a Public Values Statement was written and forwarded to the applicant and public officials. The Public Values Statement forms the parameters for consideration of development proposals on the property and for the elements constituting the new PUD District that will apply to the subject area. The applicant is now seeking Concept PUD consideration. Concept Stage PUD includes a public hearing with the Planning Commission, and eventually results in a City Council decision to move forward under the PUD designation, or to revert to standard zoning. The Planning Commission is called on to review the request and provide comment – but not “approval” or “denial”. . Parking and Circulation. The applicants are utilizing the PUD to accommodate shared parking between what will be 4 commercial parcels, once platted. The sharing of parking and access is proposed to permit the development of two new buildings on the former sales/display lot. Overall parking, according to the Cit y’s zoning ordinance, requires the use of Lot 2, Block 2 west of Sandberg Road. The applicant estimates a total parking demand of approximately 283 spaces, according to the City’s zoning requirements. The site plan provides 209 parking spaces around the existing and proposed buildings, with 74 additional spaces (26% of the estimated requirements) located on Lot 2, Block 2. Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 4 As a part of the collaborative process, the City and applicants agreed to monitor overall parking usage in consideration of releasing the requirements for all or a portion of the off-site parking when Lot 2, Block 2 is ready for separate development. With regard to the shared parking request, it is noted that evening peak use for the restaurant parcel could be expected to work well with the daytime peak demand period for office uses. If this expectation bears out, a lower parking demand would be reasonable for these properties. With regard to circulation and general site planning, staff has the following comments:  Establish a clearer boundary with the West Metro site to the north. Currently, there is no edge to either property, and traffic is allowed to flow freely in the area north of the “Ford” building without lane definition or other organization. When these parcels were both auto dealerships and customer traffic was more controlled, this condition was less an issue. With the remodeling of the Ford building to provide for multiple tenants and users parking all around the site, better circulation control should be established.  Redesign circulation and parking layout on the west side of the Ford building. Previously, this area was the “back” of the building, but would be expected to be more visible as the commercial uses in this area change. As with the north side, traffic circulation is uncontrolled, and parked vehicles back into an unorganized area of pavement. This layout often leads to customer traffic conflicts due to the lack of identified drive lanes. Modifications to the site improvements in this area should be considered to better channelize traffic, and perhaps, reduce hard-surface area.  Related to this is the existence of about five parallel parking spaces at the “pinch- point” with the southwest corner of the building. It would be advantageous to eliminate some or all of these stalls and create a better drive lane in this area.  The restaurant and the new office building share a drive access lane from Sandberg Road along what will be their common property line. Under the current layout, a second access to these parcels is possible from the “Ford” building parcel, but is separated from access to Sandberg Road by a long row of parking that divides the restaurant parcel from the multi-tenant site. Design consideration should be made for an addition cut through this row of parking to give the restaurant a more direct second access to Sandberg Road. This would also help minimize (or eliminate) an existing small area of “dead end” parking on the site plan – a minor issue but one that would be best avoided if possible. Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 5 Landscaping. The site plan for the existing building expects to rely on the existing landscaping areas. At the collaborative meeting, the Council expressed an interest in accommodating lower levels of tree planting on high-visibility commercial properties to ensure that visibility is retained. As noted above in the circulation discussion, there may be appropriate areas where additional planting can be considered to channel traffic, reduce paved surface (and thus, reduce stormwater runoff), and enhance the aesthetics of the site. Landscaping plan details will be required as a part of the Preliminary Development PUD application. Lighting. A photometric plan will be required as a part of the Preliminary Development PUD application. Signage. The Public Values Statement indicates that the City and applicant will negotiate flexibility on the sign package, also to be submitted with the Preliminary Development PUD. Building Design. The applicants have submitted building concept drawings that identify preliminary color and materials for the two new buildings, and an intention to treat the exterior of the existing building to coordinate with the new structures. Of primary concern for the City is that all sides of the buildings are treated architecturally, particularly given the high exposure of the subject property. The City has indicated, during the collaborative process, that the conceptual drawings created a positive impression for the site. Additional detail on materials, including the treatment of the existing building, will be important components of the Preliminary Development PUD application. Somewhat related to building design would be the identification of outdoor seating areas for the restaurant building. Common issues heard by the City in this regard include noise, sun/shade, and other “comfort” concerns, as well as safety/service requirements. Grading and Drainage. Grading and drainage has been reviewed only in preliminary form at this stage, although since the site has been completely paved, few issues are foreseen. The City Engineer is reviewing this aspect of the project. Utilities. The City is reviewing utilities, and has been discussing utility routing with the applicants as a part of the proposed subdivision. Accessory Use Requirements. The proposed plan does not identify any accessory buildings. Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 6 Trash Handling. The trash handling details are not yet finalized at the Concept Stage, but the applicants should be encouraged to enclose trash handling equipment within the building, or within an enclosure that is attached to the building and designed to blend with the overall building architecture. Service portions of the buildings will be difficult to mask, given the high exposure of the site, and as such, will require special design attention. Plat Standards. With the Preliminary Development PUD application, the developer will be seeking approval of a preliminary plat creating three parcels out of the current Lot 2, Block 1 property. All three lots will be subject to the requirements of the PUD approval, even though the parcels will be separately owned. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Comments related to the Concept Stage PUD 1. Motion to pass the proposed Concept Stage PUD to the City Council for comment with the items noted in the staff report. 2. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission and staff report. STAFF RECOMMNDATION Staff believes that the Concept Stage PUD plans appropriately address many of the elements identified during the collaborative process and found in the Public Values Statement. As such, an application for Preliminary Development PUD approval would be appropriate. With this comment, staff would recommend that the applicants incorporate the comments of this report into their next application, including the following items: a. Develop a clear boundary between the proposed PUD and the property to the north (West Metro). b. Address circulation on the west side of the existing building to channelize drive lanes and potentially, reduce paved surface cover. Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 7 c. Remove parallel parking along the west side of the existing building, replacing it with better drive lane channeling. Angle parking may be appropriate if adequate space exists. d. Revise the parking layout between the existing building and the restaurant to permit more direct access from the restaurant to the Sandberg Road access point and minimize dead-end parking stall access. e. Consider landscape elements that enhance the site visually and minimize stormwater runoff where possible, with the understanding that tree planting can be designed to avoid interrupting views of the buildings in the PUD. f. Landscaping, Lighting, Signage, and Utility details would all be a part of the more extensive Preliminary Development PUD application. g. Building Design and Materials appear to meet the expectations of the Public Values Statement and collaborative process. Additional detail, including details of trash handling and other incidental uses, and elevation illustrations for the exterior of the existing building, will be required to be provided in the Preliminary Development PUD submission. SUPPORTING DATA 1. Public Values Statement 2. Project Narrative 3. Concept Stage Plans, including: a. Concept Plan, Aerial Map b. Concept Plan, Parcel Map c. Office Model, North Elevation d. Office Model, East Elevation e. Office Model, South Elevation f. Office Model, West Elevation g. Office Model, SW Elevation h. Office Model, NE Elevation i. Restaurant Model, North j. Restaurant Model, South k. Restaurant Model, West l. Restaurant Model, Northwest m. Restaurant Model, Southwest PublicValuesStatement Pointmark/WeinholdInvestments PlannedUnitDevelopmentat: Lot2,Block1andLot2,Block2,CarconeAddition Thisdocumentestablishesthe“PublicValuesStatement”fortheproposedPlannedUnit DevelopmentDistricttobecreatedonpropertyatthecornerofTrunkHighway25,Chelsea Road,andSandbergRoad.Thedocumentistheproductofcollaborativeworkbetweenthe applicantandtheCity,includingajointDeveloper-CityCouncil–PlanningCommission meeting.ThePublicValuesStatementisintendedtolayoutthegoalsandpolicystandardsthat thedeveloperwillutilizeinthedesignoftheirproject,andtheCitywillutilizeinevaluatingthe variousstagedapplicationsforPUDapprovals. 1.Theapplicantwilldesignand/orredesignbuildingswithinthePUDthatprovideproven utilityforprospectiveoccupantsandtenants,basedonavarietyofuserneedsandsite conditions.Theobjectiveistocreatehighqualitybuildingsatmoderatecostlevels,and thatwhichreflectexistingnewdevelopmentinthearea. 2.Theplanforbuildingarchitectureandmaterialsistoaddressbuildingviewsfromall sidesgiventhehighlevelsofexposureofthePUDsite.Apartofthisoplanwillbeto ensurethatserviceareasofthebuildingswillbelocatedintheleastvisiblespaces,and treatedarchitecturallytoenhancethepropertyoverall.TheCityhasindicated willingnesstobeflexibleonsignallowancesandthedeveloperplansfortheuseof monument-stylesignageinappropriateareas. 3.TheCityanddeveloperwillworktogethertomonitorinfrastructureneeds,including stormwatermanagementforthearea,andtrafficpatternsaroundandwithinthePUD. TrafficatChelseaandSandbergwillbelookedatspecifically. 4.TheCityanddeveloperwillworktogethertoevaluatethebenefitsandpotentialneedsfor pedestrianimprovementsinthearea,withinthecontextthatpathwayscurrentlyexiston theeastsideofHighway25andthesouthsideofChelseaRoad. 5.TheapplicantproposesabroadrangeofcommercialusersforthePUD,drawingfromthe City’sB-3andB-4zoningdistrictallowances.Theseusesincludebothlocal,regional, andauto-relatedcommercialactivities.TheCityendorsesthismixbasedonlocationof thesiteandotherfeaturesoftheproposedPUDconceptdesign. 6.TheCityconfirmsthattheproposeddevelopmentanditsproposedrangeoflandusesare consistentwiththeintentanddirectionoftheCity’sfuturelanduseplansforthearea. 7.BenefitsoftheuseofPUDonthispropertyincludetheabilitytotransitionfromauto- relianttomoregeneralcommercialuses,andtheremovalofalargeareaofauto sales/displayattheprimeintersectionofHighway25andChelseaRoad.Otherbenefits includeattractivearchitectureinthishighvisibilitylocation,compatibilitywithnearby newercommercialdevelopment,andmanagedtrafficaccessandcirculationpatternsthat arelessavailablewithindividually-developedproperties. 8.TheCityexpressesitsintenttopermitflexibilityinsiteaccess,parkingsupply,awider varietyoflanduses,andpotentialjointsignagedevelopmentnototherwiseavailableto thedevelopmentofindividualparcels. Pursuanttothesevaluesanddeclarations,theapplicanthasexpressedaninterestinseeking developmentofthesubjectpropertyundertheregulationsoftheCity’sPlannedUnit Developmentordinance,andhasreceivedencouragementfromCityofficialstoproceedwith formalapplicationsandtherequiredpublicprocess.TheadoptionofthisPublicValues Statementdoesnotbindtheapplicanttoaspecificdesign,nordoesitbindtheCitytoageneral approvalofaPUDrequest.However,thisstatementexpressesthegoodwillofbothapplicant andCityinpursuingthecurrentcourse,ingeneralanticipationofsuccessfulprojectapprovals basedoncurrentinformation. AdoptedbytheMonticelloPlanningCommissionthis1st dayofNovember,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLOPLANNINGCOMMISSION ______________________________________ RodDragsten,Chair Attest: ______________________________ AngelaSchumann,CommunityDevelopmentDirector AdoptedbytheMonticelloCityCouncilonthis1st dayofNovember,2011. CITYOFMONTICELLO __________________________________ ClintHerbst,Mayor Attest: ______________________________ AngelaSchumann,CommunityDevelopmentDirector Pointmark Construction, LLC 2560 Byrd Avenue North Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 November 11, 2011 Project Narrative Description of Proposal Weinhold Investments is seeking a Planned Unit Development for the construction of a 16,000 square foot office building and 5,000 square foot restaurant, as well as multiple tenant use of the existing Ford Building. Our goals are to create a unique, mixed-use development that revives a highly visible, yet vacant building and car lot along Highway 25. Our design/build team has assembled conceptual designs that are inviting and attractive, complimenting the highly visible corner. Both buildings blend masonry and EIFS similar to other recently built buildings within the area. Because of the visibility, all four sides of each building will have a symmetrical, finished look. The site has been developed in such a manner to maximize the amount of parking stalls, as well as most effectively place and scale the office and restaurant buildings. Development of the lot with increased green space as well as decrease hardscape. This PUD will also include a general facelift to the existing Monticello Ford building, providing some consistency with the two proposed buildings. Weinhold Investments is currently negotiating with businesses consistent with the B-3 and B-4 zoning districts. These business types include automotive services, professional services, restaurant/bar, office, medical and retail. Purpose for Requesting PUD 1. Shared parking amongst buildings, including overflow parking in lot across Sandberg Road under Lot 2 Block 2, Carcone Addition 2. Shared access amongst multiple properties 3. Setback flexibility to help maximize parking availability on current lot 4. Zoning flexibility consistent with zoning districts B-3 and B-4 5. Advantages of this PUD 1. Repurposing of an existing, vacant building and car lot 2. Utilizing the available lot to add businesses 3. Enhance existing building, consistent with newly constructed buildings in the area 4. Creating flexibility in uses within B-3 and B-4 districts 5. Shared services within PUD such as parking, access, maintenance, etc. 6. Improving the image of a highly visible lot along Highway 25 7. Architectural consistency amongst buildings within PUD Planning Commission Agenda – 12/06/11 1 8. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Conditional Use Permit for Co- location of a Wireless Telecommunication Service Antenna. Applicant: RKZ Consulting. (AS) The applicant has requested that this item be tabled at this time. The applicant has indicated an intent to move forward with the application review during January’s regular meeting. CITYOFMONTICELLO WRIGHTCOUNTY,MINNESOTA RESOLUTIONNO.2011–108 Date:December6th,2011ResolutionNo.2011-108 MotionBy__________________SecondedBy_______________________ ARESOLUTIONRECOMMENDINGADOPTIONOFTHEEMBRACING DOWNTOWNPLANASANAMENDMENTTOTHECOMPREHENSIVEPLANFOR THECITYOFMONTICELLO,ANDADOPTINGFINDINGSOFFACTINSUPPORT OFSAIDAMENDMENT. WHEREAS,theCityofMonticellohas,in2008,adoptedaComprehensivePlanguidingthe growth,development,landuse,andinfrastructureplanningfortheCity;and WHEREAS,saidComprehensivePlanprovidesforthedevelopmentandredevelopmentofthe downtownasapartofsuchguidance;and WHEREAS,theCitylastundertookaspecificplanningeffortforitscoredowntownareain 1997;and WHEREAS,fundamentalchangestothedemographics,transportationsystemsandlandusesin theCityhaveoccurredsincethecompletionofthepreviousdowntownplan;and WHEREAS,theCityhasfoundthatarevisedanddetailedplanforitsdowntownwouldbe consistentwithbothCityobjectivesandthepurposesoftheComprehensivePlan;and WHEREAS,aspartofupdatedplanningeffortsforthedowntown,theCityengagedtheservices ofMcCombGrouptocompleteamarketanalysisofdowntown;;and WHEREAS,aspartofupdatedplanningeffortsforthedowntown,theCityengagedtheservices ofWestwoodConsultingtoassessthetransportationsystemwithinandthroughoutthe downtownarea;and WHEREAS,aspartofupdatedplanningeffortsforthedowntown,theCityengagedtheservices ofArchitecturalConsortiumandWestwoodConsultingtoanalyzelanduseanddesign opportunitiesindowntown,and WHEREAS,aspartofupdatedplanningeffortsforthedowntown,theCityengagedEconomic Developmentservicestoensurepublicinputwasobtainedthroughtheentireprocess;and WHEREAS,theCityofMonticelloPlanningCommissionmakesthefollowingadditional FindingsofFactinrelationtotheneedforadoptionofanupdateddowntownplan: The2011EmbracingDowntownPlanrecognizesdowntownasauniquecommercial districtthatispartofMonticello’sheritageandidentity,andprovidesaguidefor development,redevelopment,andrevitalizationindowntownMonticello. ThedowntownupdatewasaccomplishedthroughapartnershipbetweentheCity, downtownlandowners,businessowners,andpolicymakers. TheEmbracingDowntownrevitalizationvisionincludesseekingadditionalretailand officeprofessionalendusers,makingneededtransportationimprovements,shiftingthe focusofdowntown90degrees,initiatingcatalystprojectsonthe“anchor”blockand Block34,creatingmoreparkprogramsandpublicgatheringplaces,andutilizingWalnut Streetasthemainpedestrianthoroughfare. Theupdatedplanincludesacomprehensiveimplementationsectiontofurtherassistin achievingthevision. NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVED,bythePlanningCommissionoftheCityof Monticello,Minnesota: PursuanttoMinn.Stat.§462.355,thePlanningCommissionoftheCityofMonticello recommendsthattheMonticelloCityCounciladopttheamendmenttoChapter3ofthe ComprehensivePlan,includingthefollowing: 1.Thedocumententitled“EmbracingDowntownMonticello”,dated___________,2011, alongwithrecommendationspecified,whichareattachedheretoandincorporatedherein asExhibit“A”. 2.Thedocumententitled“Chapter5,LandUse”asreplacementtextfortheexisting ComprehensivePlanChapter3,whichisattachedheretoandincorporatedhereinas Exhibit“B”. ADOPTED this___dayof____,2011,bythePlanningCommissionoftheCityof Monticello,Minnesota. CITYOFMONTICELLO By:_______________________________ RodneyDragsten,Chair ATTEST: __________________________________________ AngelaSchumann,CommunityDevelopmentDirector • EMBRACING DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO FINAL REPORT Monticello CCD Revitalization City of Monticello, Minnesota November 4, 2011 vi 477 r� si` $..... •��.�.•., - -�•� ..o +10'.,,I.,,,,,, . ..,„,, „.,;.7!!: ,., , ' ' 41040;0 4y rY 34110. V 3 e I ,�f • r w �' 4 ` -ls!, 'Fhb � 1 y l}} `4. .- . .- } ',, ,}s+• k`,,°'fes x x, w Prepared by McComb Group, Ltd. Economic Development Services Architectural Consortium Westwood Professional Services 0 • FINAL REPORT Embracing Downtown Monticello Monticello CCD Revitalization City of Monticello, Minnesota November 4, 2011 111 Prepared for City of Monticello & Monticello EDA 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 Prepared by McComb Group, Ltd. Economic Development Services Architectural Consortium Westwood Professional Services ii • • Table of Contents Page No. Executive Summary v Introduction 1 Chapter One—Research and Analysis 5 Chapter Two—Revitalizing Downtown Planning Process 28 Chapter Three—Downtown Framework Plan and Design Guidelines 51 Chapter Four—Implementation Approach 57 Chapter Five—Implementation Actions 72 Appendix A. Market Study B. Design Guidelines C. Traffic Study List of Figures Page No. Figure 1—CCD District 3 Figure 2—Broadway street 5 Figure 3—Ace Hardware at 3`d Street 5 Figure 4—Cub Foods 6 Figure 5—Community Center 6 Figure 6—Cargill Kitchen Solutions 7 Figure 7—West Bridge/East Bridge Parks 8 • Figure 8—Parking Supply 11 Figure 9—Detailed Parking Study Area 16 Figure 10—Downtown Sidewalk System 19 Figure 11—Land Use 22 Figure 12—Aging and Obsolete Properties 23 Figure 13—Willing Sellers 24 Figure 14—Compact Scheme A 33 Figure 15—Block Number Key Map 34 Figure 16—Compact Scheme B 36 Figure 17—Expanded Scheme C 38 Figure 18—Minimalist Scheme D 40 Figure 19—Village Green Concept 42 Figure 20—Refined Scheme A 44 Figure 21—Framework Plan 51 Figure 22—Design Guideline Use Areas 53 Figure 23—Highway 25 from 7th to Broadway 54 Figure 24—Broadway Street from Linn to Palm 54 Figure 25—Walnut Street looking north at the Anchor Block 55 Figure 26—Historic Building Proportions 55 Figure 27—Implementation Plan Illustration 60 Figure 28—Illustrative Redevelopment Plan 72 Figure 29—Walnut Street View at the Anchor Block 74 Figure 30—Walnut Street View from West Bridge Park 76 • iii • List of Tables Page No. Table 1—Existing Parking Supply 12 Table 2—Public Parking Counts 17 Table 3—Summary of Market Potential 26 Table 4—Summary of Scheme A Development 35 Table 5—Summary of Scheme B Development 37 Table 6—Summary of Scheme C Development 39 Table 7—Summary of Scheme D Development 41 Table 8—Summary of Refined Scheme A Development 45 Table 9—Downtown Property Values 59 Table 10—Preliminary Downtown Redevelopment Economics 63 Table 11—Short-term Redevelopment Scenario Economics 65 S iv • • Executive Summary Embracing Downtown Monticello The Monticello Economic Development Authority (EDA) seeks to create a vibrant downtown district, capturing the benefits of its historic downtown area, location on the Mississippi River, river crossing and other community assets. The EDA envisions a downtown that is economically sound, convenient and accessible—where pedestrians can enjoy great shopping, dining and entertainment. In the Spring of 2010 the Monticello EDA issued a Request for Proposal — Embracing Downtown Monticello - seeking a multi-disciplinary consulting team to provide guidance for the revitalization of downtown Monticello. In September 2010, the consulting team consisting of McComb Group, LLC, Economic Development Services, Inc., Architectural Consortium, LLC, and Westwood Professional Services, was engaged to analyze existing conditions and issues, and create an implementation plan that integrates market, transportation, land use and finance considerations. The EDA established a Steering Committee with responsibility for interaction with the project consulting team. Description of the Planning Process The Embracing Downtown Monticello planning process included five phases: 1. Research and analysis 2. Assessment of alternatives and preliminary feasibility • 3. Stakeholder review of alternatives and identification of the preferred alternative 4. Feasibility and strategy development for the preferred alternative 5. Creation of a downtown revitalization strategy Conditions and Issues Monticello functions as the sub-regional center between St. Cloud and Maple Grove due to its size, location, and a constellation of assets including major employers, health care, shopping, dining, entertainment,the civic center and hockey center. In recent years downtown Monticello has been in a cycle of decline. The older store formats and parking don't work for today's businesses and customers. In many communities, including Monticello, this leads to a negative, self-reinforcing cycle of low customer traffic, high business turnover, low rents, and insufficient revenue for building maintenance and state building code updates. Businesses in downtown Monticello lack visibility. The older buildings are oriented to Broadway — historically the high traffic corridor in the community. Only 20% of the businesses downtown orient to TH-25, the corridor with the highest traffic count in recent years due to the Mississippi River bridge crossing. However, TH-25 in downtown Monticello enjoys traffic counts that are stronger than the development area south of 1-94 in Monticello. Walgreen's recently evaluated available sites in Monticello and built a new store at the intersection of Broadway and TH-25 in downtown. The investment by Walgreen's can be a catalyst for revitalizing downtown. • The market analysis, which serves as a critical foundation for the Embracing Downtown Monticello implementation strategy, reveals market potential that substantially exceeds the land area available4111 downtown. Key categories that can be accommodated downtown include: a department store,grocery, dining and other retail stores. Community Goals and Guiding Principles Community goals and guiding principles serve as another critical foundation for the plan. The following ten strategies for downtown Monticello, paraphrased from the Land Use Chapter of the Monticello Comprehensive Guide Plan (2008 update), were considered by the Steering Committee and consulting team and integrated into the 2011 Embracing Downtown Monticello plan. • The downtown focus area should extend from the River to 7th Street, and from Locust Street on the west to Cedar Street on the east. • Downtown land use should be a mix of retail, service, office, civic, and residential development. Cargill should be encouraged to remain in the downtown area. • With continued traffic growth on TH-25, it is essential to form a strong link along Walnut Street between the river, Broadway businesses, and the Community Center to establish connections between the factors that attract people to the downtown. • To help create a new "main street" all new development on Walnut Street should have storefronts oriented to Walnut Street. • The City should explore ways to improve pedestrian and bicycle experience along Walnut. • It is essential to prevent the use of Walnut Street for"by-pass" or"cut-through"traffic as traffic volumes increase on TH-25. Traffic calming measures should be applied to Walnut Street. 111 • Housing should supplement and support downtown commercial development. Housing should be encouraged on the edges of downtown, not as a replacement for commercial use, and all housing in the downtown should be multiple family housing. • Strong connections to adjacent neighborhoods should be promoted for the downtown; pedestrian crossings of TH-25 at Broadway and 7th Street should be enhanced. • Downtown connections with the River should be enhanced, especially at Walnut Street. • Downtown access would be improved by trail or bike lane improvements along River Street to take advantage of the controlled intersection with TH-25. The community goals and guiding principles together with the market potential formed the foundation for the redesign of downtown. Other critical factors that informed the physical redesign of downtown include the following: • Traffic patterns • Historic downtown buildings • A commitment to a pedestrian-friendly environment • Contemporary retail design including visibility and parking • Mississippi River, parks and trails • Community Center • Cargill,Xcel Energy and New River Medical Center vi 1110 • A Framework Plan was developed for the downtown r—� , CCD District that illustrates - ��`s / the reorganization of the l northern part of downtown to capture existing market ' , opportunities for both new 1 Public 3 `"mob~'' Pp w Public . Public ' development on vacant lots w cc Parking ,,;,, and redevelopment of other `,- ; s -,- w -,,- - o m,> j Convenience existing properties. Z :} 14 ` o ,`= a 4 T r Services The plan represents a 90 ��-,^, - - =, S r.7.:.: 1� • degree reorientation of the o , ,, dFa- k a,i i u N m downtown shopping district 2 %:� o zg w r with improved access and z shoFPin9': ' t =ZN rnN o w c sight lines from TH-25. The .'' , V i °" north end is anchored by o o -:''';'''':.1.. _ public access and river Public No,_ atHiikk STREET Parking l o • oriented commercial activity. Cargill o Vit f The south end is anchoredt. `, ..� by existing retail near 1-944 ti (Cub Foods area) and the Civic • `'- Community Center, which (• Public t ^;,_ generates over 230,000 visits 6TH STREET z 4/,`‘ ,,,,;_, III per year. It is a fusion of a ® . _ r P. 'o traditional downtown with a vu., sTPO'l hTREET 4 7tH format that works for STREET today's retailers. oo o Ex.Reta i A key feature of the Existing Retail �aF Framework Plan is the ,r proposed addition of a traffic signal at the intersection of 1-94 TH-25 with 4th Street to enhance access to the four- DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO FRAMEWORK PLAN block area bounded by 4th Street, Broadway,TH-25, and Locust Street. This four-block area represents the primary opportunity to create a site larger than a city block that can accommodate a medium-sized retailer, such as a department store, and its required parking. An anchor use in this location will enjoy access and visibility from TH-25 and will become the focal point for additional retail redevelopment in the downtown CCD District. Vision, Guiding Principles and Goals Vision: Downtown Monticello is the sub regional center for business, professional, personal, health care services, dining and river-anchored recreation between St. Cloud and Maple Grove. Retail vitality is created by anchor stores and businesses that provide shopping and convenience goods in a human scale • environment and are concentrated in districts with safe and convenient access and good parking. Retail, vii dining and entertainment businesses build on proximity to the Mississippi River, parks and trails to create • an activity node for outdoor recreation including bicycling, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, walking, sledding, skating and bird watching. Guiding Principles provide a flexible framework to guide public and private sector planning, decisions, teamwork, and investment over time. Recommended principles include: • Build on core assets of greater downtown Monticello: o Monticello's role as the sub regional center between St.Cloud&Maple Grove o Mississippi River&city parks o Traffic generated by bridge crossing o New River Medical Center o Community Center o Employee/customer/visitor base created by Xcel, Cargill& New River Medical Center o New Walgreen's • A shared vision among property owners, business owners, and the City is the foundation for effective team work and long term success. • A shared understanding of realistic market potential is the foundation for design and generation of a healthy business mix. • A safe, attractive human scale environment and entrepreneurial businesses that actively emphasize personal customer service will differentiate downtown from other shopping districts. • The river is a distinctive asset that differentiates downtown Monticello and serves as a foundation for design and as a focus for activity. • Property values can be enhanced if property owners and the city share a vision for downtown and actively seek to cultivate a safe, appealing environment and attractive business mix. • • The city and business community must work actively with MnDOT to ensure safe local access to business districts. Goals: To secure the vision described above, the consulting team recommends that the following goals be adopted and implemented by the City of Monticello and its EDA. LAND USE • Diversify Land use in the downtown; supplement retail and service uses with other activities that generate traffic. • Encourage redevelopment of old and obsolete structures; encourage consolidation of small parcels with multiple ownerships. • Balance parking and land use to ensure availability of adequate parking at all times. • Encourage mixed use but don't make it a requirement or prerequisite for development or redevelopment. • Discourage residential as a free-standing land use within the core downtown area. • Establish physical connections between the core downtown area and the riverfront and park. • Encourage land uses that serve as evening and weekend attractions to the downtown area. • Expand facilities and parking adjacent to West Bridge Park to help create an anchor attraction at the north end of Walnut Street. 111 viii • TRANSPORTATION • Acknowledge that TH-25 will be limited in terms of providing direct property access. • Develop circulation patterns that utilize local streets for individual site access. • Recognize TH-25 as a barrier between the east and west parts of the historic downtown core areas extending to either side of the TH-25 corridor. • Consider developing in districts to reduce the need or desire to cross TH-25 between 7th street and the river crossing. • Strengthen pedestrian ties throughout downtown including connections to other parts of the City to the south,west, and east. Downplay TH-25 as a corridor for pedestrian movement. • Improve pedestrian connections between Broadway and the riverfront park area to allow the park to serve as an attraction that brings people into the downtown area. • Improve access to the Mississippi River to expand on recreational opportunities. • Explore creation of a fourth signalized intersection on TH-25 at 4th Street to improve access to areas with development and redevelopment potential on either side of the TH-25 corridor. DOWNTOWN DESIGN AND IMAGE • Encourage design standards that elevate the quality of downtown development without creating undue hardships for property and building owners. • Acknowledge that the historic "Main Street" buildings and developments along Broadway are functionally obsolete for many tenants and users in today's automobile and convenience-driven marketplace. 1110 • The public realm of streets, boulevards and sidewalks represents the best opportunity to create an interim image for downtown as it redevelops. • The TH-25 and Broadway corridors should be softened with streetscape and landscape features to offset the effects of high traffic volumes, and to help establish an identity for the CCD. • Development should orient toward the intersection of TH-25 with Broadway to take advantage of high traffic volumes in the TH-25 corridor. • New development in the TH-25 corridor should be scaled to allow visibility to development up to a block or more away from TH-25. • New buildings in the TH-25 and Broadway corridors should be located to allow for eventual widening of the corridor right-of-way and roadway. • To the extent possible, buildings should occupy street frontages and should front on public sidewalks with connections to a continuous"downtown"sidewalk pedestrian system. • Proposed uses should have adequate parking (private or public) within easy and convenient walking distance. • The downtown plan should provide strategically located public gathering spaces to bring people together to experience a sense of community that is associated with downtown. Feasibility and Financing Overview The feasibility of transforming of downtown was analyzed. Monticello has an opportunity to capitalize on the new Walgreen's and related intersection improvements to relocate a locally owned, business - Ace Hardware —to a new, more visible site on the southeast corner of Broadway and TH-25. The market analysis and early stage discussions with a department store and hotel indicate that it may be feasible to attract a significant new anchor;this would drive additional customer traffic to downtown. 4110 ix The estimated preliminary redevelopment costs for each downtown block were calculated using • assessor's market values and a contingency to cover other costs. The amount of additional retail or office space that could be located on each block, if it was developed, was estimated, along with the estimated tax increment generated from the new development and estimated revenues from sale of pad sites and parking license fees. The result was a preliminary estimate of the financial feasibility of redeveloping each block. This analysis demonstrated that some blocks are relatively inexpensive to redevelop, while others are more expensive and/or yield less tax increment. This analysis was used to identify the areas where redevelopment would be most effectively implemented. Monticello is in a position to use substantial tax increment finance resources to facilitate site assembly for the Ace Hardware relocation and an anchor business. However, the availability of these tax increment resources will expire in 2012 and 2013. A priority use of additional tax increment generated by new private developments (hardware store and anchor) will be additional redevelopment and relocation activities. Common areas and streetscape improvements follow private investment, with funding coming from common area fees, tax increment finance, and possible redevelopment/small city grant funds available through the MN Department of Employment and Economic Development. The Mississippi riverfront revitalization projects can serve as an early stage catalyst also. Legacy Funds— available from the constitutionally dedicated sales tax devoted to the environment, arts, history and culture—can provide an external source of funds for public realm improvements connected to the river, parks and trails. Implementation Strategy The implementation strategy is flexible and driven by market opportunities and willing sellers. Property • values and rents will likely rise in revitalized areas with improved customer traffic because increases can be supported by increased business volume. Central to the success of the revitalization effort is the principle of"value creation." Value creation results in: • Increased customer traffic, • Increased economic activity and vitality downtown, • A growing number of businesses with increased sales and profits, • Buildings that increase in value base on increased sales and profits, • Increased tax revenues to the city, and • Increased tax increments to support continued revitalization of downtown. The Monticello EDA has critical statutory authority, financial resources and access to staff through the City of Monticello to support downtown revitalization. However,the EDA has comprehensive economic development responsibilities for the community, a scope well beyond downtown revitalization. Organizationally the community should consider establishing a Downtown Development Corporation that includes public and private sector leaders; major employers; downtown business and property owners; professionals in banking, law and accounting; the Community Center; Park Board; Downtown Association and Chamber of Commerce. x • Introduction Embracing Downtown Monticello The City of Monticello and the Monticello Economic Development Authority (EDA) seek to create a vibrant downtown district, capturing the benefits of its historic downtown area, location on the Mississippi River, river crossing and other community assets. The EDA envisions a downtown that is economically sound, convenient and accessible — where pedestrians can enjoy great shopping, dining and entertainment. In the Spring of 2010 the Monticello EDA issued a Request for Proposal — Embracing Downtown Monticello - seeking a multi-disciplinary consulting team to provide guidance for the revitalization of downtown Monticello. In September 2010, the consulting team consisting of McComb Group, LLC, Economic Development Services, Inc., Architectural Consortium, LLC, and Westwood Professional Services, was engaged to analyze existing conditions and issues, and create an implementation plan that integrates market, transportation, land use and finance considerations. The EDA established a Steering Committee with responsibility for interaction with the project consulting team. F sy. a *e .{e' �s 401 '54 111 44 4: , off k, T _ ♦• Jr i r. "' TL`s' SI�i�- a `� ` •�� i - M } F ^. si' _!! .. $- t Ix ' •:µy1 .� ' �f •S LI u. 1 - � ��e,; .... . . r6 _. — �` °. •,^.w4--.! `°"°"'s "�Sj+ 111 t7 i p i l 1,7 Description of the Planning Process The Embracing Downtown Monticello planning process included five phases: 1. Research and analysis 2. Assessment of alternatives and preliminary feasibility 3. Stakeholder review of alternatives and identification of the preferred alternative 4. Feasibility and strategy development for the preferred alternative 5. Creation of a downtown revitalization strategy 11111 1 The research and analysis phase included the following components: • • Consultant analysis of market, transportation and land-use conditions, issues, trends and opportunities. • Community engagement during this project phase included: o A public meeting on October 19, 2010 targeted to downtown stakeholders to introduce the consulting team,outline the planning process,and secure perceptions of downtown. o Downtown business participation in a shopper's survey conducted in the Fall of 2010 to provide insight into market demographics and shopper's behavior and choices. o Over twenty in-person interviews with business and property owners, major employers and public officials also conducted through the Fall of 2010. o A public meeting on December 14, 2010 at which downtown stakeholders and citizens shared perceptions of downtown. o Steering committee and stakeholder review of consultant research findings at a public meeting on January 18, 2011. During the assessment of alternatives and preliminary feasibility, the consulting team considered the challenges faced by downtown business and property owners and other members of the community as well as market data, transportation and land use research/analysis. When it became apparent that Monticello has significant untapped market potential, the consulting team explored alternative approaches to revitalizing downtown that would bring economic vitality to the area; be attractive to investors and businesses; capitalize on key community assets; and achieve the community vision of a convenient, pedestrian-friendly downtown area for shopping, dining, and entertainment. The alternatives were reviewed with the Steering Committee and Downtown Stakeholders in public • meetings on March 29, 2011 and April 18, 2011 to identify the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative was developed based on input received in March and April and the consulting team immediately began in-depth feasibility analysis and strategy development for the preferred alternative. The analysis and strategy was presented at a public meeting on June 28, 2011. Based on feedback received at that meeting, additional research was conducting regarding the traffic alternatives for Walnut Street. The EDA retained McComb Group in a separate assignment to explore market opportunities with potential downtown anchors, including a department store and hotel. Design guidelines describing recommended uses, development standards, and architectural form and materials , were developed and reviewed with the Steering Committee and other downtown stakeholders at a meeting in late September. Transportation research, more detailed financial analysis and insights into the redevelopment and revitalization process formed the basis for the downtown revitalization implementation strategy, presented on October 24, 2011. Definition of Downtown & Central Business District Early in the planning process the limits for the Downtown area included in the Embracing Downtown Monticello study were defined to be coincident with the CCD Central Community District as delineated in the Monticello Zoning Code. The district generally extends from Interstate Highway 94 on the south to the Mississippi River on the north, and from Maple and Linn streets on the west to Cedar and Palm Streets on the east. Due to combined residential and commercial use on the two blocks flanking 4th • 2 1110 Street between Cedar and Palm,these two blocks have also been included in the study area. No further differentiation has been made between the area described above within the CCD and what might also be termed the Monticello Central Business District or CBD. For convenience, the term CCD has been used throughout this report to refer to the downtown study area. Figure 1 illustrates the CCD District boundary and the additional blocks making up the study area. limy 6-56 iB_1- al. 8-49 B-50 I B-151118-521 8-8 f B-38 a 5-36 B-35 8-34AD I. B-29! 830 831 ;B-32=8-33 ,'B-F a - _ 7 8-20 B-19 B-18 8178-16 �S-18 G 8,11 8-15 .....3,........\ 8-0 ..B-7 4 B.6 18 5 ! f B-1 I Rik • , S-2 Figure 1—CCD District Overview of Market Study Component An understanding of market characteristics, opportunities and limitations is critical to informing a realistic downtown revitalization strategy. The McComb Group conducted a market analysis including the following elements. Existing conditions • Interview business and property owners to gain insight into market conditions • Evaluate existing tenant mix and market orientations of downtown retail and office establishments • Evaluate downtown real estate market conditions (rents, operating expense, taxes & occupancy)and uses Retail Market Analysis • Evaluate competitive shopping areas, including anchor stores and tenant mix Ill 3 • Survey customers to gain insight into Monticello's trade area and inflow patronage, • based on customer home address and reason for shopping • Identify retail sales trends • Identify primary and secondary trade areas and future supportable space Office Market Analysis • Identify existing office buildings • Evaluate historic office absorption • Evaluate future office demand Multi-Family Evaluation • Identify existing multi-family housing • Assess future role of multi-family housing in downtown Market research was conducted to identify the demand for retail and office space in downtown Monticello for the period 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030. Short-term estimates for 2010, 2015, and 2020 are contained in this report. Work tasks are summarized below. Business establishments in downtown Monticello were identified and categorized by type to determine tenant mix and market orientation. Principal competitive shopping areas were identified and evaluated. Retail businesses in downtown participated in a survey of their customers to determine where they live and why they shop in downtown. Downtown's primary and destination trade areas were delineated based on arterial road patterns, competitive shopping centers, customer survey results, and McComb Group experience. The economy of the trade area was analyzed to identify and quantify those factors that generate support for retail and service establishments. Retail sales in Monticello from the Retail 111 Census were examined to determine market share trends for the period 2002 and 2007. Supportable square feet of retail,food service, and service establishments was estimated by business type. Office market research was conducted to identify existing office buildings in downtown Monticello including occupied space, vacant space, rental rates, operating expenses, and property taxes. Office buildings competitive with downtown Monticello were identified. Historic office absorption in downtown and other parts of Monticello was quantified and the downtown share of the office market was identified. Business employment categories typically associated with commercial office space in the City of Monticello were identified and evaluated to determine historic growth of office inclined employment categories. Office demand in downtown Monticello was identified for future years. Multi-family housing in downtown Monticello was identified and evaluated. The future role of housing in downtown was recommended. The complete Market Study and its methodology and conclusions are included in the Appendix to this report. • 4 • Chapter 1 - Research and Analysis Historic Context The growth and transitions in Downtown Monticello have occurred over a long period of time that is reflected in the location, layout and condition of structures and their context throughout the Central Community District (CCD). Downtown Monticello evolved initially along Broadway Street before there was a bridge crossing over the Mississippi River. The buildings constructed during the initial era of downtown development reflected the types of businesses which occupied the downtown area and were influenced by the fact that most businesses occupied structures owned by the proprietor, and were limited in size by the pattern of lots along Broadway and by the building technology of the time. fr mirommoon f, Preferred Title, inc. ....444 1 ,..,!: • 1..ssz6 dw�43My �RCaw The second era for downtown development followed the construction of MN Trunk Highway 25 (TH-25) and the bridge crossing the Mississippi River. Ultimately, this era created a 90-degree shift from Broadway as the primary axis of downtown. Traffic along TH-25 (Pine Street) through Monticello led to the expansion of business to the blocks between Broadway and the rail corridor at 5th Street. Most of this development occurred within two blocks to the west of Pine Street and one block to the east of Pine Street. The area of downtown on the east side of Pine Street retained a mix of single-family homes that are interspersed with commercial development oriented towards the Highway. r III 5 The third era for downtown development occurred as a result of the construction of Interstate Highway • 94 through the southern part of the City. The Interstate Highway and its interchange with TH 25 created areas along the freeway and abutting TH 25 for more contemporary commercial and retail development with a strong orientation toward automobile use. Structures within this area are larger, and have a distinct identity that is associated with the use and the brand of the occupants. Franchise businesses with an emphasis on architectural design that can be readily identified by customers are the norm within this area of the downtown. *` tic. ": _4t1 ,7,f' 4 , 1/ £ yJ' �+�'aha D ' T i•-t � 7 ., ._411..,,,,.,,•1, ile 4"4411PY441: A ;r , The final, most recent era for downtown development is a product of public policy encouraging the III revitalization and redevelopment of properties within the CCD Central Community District. The Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and policies and actions of the City Council and Economic Development Association have resulted in significant redevelopment within the downtown district. Although planning for the downtown district as reflected in the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan established a direction for the entire downtown, redevelopment activities have been limited to public facilities including the library and the community center, one block of retail development between 5th Street and 6th Street between Walnut Street and TH 25, and redevelopment of obsolete structures in two locations along Broadway. � , ;,, ,; These most recent private ix , < developments,accomplished �. ' .' largely without public subsidy, include the mixed use . Ya development on the southeast , . ',. , corner of Broadway and Locust �� Street,and the new Walgreen's pharmacy located in the northeast . . • , ` - _ quadrant of the Intersection of - ,. - � �t.�� Broadway with TH 25. }` � " 6 • As can be expected,the most recent additions to the downtown development fabric represent the most applicable development forms for meeting the needs of the contemporary consumer. Convenience and accessibility are among the top criteria of consumers when making decisions about where to conduct business or procure goods and services. These qualities are reflected in the most recent two eras of downtown development. Ironically, the predominant image for a small town downtown expressed by residents is the quaint setting represented by Broadway, where small-scale structures with individual architectural expression and identity exist along a tree-lined boulevard that invites foot traffic and interaction between people on the street. Fulfilling both the pragmatic requirements for ease of access and convenience, and the aesthetic requirements for a sense of identity for Downtown Monticello will be an important part of a successful plan for revitalizing downtown. Activity Centers Downtown Monticello has existing features that contribute to the potential for expanding business in the downtown area by attracting large numbers of people to the downtown on a daily basis. The most important of these traffic generators is TH-25 which carries tens of thousands of potential customers and service users through the community each day. The existing traffic levels on TH-25 are very attractive to potential retailers and service providers that make locational decisions in part based on the traffic levels of adjacent streets. To a lesser extent, traffic levels on County Road 75 (Broadway) also represent significant traffic levels that will appeal to retailers searching for high-traffic locations. Another significant activity generator is the Community Center complex including the Community Center itself, the City Hall offices, and the Public Library. The programming and use of these facilities attracts • large numbers of people to the downtown area, and provides services that appeal to a wide variety of users on weekdays, evenings, and weekends. The community center recreation complex generates over 200,000 visits per year, and meeting rooms attract another 30,000 annual visits. Expansion of services and activities provided in these facilities can continue to attract new users to the downtown area. The Cargill Kitchen Solutions corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and a sophisticated production operation represent a third significant activity generator for the downtown area. Cargill corporate headquarters and research and development employees, customers, visitors, and suppliers, represent a reliable daytime population in downtown Monticello. Retaining the Cargill facilities tr4. and encouraging Cargill Ill � `' expansion to complement �. ti • , other downtown growth and redevelopment objectives = �_ Ina will retain and expand the - "� _ ■ ��.i I" 1 importance of Cargill as an ""nom . ` �a activity center feeding "'' -� fr ~ y� downtown business. " • 7 Finally, the shopping center located between 1-94 and 7th Street on the west side of TH-25 is an important activity center and traffic generator based on customer traffic for users of Cub Foods, the K- Mart store, and the connecting strip-mall businesses. Due to the size and nature of these retail facilities, the shopping center attracts a much higher daily complement of shoppers than the smaller businesses located at the north end of the downtown do. The function of these activity generators should be protected and expanded, where possible, to continue to bring prospective consumers of downtown resources into the downtown area. Interaction between Cargill, the Community Center, and the Cub Foods/K-Mart shopping center is enhanced by their proximity; they occur within a four-block area representing a walking distance of less than one- quarter mile. While not everyone will walk between activity centers, their closeness makes it convenient to do so, especially if interaction is encouraged. Development of other Activity Centers in the northern part of the downtown area could likewise encourage more interaction between businesses and users south of 4th Street, and businesses from 4th Street north to Broadway and River Streets. Mississippi River and Riverfront Parks The proximity of the Mississippi River and two riverfront parks to the downtown area represents the opportunity to create an Activity Center for the northern part of downtown Monticello. Existing facilities in West Bridge Park and East Bridge Park already create a variety of opportunities for passive and active recreational use and access to the Mississippi River; both visual and physical. The two parks are connected by a walkway below the TH-25 bridge, but are both somewhat remote from access and connections with the downtown area. The Mississippi River is a unique resource that should be • leveraged to differentiate Monticello and its downtown area from other small communities along the I- 94 corridor. With better connections to the downtown area, an expansion of recreational facilities, and the type of emphasis on programmed activities that is visible in the management of the Community Center, the Riverfront Parks could become the Activity Center that anchors the north end of downtown and the traffic generator that feeds interaction with the other Activity Centers along Walnut Street. dy: 3rI k i i ' � .7_1%A+9 A.�, ,y£r ,k .rnit �—ice "L f +�.', .-.... 'M� 1 "t 41641 id � x, trp • 8 • Transportation - Roadway Transportation issues in the downtown Monticello area hinge on the TH-25 (Pine Street) and County Road 75 (Broadway) corridors. These two corridors provide the major arterial connections through the CCD District in the north-south and east-west directions respectively. Both corridors have relatively high levels of peak hour traffic, and represent potential future capacity problems for movement through and within the downtown area. Existing traffic volumes combined with expected traffic growth, even with no change to downtown area land use, will ultimately lead to capacity and congestion problems at critical downtown intersection locations. The City's 2030 Transportation plan identifies the need for a second crossing over the Mississippi River in order to maintain adequate capacity in the TH-25 corridor through at least 2030. Identifying the preferred bridge location and accomplishing the second river crossing will be critical to the long term success of downtown. The recent redevelopment in the northeast corner of Broadway and TH-25 for Walgreen's required improvements to the TH-25 and Broadway/River Street intersections and traffic signals to account for additional traffic generated by that development. In spite of these recently completed improvements, there will still be future issues on Broadway due to the narrow corridor width and resulting narrow travel lane widths through the downtown area from Maple Street to Palm Street. The need to plan for future roadway capacity for the Broadway Street corridor has led to past discussions that have included possible options that would change the character and function of Broadway through the CCD, including possible elimination of the planted median treatments, possible elimination of on-street parking, and possible reduction in sidewalk widths where bump-out areas currently exist. These options provide the most viable solutions for improvements given the existing corridor dimension from storefront to storefront. However, most property owners and business owners along the corridor consider the loss of • these existing elements to be contrary to promoting the continuation and growth of business in the corridor. TH-25 is a heavily-traveled corridor through the downtown area from 1-94 to the Mississippi River bridge. As a state highway, the corridor is under the jurisdiction of MnDOT and is dependent upon MnDOT approval for changes in roadway geometry, access, and traffic control. Traffic in this corridor is heavy, especially at peak hour periods when commuters from the north side of the River take advantage of the bridge as a link to the Interstate 94 corridor. Although the high traffic volumes appeal to retailers and service providers who make site selections based in part on adjacent traffic volumes, MnDOT's functional emphasis for the corridor is to carry traffic through the Monticello downtown in as rapid and efficient a manner as possible. This mission is the basis for limitations on access to individual development sites from the roadway, and is the reason that traffic control is biased towards moving traffic through the TH-25 corridor, even at the expense of side street operations. The amount of"green time" in the TH-25 traffic signals allocated to providing traffic progression through the corridor limits how much time is available for turning movements and through movements on the side streets, and limits the time available for pedestrians to safely cross the TH-25 corridor, even where intersections include traffic signals. The northerly end of the TH-25 corridor from 5th Street to Broadway is limited in width by existing, older development on either side of the roadway, which limits the ability for the provision of turn lanes to supplement the lanes needed for through-traffic movement. This condition will be partially resolved with acquisition of properties along the east side of the approach to Broadway to allow for additional turn lanes at the Broadway intersection. The narrow corridor north of 5th Street and existing • development with no setback from the right-of-way line limit the space available for boulevard area, 9 sidewalks, and landscaping from 5th Street to Broadway. Because of these constraints, existing sidewalk • areas are immediately adjacent to the roadway, affording little space for snow storage during the winter months, and little protection for pedestrians from the intense traffic levels that occur on TH-25 during peak traffic periods. Walnut Street has been recognized in earlier planning efforts as a more friendly north-south corridor through the downtown area with the capability to support adjacent development both from a traffic- carrying standpoint, and from the ability to provide for north-south pedestrian connections through the downtown area. Improvements completed in the Walnut Street corridor concurrent with the development of the Community Center and retail shops to the east of the Community Center included modest streetscape improvements for sidewalks, street furniture, and street lighting, and also incorporated angled on-street parking where feasible between 7th Street and Broadway. Because it crosses the railroad corridor at 5th street and extends from 7th Street to River Street, Walnut Street is well situated to act as a parallel collector street to TH-25, providing by-pass opportunities for local traffic, and providing local access to businesses and parking throughout the CCD west of TH-25. Maple Street is the next local street to the west of Walnut that is continuous across the railroad tracks from 6th Street north to Broadway and beyond to the riverfront. While the continuity of Maple Street makes it viable as a north-south collector street, the northern part of the street is lined on both sides with blocks that are 100-percent single-family land use. Because of difficulties involved with either public or private acquisition of properties of this type, Maple Street is unlikely to provide expansion opportunity for the downtown district. To the east of TH-25, Cedar Street provides a north-south collector street function that mirrors Walnut Street on the west side of TH-25. Cedar Street extends from 7th Street northward across the rail corridor • and Broadway,terminating at a parking lot for East Bridge Park at River Street. Cedar Street can provide local access along its length to properties in the blocks adjacent to TH-25 where access from the Highway is limited by MnDOT. Transportation—Parking Supply Public and private off-street and on-street parking has been inventoried for commercial properties within the Downtown CCD district. Figure 8 on the following page illustrates parking lot locations and space counts for the study area. Private parking areas are indicated with numbers in red, and public spaces for off-street parking lots, are listed in blue. The available parking supply was analyzed on a block by block basis to determine the adequacy of the existing parking supply to support existing development, and to identify problem areas for consideration during the formulation of revitalization plan options. Details of existing parking supplies and parking ratios for commercial development within the downtown area are summarized in Table 1. 11111 10 0 -* a1/4 K 4. t � .+Block. k .4.1;� 4.-i. :, ..,;v.,-..,:ii .„; j 1 4'b -....° .' jl ",C` I , _ .*:',1,",""‘S',& .-`y,1. ”. S', .' .' r _ ` c t ( • •<i • 4. -ag/:g.- JJJJ i . S! �y1t a . n`116*ys•1 ' a .. Blocker .:^ Bock , .K Public ria Stalks l" ^ �.� : :,,. Fa t ili ;F=s °9 .. to e M 1. t*R7 t .. '! ,,—Air. x I .• Ota ,.-•..4 o% b. b m STREETWEST i y \I�a � i'''t s % `, 1 r 18•'' 1- 5.i i; 8 i'.o�i F{` t{-e:s4. .-,,, a;!!`i., .,A ,�* `A -' ®.. dR s ,B, C, . ,,.Bpock Biock 2 2614 38 Block s ," • � „ i,. '"_ 's` ^ _ � 17 ", 28Bloc° 1 .. 1 �,� t 64 a Alin I � r :i p16 X21 �+ 1.),/r43 + l ' °�' 1437L1 , y! BROADWAY �.. .. # fi TL S ;1 01 712 '1 i 4 / • t tl - • tai r,*At,— .. i Y_ + f a s� 71 !. . . 14 L '.. ;°43_� .'I^I_ *l '' � ..i` .t AR�' �. vik. i Y! `QIPiiii Bloc 7 , Block Block 36 . .� 17, 1.“-ock ' oc„g,� s4 .4,�cr ilk 1, A P4.1 �!'• :"+Lj :'r 86 i. Ii . 1O r69 4 r +A E Lk iD. .s * Vii` �;" � �r ... 11 s", ' :.<. �a R,. eve[ . 1 1 a4.µ , ,n . " ` i` 133 81 27 p,, 28* 37 I:: �. ,ie, . _ '° Bloc BOC IT ���A B oc r Block'30 B oc X1 _ t3+** Block _ ` - I i "' ..`r _ 8' f 12544/, •2 ;ai y � ;PIT.r4# 1 4 oti. .. ..x _t n•_ .. .,•P. . ti,' ^. ,i liti 4,I 1„,tj II 4 Bloc B at .: _ 24 ° �,`: Block '� i•ter„'°, 93 r�Blockll`7`7� B ft. . 33 78 : 25 iii. _,.. _... 4 t *, . . , . 164 1 35 " € 1 f...: B ock ]I1 �I_ 9� Block Ili t 1 - 1 { T, _ ~Bock37 i' • _ 95 'w` 41 :.µ 31 l r ; 46 ' 134 Block Q=\ ' .Act pax 29 _ -.4* +• ualut;12�3,Ndiu; 1 .l'.l iir.1 3.L..c.V z*(.-+yam* *r} r' -. • �( ! Bock e. , & e 70 ' 34 27 . 44 '* "'�+ '°� Bloc 6' S Bock D. B , �"v� N.' „ " ale , ,.(e - *, 262 4 ! > .� -`441 ,;`'- I. - *7- - , ‘ ,.\\ 18 it g * ..„„ . , I 4*/4:--' - 57 a ' 30 it ° C .is. 333 Boc"ct . . \ ' syr .k .:. 102 2 ''. A. 410 ,-. Block 11 31; �� ( ,. rr vs * _ �. n Boc}2 •-& r _ + C£‘ .' t• _ . .. , 4,. 1 I Figure 8— Parking Supply 0 11 Table • Existing Parking Supply Block Number Parking Spaces Building Area Parking Ratio 3 158 15,000 SF 10.5/1,000 SF 4 838 168,000 SF 5.0/1,000 SF 5 80 14,000 SF 5.7/1,000 SF 6 53 16,000 SF 3.3/1,000 SF 6 70 Library NA 12/13 250 Community Center NA 14 90 35,000 SF 2.6/1,000 SF 15 172 36,000 SF 4.8/1,000 SF 16 72 19,000 SF 3.8/1,000 SF 17 59 9,000 SF 6.5/1,000 SF 18/19 170 120,000 SF 1.4/1,000 SF 31 161 36,000 SF 4.5/1,000 SF 32 120 21,000 SF 5.7/1,000 SF 33 30 12,000 SF 2.5/1,000 SF 34 130* 27,000 SF 4.8/1,000 SF 35 154* 46,000 SF 3.3/1,000 SF 36 81 40,000 SF 2.0/1,000 SF 51 58* 17,000 SF 3.4/1,000 SF 52 139* 45,000 SF 2.8/1,000 SF 53 120* 35,000 SF 3.4/1,000 SF • *Space counts include public parking For commercial development in a downtown district where parking can be shared between private owners, and where public on and off-street parking is available, parking ratios of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet should be adequate to provide convenient parking during peak and off-peak periods. Blocks 3, 4, 5, and 6 south of 6th Street are among the most contemporary commercial developments within the downtown study area and all exhibit adequate off-street parking. A ratio over 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet is appropriate for Block 3 due to the additional demand from restaurant uses on that block. Block 6, although less than 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet, is likely parked adequately due to reduced demand for the auto parts store which includes warehouse space. The library parking is separated out for Block 6 in Table 1 because it does not fit the retail or commercial criteria for a specific parking ratio based on floor area. Observation of the library parking indicates that it adequately supports the library function, and provides overflow parking capability for the Community Center. Blocks 12 and 13 containing the Community Center are also not able to be evaluated on the basis of parking ratio. The uses in the Community Center and City offices create parking demand based on when users are attracted, and how many are using the facility at a given time. In general, the amount of parking for the Community Center including the Montessori school and fire hall is observed to be adequate for most occasions. However,the distribution of the parking with the largest concentration of parking to the west of the facility creates the appearance of inadequate parking as users seek to park near the main entrances on the south and east sides of the building. This demand has led to routine use of the library parking and the on-street parking along Walnut Street by Community Center users. Parking to the west of the Community Center is also reported to be challenging when weekend National 12 • • Guard use of the facility overlaps with meetings, weddings, or other large gatherings. Balancing parking distribution for the Community Center should be addressed in planning for downtown revitalization. Block 14 to the east of the Community Center is one of the blocks redeveloped in response to the public investment in the Community Center, and includes the municipal liquor store and a variety of retail spaces for smaller tenants. Based on a target ratio of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet, this block should have a minimum of 140 spaces to support the 35,000 square feet of retail development, but it has only 90 off-street spaces to support it. About 10,000 square feet of the total 35,000 square feet of retail on Block 14 is oriented toward Walnut Street with its access and storefronts facing to the west. This area of the retail space is only supported by 13 on-street public parking spaces located on the east side of Walnut Street. Adding to the lack of available parking for this space, the Walnut Street parking spaces are in high demand for Community Center users, and additional parking on the west side of Walnut Street is seldom available. The 25,000 square feet of Block 14 oriented toward Highway 25 is supported by 90 parking spaces, which results in a ratio of 3.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet, approaching the goal of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet, but still representing a condition of inadequate off-street parking. The parking shortage for Block 14 should be addressed in planning for downtown revitalization. Parking on Block 15 reflects the past use of the existing building as a grocery store with an overall parking ratio approaching 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. It may be possible to reduce parking on Block 15 since the current tenant mix includes a variety of office uses along with the remaining smaller retail tenants. The parking lot layout for Block 15 is based on the utilization of 6th Street functioning as an aisle with multiple curb cuts for the parking on the south side of the block. Since 6th Street is only one block long on the east side of Highway 25, the continued use of 6th Street in this fashion may be acceptable, but it limits the ability to provide for public sidewalk along the north side of 6th Street. • North of the railroad tracks, Blocks 16, 17, 31, 32, and 33 generally reflect acceptable amounts of available off-street parking. Blocks 17, 31, and 32 on the west side of Highway 25 are essentially 100 percent retail and provide overall parking ratios from 4.5 to 6.5 per 1,000 square feet. On the east side of Highway 25, Blocks 16 and 33 exhibit lower ratios, but the available parking appears to support the existing uses. On Block 16, warehouse space offsets the retail use on the south side of the block, and parking for the bank at the northwest corner should be sufficient for the size and type of use. Block 33 includes the former phone company office which has been modified over the years to support more technology and fewer users. Blocks 18 and 19 support the core of Cargill operations in downtown Monticello. This two-block area contains office space, processing space, warehouse space, and research and development space. The available on-site parking represents an overall parking ratio of only 1.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet, which seems low for a manufacturing or industrial use with office and a low percentage of warehouse functions. The shortage of on-site parking is documented in the analysis of parking utilization later in this section, which demonstrates that Cargill relies on both on-street parking and utilization of other private parking to meet parking demands. The office and research facility at the northwest corner of Block 19 appears to have an adequate supply of available parking, but the balance of on-site operations are supported by limited parking at the east end of Block 18 with no room for expansion. The parking shortage at the east end of the property creates additional demand for on-street parking on Walnut Street, and further adds to the parking shortage on Walnut Street associated with the Community Center and retail uses to the east. • 13 The remaining six blocks of the core downtown area north of the railroad tracks flank Broadway and • represent the historic image of downtown Monticello from the first era of downtown development. Properties fronting Broadway historically developed with little or no parking, relying on parking in the street and limited parking to the rear. For blocks 34 and 35 on the south side of Broadway, parking has been supplemented by private and public investment in public parking located on the south half of the two blocks adjacent to 3rd Street. Ratios included in Table 1 above include this off-street public parking which results in adequate parking for Block 34 east of TH-25, and nearly adequate parking for Block 35. However, analysis of utilization in these public parking lots indicates that parking is available throughout the average weekday, which suggests that parking availability is not currently a factor in the success of businesses occupying these two blocks. Block 36 indicates a shortage of parking, which is apparent when breaking down use and ownership for the block. The south half of the block is a combination of a vacant parcel and the State Farm Insurance office, which appears to be parked appropriately. The northern half of the block contains early buildings at the east end, and a redeveloped retail structure with housing above at the west end. Nearly all of the off-street parking in the north half of the lot is owned by, and supports the retail and housing at the west end of the block. Approximately two-thirds of the retail space in Block 36 has little or no parking to support retail or office use, and there is a marked shortage of parking to support the restaurant use for Beef O'Brady's at Broadway and Locust. On the north side of Broadway, Block 51 has about half of the Block developed as housing, and the east half utilized for office and retail, including some uses in former homes along Walnut Street. Including public parking support for this block, the resulting parking ratio is low at 3.4 spaces per 1,000 square feet. For Block 52 to the east of Walnut Street, combined public and private parking results in an even lower ratio of parking at 2.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The parking shortage demonstrated by the low parking ratios is exacerbated by the location of most of the public parking in the northwest corner of Block 52 at an inconvenient distance from the uses fronting Broadway. • Block 53 was evaluated based on the now-complete replacement of the vacant movie theater and selected office uses on the block with the new Walgreen's store and some replacement office space. The overall parking ratio for the block is somewhat low, but reflecting on the fact that the new development is parked based on contemporary standards suggests that the east half of the block is likely to be parked well below optimum levels for the existing office uses. The analysis included public parking on the west side of Cedar Street to supplement the off-street private parking. East Bridge Park and West Bridge Park are both supported by small public parking lots of 14 and 16 spaces respectively. From observations during site visits, the available parking supply is more than adequate to support the existing activity levels in the parks, except during winter break when use of the sliding hill at East Bridge Park sometimes causes overflow of parking onto adjacent local streets. The points below summarize parking supply issues observed within the CCD: • For newer developments south of the railroad tracks at 5th Street, parking availability is consistent with contemporary standards for commercial uses. • One notable exception to this is the block east of the Community Center which exhibits both a shortage of available parking and issues with distribution of parking on the block. • Although overall parking for the Community Center appears to be sufficient, the distribution of available parking forces underutilization of parking west of the building, and competition for parking spaces to the south and east of the building near the main entrances. • 14 • • Commercial blocks between 5th Street and 3rd Street generally contain enough appropriately located parking to support the existing uses, but the demand for this parking is currently low based on tenants,customer use,and the vacancy of the former Walgreen's site. • The blocks occupied by Cargill reflect the situation observed for the Community Center: adequate parking exists near the west end of the property, but shortage of parking based on parking distribution is observed at the east end of the facility at Walnut Street. Shortages based on Cargill needs increase competition for limited parking already evidenced at The Community Center and the retail block to the east. • The two blocks flanking Broadway to the west of Walnut Street both exhibit serious shortage of convenient parking to support storefront retail and office uses fronting on Broadway. Ownership patterns limit the opportunity to provide additional parking with reasonably convenient locations. • The two blocks flanking TH-25 and adjoining the south side of Broadway between Walnut Street and Cedar Street both have relatively large supplies of available public parking to support uses fronting on Broadway. However, the available parking does not relate well to the majority of the storefronts, and little has been done by owners to develop secondary customer entrances on the back sides of the existing structures where parking is available. • The two blocks flanking TH-25 and adjoining the north side of Broadway between Walnut Street and Cedar Street both suffer from a shortage of available parking to support existing uses, and also suffer from shortcomings in parking location for the convenience of users and customers, except for the portion of the block redeveloped for Walgreen's. IIITransportation— Parking Utilization The inventory of available downtown parking was supplemented with a more detailed parking study within the Monticello CCD to assess the utilization of public parking available on a typical weekday. Since private parking lots were not fully utilized during any project team visits to the downtown area, it was determined that only public parking areas should be analyzed for utilization. The objectives of analyzing public parking were two-fold; first, to identify where on-street parking was functioning to supplement off-street private parking, and second, to evaluate if public parking in the vicinity of Broadway is supporting existing uses fronting Broadway in a meaningful way. Because available parking supplies support existing development south of the railroad tracks and 5th Street, and because the problems identified near the Community Center are based on parking location, not utilization, the study was conducted for twelve blocks north of 5th Street. The study area extended to River Street on the north, Locust Street on the West, and Cedar Street on the east. Figure 9 depicts the area studied. All of the public parking spaces (both on-street and off-street)within the study area were counted at the following times: • 8:30 AM, 10:30 AM, and 12:30 PM on Thursday, December 9, 2010. • 3:30 and 5:00 PM on Wednesday,August 24, 2011 • 7:00 and 8:30 AM on Thursday,August 25, 2011 These dates and times were chosen to ensure that the average mid-week parking demand was accounted for during the morning and afternoon peak use times when most of the existing businesses are open. III 15 „ 0 � �� � � Ac„ „..„, ” , 4::. ,.... , „,, ;, ,. ., , . 2. ,, , , . ,,,.•Block si 4:>.,..,_,,,_ „4,--i, ,..,,, ,..44,... , '110..)•'Aik°4'' 7-44 t d/ -.1 c. ij.'-'2 . ' .1•V 2y ' :;;,-. 4 ' % •t,. ' ';,..,:t ,•' . cfj,-.,D6s1‘ 48„^",,..-. ,,,. _,• Bloc fg • '"'" . C.? .''''./ ! 1 I 1 °."1 *' ‘'''' ,- , , /- z - leotkl"? ' 104 \..,` , ,J4 pr • 4.- - 4,*-&,,,. .-..'t - ..• / T ......1 0 0 . ' Bloc fi3 . ,,,title.4 ., y -": .-. Block C.3,. '1/4;/Bpsr : --..,a:-" -'2'''' 4 ..„ , . ., ' *14c,11 , '- •t-i ' , .- Figure 9— Detailed Parking Study Area 16 0 • Detailed count data from the observations is summarized in Table 2, below. Table 2 Public Parking Counts Block Total Spaces Spaces Available Number 7:00 AM 8:30 AM 10:30 AM 12:30 PM 3:30 PM 5:00 PM 16 20 20 20 20 20 19 20 17 20 15 5 2 2 5 18 18 23 0 0 0 2 8 20 31 40 29 29 26 24 25 29 32 30 28 28 26 26 27 28 33 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 34 99 87 86 83 85 87 90 35 134 123 119 105 108 102 105 36 43 42 36 34 27 35 38 51 40 38 36 29 29 32 34 52 74 70 68 53 53 54 54 53 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 Overall 573 496 471 420 418 435 477 87% 83% 74% 74% 77% 84% The counts showed that of the roughly 600 public spaces available within this 12 square block area, approximately 80% are available on a typical weekday. Based on the findings in this parking study, public parking is generally in ample supply within the 12-square-block study area. Between 70% and 4111 90%of the public parking spaces are available throughout an average day. The utilization of public parking that supports uses along Broadway in Blocks 34-36 and 51-53 is a strong indication that lack of available parking is not a significant component contributing to lack of vitality in this segment of the CCD. Rather, the tenant mix reflects the lack of convenience demanded by consumers who complete most shopping trips in settings with ample parking proximate to the facility entrance. The one exception to the general trend of low utilization within the CCD occurs as might be expected within the vicinity of the Cargill facility at 4th and Walnut Streets (Block 18). Parking on this and nearby blocks is in short supply during working hours,forcing employees to park up to a block or two away. The general shortage is amplified at shift changes for the Cargill production operation when there is overlap between employees leaving and arriving for their work day. Employees are also observed parking in adjacent land use parking lots, including the Wells Fargo Bank parking lot across Walnut Street. This is an area where concentration of use and demand for parking, combined with a shortage of available real estate, could argue for structured parking. Because there are multiple parties that would benefit, it may be possible to determine cost distribution that would offset the premium price for structured parking. The points below summarize private and public parking utilization issues observed within the CCD: • Businesses along Broadway are affected more by the location and convenience of parking than by the availability of adequate parking. • Parking shortfalls at Cargill affect public parking on the Cargill blocks and also spill over onto 4th Street,Walnut Street, and other underutilized private parking to the east. • 17 • Cargill's demand for parking in the Walnut Street corridor competes with unmet demands • created by the Community Center and the retail shops to the east with inadequate parking. • Based on utilization, on-street public parking is not a significant contributor to the downtown parking supply except in the blocks containing and adjacent to Cargill. • Structured parking solutions may be financially feasible in areas of concentrated parking demand with limited parking supplies or limited real estate available to develop parking. It was also noted that most of the existing parking lots have no contemporary storm water management facilities. Future parking facilities should incorporate storm water infiltration and ponding to the maximum extent practicable. Transportation—Access Access to the Monticello CCD originates on the two arterial roadways through the downtown area with connections to the regional transportation system. For north-south travel, TH-25 (Pine Street) provides access with connections at Interstate 94 to the south, and Highway 10 and County Roads 11 and 14 to the north. Results of the market investigation for the downtown area indicate that regions to the north of Highway 10 and to the south of Interstate 94 also rely on TH-25 for access to downtown Monticello. Traffic volumes for northbound and southbound trips on TH-25 were compared for both the AM Peak Hour and PM Peak Hour to determine whether or not there was a difference in orientation for commuters that would favor one side or the other of TH-25 for retail uses, since most retailers prefer the side of an arterial roadway with higher PM Peak Hour (going-home) trips. From observed traffic counts the northbound and southbound trips are fairly evenly distributed for both Peak Hour periods, • indicating no clear advantage to either the east or west side of TH-25 from the standpoint of ease of access for commuters on their homeward bound trip. East-west travel to and through the CCD is provided primarily by County Road 75 (Broadway),with travel demand fueled by the power plant to the west of downtown,the middle school and hospital complex to the east of downtown, and the retail node and Interstate 94 access at Broadway and CSAH 18. Direct access opportunities to downtown properties adjacent to these arterial routes are limited by the need to control intersection spacing to accommodate existing and future traffic levels. The existing intersection spacing for public streets in the downtown area represents something close to the functional minimum spacing required by traffic volumes, and is less than most intersection spacing recommendations for high-volume corridors. Future roadway capacity improvements on TH-25 and County Road 75 will include the addition of turn lanes at locations where they may extend beyond existing curb cuts for driveways and alleys. The need to reserve roadway capacity for future growth suggests that as much local access as practical be moved from these two arterial streets to the east-west "side"streets and to the Walnut Street and Cedar Street corridors that parallel TH-25. With additional constraints on access from TH-25 and County Road 75 it will become increasingly important to maintain the existing grid street system in the downtown area. The street grid provides for flexibility in where connections serving the downtown area intersect the arterial routes, and allow for dispersal of traffic within the downtown CCD district. Options for travel routes will help avoid traffic concentrations that require additional intersection improvements on local streets in the downtown area. There is sufficient capacity on the downtown street grid to accommodate traffic growth from • 18 • revitalization of the downtown area without additional business traffic diverting to the residential streets adjacent to the downtown area. Some additional traffic is likely to utilize 4th Street between Elm Street on the west, and Washington Street on the east after implementation of the proposed traffic signal at TH-25 and 4th Street due to the enhanced ability to cross TH-25 at that location with a traffic signal. Transportation—Pedestrian Facilities An existing network of sidewalks along public streets provides the primary accommodation for pedestrian circulation through the Monticello downtown area. Figure 10 illustrates the existing sidewalk system servicing downtown developments. -t.--"If."1—Z.* C-::i''''V ft' 's 44-. 'f°''' .14'-'9.- 4 i v„.,/, „...., , , 4,---, 4. ''‘ , ........, * _ k ' ......., , . , 6-"..• : 4:1011ir • ' .4.-*46-:4;)ji ii-. t -44,40., ik-4'4 „. , ,1,,,,.(St.ric. .• 11_,.: imr• 1%1,, A.'�, .r : .d j H l E 1 , " nix ," z :'� ..0..,'.�.,1:._Li .. L' j 1,._ __-. A S�MEES E.S ,, -.T1,..!_,.,-/-1,.-,-trf„--,t.;;.. III ,iti 1,... ,,, ....„-,,,..„,.... ,i4.. :It___I i'ILL 4,-. ,14:•324,,,,,,---4, ! i',,.,..I.,.,. 1 +.4-f!'‘.-4-7 '1iii r' 41.:7,410, . X 33... 7-511i.,..-1J,,,,' `. k 33". 1 ''f ...44. - 'y -fin 3" Cu i_a..�i 3`�,- i. .a V icy` lin i ?�� .-..,....1...'. . ....t,.'........,... ....a..w ,-.y'7 _if 11-'+''1 � y."��aof -' 1 ' - .r ati \* ..-.,1 "x. � eE � ■ raj., «iwii -AC it l p J${ ] _ 4. 1._. 1 1 1 `.A�..ti t- .,.. ,..., . Al,'ti,lifffsa__..... r _ .1 1-.,...,1 7--C D:. .:.*4..,.. , ,„„,..„ :,ASA._' 4 #+ i "4 f • V Figure 10- Downtown Sidewalk System 411 19 The network of sidewalks through the downtown area is relatively complete, but has some segments missing in locations that would enhance movement between the Activity Centers described earlier: • Connection from 7th Street and Walnut Street to the storefront area of the Cub Foods Center • Better connection from Walnut at River Street to West Bridge Park • Better connection from Highway 25 and 7th Street intersection to Block 3 with Perkins and the other restaurants and service uses in that quadrant of the intersection. Also, as noted above in the parking inventory and analysis, convenient pedestrian pathways to existing commercial storefronts are lacking in a number of areas, especially for the uses along Broadway where the bulk of available parking is located remotely from the building and customer entrances. The existing downtown area is also lacking in other pedestrian facilities and amenities such as benches and seating areas, sidewalk area landscaping, and directory and way-finding signage to facilitate movement through the downtown. Existing facilities are limited to benches in some locations along Walnut and Broadway Streets, and around the entries to some of the public facilities such as the Library and Community Center. Expansion of amenities for pedestrians should be incorporated into plans for revitalizing downtown. Connections to destinations beyond the boundaries of the CCD provide important linkages to other parts of the community to help promote use of pedestrian facilities within the CCD. Important existing pedestrian connections to the CCD occur at: • Westerly extensions of Broadway sidewalks at Linn street • Easterly extensions of Broadway sidewalks at Palm street 411 • Westerly extension of sidewalk on the north side of 4th Street at Linn Street • Easterly extension of a trail on the north side of 7th Street from Palm Street These connections should be preserved, and in some cases extended as future street connections are completed, especially when future crossings to the south side of Interstate 94 are accomplished. Review of off-site connections and existing facilities within the CCD suggest that a number of missing segments of sidewalk could be added to improve connectivity for pedestrians that would promote pedestrian use in the CCD. These include potential sidewalk segments to be added: • From Minnesota Street to Elm Street along either side of future 7th Street • From Minnesota Street to Elm Street along the north side of 4th Street • From Locust Street to Maple Street along either side of 6th Street • From Maple Street to Elm Street along either side of 6th Street • From Cedar Street to Washington Street along either side of 4th Street Although sidewalks exist along TH-25 from 7th Street to River Street, the right-of-way width and existing development dictates a lack of separation from vehicular traffic for pedestrians in this corridor to the north of 5th Street. TH-25 is an unfriendly environment for pedestrians, and adjustments to how pedestrians are accommodated in the TH-25 corridor"should be taken into consideration as plans for revitalization are developed. 20 • • Pedestrian Crossings of TH-25 and Broadway One of the primary issues facing pedestrians in downtown Monticello is how to cross TH-25 and Broadway safely within the downtown area. Currently, controlled pedestrian crossing is available at the following locations: • TH-25 at bridge underpass in the parks north of River Street • TH-25 and Broadway intersection • TH-25 and 7th Street intersection The north/south crossing of Broadway in the CCD is another issue for pedestrian movement and connections through the downtown area. Currently, only one signalized crossing opportunity exists; at TH-25. Under existing conditions, low traffic volumes on Broadway during most hours of business operation permit crossing at the unsignalized intersections to the west and east (Walnut, Locust, Cedar, etc.) of TH-25. However, as traffic volumes on Broadway continue to grow, crossing at these unsignalized locations will become more problematic. As noted earlier, the desire to connect Activity Centers on either side of Broadway, especially along Walnut Street, will require solutions that allow convenient crossing of Broadway. When warranted,a signal system should be provided at Locust Street, which will provide a controlled crossing of Broadway for pedestrians. Transportation - Bicycle Circulation and Facilities • The major issues confronting bicyclists in the Monticello downtown area include high traffic volumes on TH-25 and lack of dedicated facilities. In large part, as shown on the City's Existing Parks and Pathways Plan, bicyclists must share lanes with automobile traffic in the CCD. No dedicated bicycle facilities,other than posted on-road bike lanes on River Street between Washington Street and Otter Creek Road, and trails located within East and West Bridge Parks adjacent to the Mississippi River exist within the CCD. In order to improve service for bicyclists, implementation of a comprehensive dedicated network of bicycle facilities is needed. Such a plan has been developed by the City and published in May of 2011 as the Park and Trail Draft System Plan. The Park and Trail Draft System Plan identifies two corridors within the CCD as bicycle corridors: • Broadway is identified as a Primary Pathway Route • Highway 25 is identified as a Secondary Pathway Route While bicycle use of these two facilities within the CCD is not prohibited,the current geometric design of these two roadway facilities does not promote safe and convenient use by bicycles. To the extent possible, as improvements are made to both Broadway and TH-25, a prudent action would be to design the improvements mindful of bicyclists as users in addition to automobiles. Due to right-of-way constraints based on existing development within the CCD, the bicycle facilities developed for these roadways will likely need to be of the on-street variety (wide shoulders or dedicated bike lanes), as opposed to dedicated off-street trail facilities, especially for the near term. • 21 The implementation of bicycle facilities on TH-25, while recommended in the City's Park and Trail Draft III System Plan, runs contrary to the MnDOT functional classification of TH-25 as an arterial roadway, the primary purpose of which is to carry regional vehicular traffic. As preliminary-level design of bicycle- related improvements in this corridor is undertaken, consideration should be given to providing off- street bicycle pathways through the CCD. Land Use Existing land use in the Monticello CCD can be broken down into two major categories of use; residential and commercial. Although promoted by the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan, mixed residential and commercial use has not emerged as a significant use in the CCD. Stakeholder interviews conducted for this study indicated support for the continued segregation of residential and commercial use in order to: • Funnel public investment into commercial redevelopment to promote downtown business • Retain downtown land area for future commercial and business development, including parking • Focus revitalization efforts on the most visible problems with the existing downtown; vacant and run-down commercial properties, and • Protect residential properties from pressure to redevelop and from potential use of eminent domain for property acquisition. _ Figure 11 - Land Use illustrates generalized i land use for the CCD District and two °' '"' _ additional blocks adjacent to the CCD east J �_", ®® iJ l 1^ of TH-25. The pattern of use illustrated III I Mock 54 ",,.' i ,_ indicates that the bulk of the purely .,:E45 E if commercial land use in the CCD occurs in . o 1 ab,,L.0 a �„ ., , 9., * Mak It 1 the blocks to the west of TH-25 between �,.,�,,,q£E„,. .a.,, , the freeway and River Street. Aside from — «in.4,� ,,,,„ .;_' t? * 4 concentrations of low and mid-density 1 .' ,__ housing between 6th and 7th Streets to the A.- ., W 1 1 LI T, west of Locust Street, residential land use UI.<" o m,„3,In : G ►n " «li 4 f 1 = a ! HI,' west of TH-25 occurs along the west edge ''T"" of the district from 4t Street north to the s 0a 4 :rIA, "t } ? i Mississippi River. Delineation between `` ��_'4 'a-- ------ commercial and residential land uses west I: - ' '.--1 � i l, a �~ of TH-25 are generally sharply defined I I ' " ` _ I it �I�"I along the existing public streets. + . i- i �ti t .��_,f IL r al nri . ! ` �l qi. T To the east of TH-25, the segregation of ## -th.,==K. = lc ,..0 - - commercial and residential land uses is 1; , quite well defined from the freeway to 5th t ,-, "',, q \',,N.' Street. But from 5th Street north to River . — Street and East Bridge Park, all of the ¢ ; , blocks flanking Cedar Street except the two \e -;- ; i ®cat Broadway contain a mix of residential -.- 1 i kaaieanBtl Lana u.. i i and commercial land use with a significant percentage of single-family residential land. III Figure 11—Land Use 22 • Because residential land use will be more difficult and expensive to redevelop than commercial use areas, the more homogenous commercial areas on the west side of TH-25 should be considered as the most likely redevelopment properties based on existing land use. The blocks to the east of TH-25 provide access and visibility equal to those on the west side, but will be harder to redevelop for commercial use because they are constrained by the presence of numerous existing single-family residences. Building Condition As noted earlier, commercial development in the downtown area started along Broadway, and has extended to the south over time. The newest commercial developments and structures, and therefore those in the best physical condition, occur to the south of the railroad corridor at 5th Street. In the CCD north of 5th Street, there is a greater mix of - (-7' \--r-~` new structures, newly renovated structures, __7— and aging and obsolete structures. Aging ._z7 )' / structures in poor physical condition do occur in the CCD, and in many cases, R a9:N11F5` ,i`I 1 , -� a� �� a -1, structural condition has continued to jrh{-f a I.-k 1 i Hw�k ui ice t j�,�11 Iµ,4.�-�r, ,, }� deteriorate due to business loss and low SII (} E i''', C r r- ' {$— i ,Hrwk H �"� � i _..�1 f' 4 ,� o aranw^ aowew. "" '�-�g� r �.L --- -- rentalincome for property owners in the i' i t ,,,,,H.' - f [11:-T r GLM I i:; v'_: rue R,k(j 0 V,µk3Xi r"z tt,.,e'„!, �,gr,,) older downtown area. A number of the mos -L _-°`---.- ""-"- `" "T _ --- existing buildings along the Broadway III if- -i-= l.t`N3;1 O'sdit,' 'k', P ,H ki f ,t,r.k'_� ;IhrgiDi," , kt, corridor fall into this category. II 1:71 1 ,;,:,,L.;;;1ut r-lL"j .r] J I The locations of aging and obsolete I i" l9 C:1461 j Z` L"- ;1110r1 I fn 1commercial properties in the CCD are V -}- a i,i - illustrated to the left in Figure 12. The 1i "'°i i � �,µ �, designation illustrated in Figure 12 includes 4iws rs1.e r T I i l, i"7 --, iii rj i several properties that are commercial V , rarr6tio- n�u. ra *�, t i operations, but residential land uses. LLI,' itiiil �i ,,i : ,-5,9 ? Properties fitting this description include i -���\j,�� � � 1 `Q3 rental property at the northwest corner of ;} Rkw1 '',F-e,_ a - ♦` b - Walnut Street and River Street across from :,.\.-,--:___----- \ West Bridge Park, and rental property at the ,, southwest corner of Cedar Street at L_-- ,-_-_4 i _ Broadway• - r 1=Z..' gi�q w°b�oNu 1 Figure 12—Aging and Obsolete Properties In addition to structures in poor physical condition,there are issues with obsolescence in the downtown area, especially in the older segment along Broadway that is hampered by a lack of well-placed convenient parking for tenants and their customers. Even structures in reasonably good condition along the Broadway corridor are difficult to lease and operate a business from due to lack of parking. In many cases the form of the older buildings is also inconsistent with the desires of contemporary retail tenants. IIThe older buildings are generally quite narrow, and excessively deep from front to rear as compared to 23 what is the typical form for lease space for small retail and service commercial uses in more 410 contemporary shopping areas. The excess depth is undesirable for tenants who are therefore unwilling to pay for it, and the additional depth makes store layout and operation more difficult. Where these concerns are combined with a lack of parking, or with a parking supply only to the rear of the building, space becomes even harder to lease. Rear entrances to stores have offered partial solutions where owners have implemented them, but these additional entrances create additional demands for signage and architectural enhancement of the rear of structures, and create operational problems by adding additional control points that require monitoring by store employees. Parcel Suitability The Monticello EDA canvassed downtown property owners via a voluntary survey taken in 2009 to determine the location and � � ," extentof willing sellers of .� --` 1-:-`4!‘alf,,:**: ::i..4• � " :,, propertyintheCCD. As 1/4i�'r• ,,,. . •. expected, there turned out 110 _ .; rt<'41j '' ' ,,,�� a" •g :0411• 4. . to be a relatively strong ' t.4, M .ti f' `'' «'' t+`� ▪ 'A :, �4. correlation between parcel i a at `fes ir `X.) '' r -I < ..r , • °� '",- "tel' i owners willingto sell, and .6' c ; - 61 1 j�.. S 1%• +.r':� .,;�'t. properties that fit the 4.fi .; ., 0-;:,"A' `.. description of aging and keit All J .. � 1/ `"'� ' obsolete as described above. -sem}._`.:IL_i'�jt' .....C.c.La.,i.:.?4'-�L: t• „ 'c IP t 1= iI w-. ; i.1 lir f Imo' <<ws�" 'r',..", The distribution of available "ATT,-1--it: ,s : x. ,:,1*.° ° r✓ ± ' ,;, ...�` `�. ,� properties should be an t IIII w w> ,/ s� �1a i '# 'u; .1 � �tx ,� •„ ' ,. :Ltx1 indicator of locations where r ,tS $. Rr--�,* 4 „Ail. y,--'- property acquisition could ;,E _ ;� . occur between a willing 0,-'' ' �x t_ ;+ � , s o ' � ,f ' .” - e ,,' r k ! ';, !i seller and a willing buyer to c'` "E' ti facilitate redevelopment. .ff >? ; `it - t i • . - t lzT ,i.�i"°'~ •X{/� Figure 13 illustrates parcels _ ,�. *e" , located within the CCD that ,, , . II s represent either willing laiT" r- r ", R �'r _ .j i _I + sellers,or public ownership. . ..., xlt 4 3 w:u r t' , w A Recognizing concentrations f � r, ; , Y s- v of available property is t-. - 'dj ! �x 1 _" ;, f`' especially important in Monticello where the \ t� +� t „ , ,' '&. pattern of downtown -. - d l' . property ownership is si ,! n - ,A 3�:. `' '' # diverse with a large number 3* `, .` ,, ,, ,; z. of owners of relatively small , -- ,.„ e - parcels within a several block t " '.., t I Willing Sellers concentrated area of the r7 1 r�� I', l CityOwned/Public downtown area. Figure 13—Willing Sellers 24 • • Most potential redevelopment will require consolidation of multiple properties to assemble enough land to achieve a redevelopment site. Recent attempts to consolidate properties for a Walgreen's development and for a CVS Pharmacy development near Broadway Street and Highway 25 were complicated by the need to deal concurrently with multiple property owners with diverse requirements and expectations. For Walgreen's,the process was successful;for CVS,the process ended when owners and CVS were unable to agree. Acquisition of residential properties is also challenging for many of the same reasons that make it difficult to compile multiple small commercial sites. For residential use it is also more politically challenging to displace homeowners who in many cases have occupied properties in the CCD for many years with the expectation that their immediate neighborhood would remain residential. For these reasons it is recommended that the initial redevelopment activity in the CCD occur in those areas where landowners are willing to sell,or where the EDA and City already own property. Monticello—The Sub-Regional Center between St. Cloud and Maple Grove Monticello plays a key role in the 1-94 corridor between St. Cloud and Maple Grove and the US 10 corridor between St. Cloud and Elk River. It functions as a sub-regional center for employment, health care,shopping, and entertainment/recreation. III Major employers — Xcel Energy, New River Medical Center, and corporate headquarters for Cargill Kitchen Solutions — draw customers and suppliers, construction and repair workers, patients and visitors. They generate traffic for local restaurants, hotels and other businesses while providing a diverse range of high quality employment opportunities. Families from throughout the region are attracted to the health care facilities, community center, the hockey arena, restaurants, the theater and other entertainment opportunities in Monticello. The community center in particular draws visitors to the downtown area: • 200,000 visits per year are generated by the exercise/recreation portion of the facility • 25,000 — 30,000 visits per year are driven by business meetings and social gatherings in the meeting rooms • 6-8 times per year the national guard center brings 210 soldiers to town for the weekend • Additional activity is generated by the senior center,voting and other civic activities Revitalization of downtown Monticello can build on the community's role as the sub-regional center and enhance the community's position as a regional draw in diverse ways: • Create an environment that encourages additional retail and service sector business activity, consistent with market potential. • Enhance access and opportunities for recreational access along the Mississippi River. Active programming of the riverfront could complement active programming at the Community Center, and draw visitors through the downtown area to the riverfront. III 25 • Strengthen Monticello's role as a sub-regional center for arts and cultural activities. The • community center and riverfront can be key assets in this strategy. • Address business concerns about the lack of housing opportunities for executive and management personnel. • Encourage other positive activities (e.g. gathering places, sports, recreation, culture, entertainment)that draw regional residents to the community,especially the downtown area. Trade Area Characteristics& Market Potential Patrons already utilizing existing businesses, attractions, and Activity Centers within the CCD are the easiest market to capture to fuel expansion of the downtown. The market analysis completed by the McComb Group indicates that a large percentage of customers using downtown originate in a trade area that expands beyond Monticello, but that would generally be described as local. Capturing potential customers from the volume of through trips on TH-25 and to a lesser extent on Broadway is a possibility that will appeal to a variety of retailers and developers of retail and service commercial uses. To capture this potential,the organization of new downtown development needs to be accomplished in a way that maximizes and preserves the view sheds to these two roadway corridors, and to the key downtown location where they intersect. The selection of this intersection by Walgreen's as a location to redevelop within the Monticello CCD is evidence of the importance of high-traffic locations to retailers. The market study also identified projected demand for a variety of retail, commercial, service, and office uses that could locate in the CCD. Table 3 summarizes demand and compares it to estimates of existing businesses within the CCD. As indicated in the table by the column labeled 2010 Additional Demand, the market existed at the time of the analysis to expand uses by over 235,000 square feet, or a 60% expansion of existing downtown business. Columns labeled 2015 and 2020 indicate cumulative demand from 2010. Cumulative demand for the period to 2020 is forecast to be 371,500 square feet of potential development. Table 3-Summary of Market Potential Square Feet of Gross Leasable Area Merchandise Recommended Additional Demand Existing 2010 2015 2020 Grocery Stores 71,000 SF 15,000 SF 45,000 SF 45,000 SF Convenience Goods 30,700 SF 18,000 SF 19,300 SF 24,800 SF Food Service 60,000 SF 16,000 SF 16,000 SF 23,000 SF Convenience/Gasoline 6,000 SF 5,000 SF 5,000 SF 5,000 SF General Merchandise 85,000 SF 73,000 SF 83,000 SF 95,000 SF Apparel 0 SF 12,000 SF 24,000 SF 30,000 SF Furniture/Home Furnishings 9,000 SF 9,000 SF 9,000 SF 15,000 SF Electronic&Appliances 4,000 SF 12,000 SF 12,000 SF 12,000 SF Other Shopping Goods 38,500 SF 17,000 SF 17,000 SF 24,000 SF Services 55,500 SF 8,500 SF 18,300 SF 22,700 SF Health Care 16,800 SF 50,000 SF 70,000 SF 75,000 SF Total 389,500 SF 235,500 SF 318,600 SF 371,500 SF Source: McComb Group, Ltd. 26 • • Not all of the additional Market Potential as summarized above will be captured in the CCD or even in aggregate including the other commercial districts within Monticello. To put the demand into additional perspective, contemporary retail/commercial development with adequate parking and primarily single- story development consumes about one acre of land for each 10,000 square feet of development. The average downtown block is approximately 2.5 acres, so it has the basic capability to support at least 25,000 square feet of development. On this basis, the identified potential in the current time frame (2010)would require 23.5 acres,or approximately 9 blocks of the downtown area. Looking at demand over an even longer time frame of ten years showed a potential for 371,500 square feet of new development. Even at the modest capture level of 35% of that total demand, new development in the CCD would be 130,000 square feet requiring up to 13.0 acres of land, or the equivalent of over 5 full blocks of the downtown. These illustrations are intended to demonstrate that the potential for sufficient new demand to fuel redevelopment in the CCD exists if the conditions required to capture it can be achieved. III III 27 Chapter 2 - Revitalizing Downtown Planning Process • Community Goals and Guiding Principles The Land Use chapter of the Monticello Comprehensive Guide Plan as updated in 2008 includes a more detailed discussion of vision,goals, and policies for several critical areas of the community, including the downtown area. The description of the downtown Monticello area included specific strategies for downtown development and redevelopment that attempted to capture observations of the ongoing transitions in the downtown area, and of the response to the 1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan. The ten strategies outlined are paraphrased below in the form of goal statements representing current policy objectives for the downtown area: • The downtown focus area should extend from the River to 7th Street, and from Locust Street on the west to Cedar Street on the east. • Downtown land use should be a mix of retail, service, office, civic, and residential development. Cargill should be encouraged to remain in the downtown area. • With continued traffic growth on TH-25, it is essential to form a strong link along Walnut Street between the river, Broadway businesses, and the Community Center to establish connections between the factors that attract people to the downtown. • To help create a new "main street" all new development on Walnut Street should have storefronts oriented to Walnut Street. • The City should explore ways to improve pedestrian and bicycle experience along Walnut. • It is essential to prevent the use of Walnut Street for"by-pass" or"cut-through"traffic as traffic volumes increase on TH-25. Traffic calming measures should be applied to Walnut Street. • • Housing should supplement and support downtown commercial development. Housing should be encouraged on the edges of downtown, not as a replacement for commercial use, and all housing in the downtown should be multiple family housing. • Strong connections to adjacent neighborhoods should be promoted for the downtown; pedestrian crossings of TH-25 at Broadway and 7th Street should be enhanced. • Downtown connections with the River should be enhanced, especially at Walnut Street. • Downtown access would be improved by trail or bike lane improvements along River Street to take advantage of the controlled intersection with TH-25. These objectives have been evaluated by the consultant team as part of updating earlier downtown goals and their relevance for current market and development conditions. A number of these have been carried forward as new goals and objectives have been formulated to guide and develop new recommendations for the redevelopment of the CCD. Vision and Guiding Principles From the interviews conducted, interaction with city staff, and observations of the consultant team, a Vision for the CCD was created to frame decision-making and evaluation of alternative plan approaches: Downtown Monticello is the sub regional center for business, professional, personal, health care services, dining and river-anchored recreation between St. Cloud and Maple Grove. Retail vitality is created by anchor stores and businesses that provide shopping and convenience goods in a human scale environment and are concentrated in districts with safe and convenient access and good parking. Retail, • 28 • dining and entertainment businesses build on proximity to the Mississippi River,parks and trails to create an activity node for outdoor recreation including bicycling, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, walking, sledding,skating and bird watching. Expansion of the Vision allows definition of the forces unique to Monticello that should shape planning and implementation of successful downtown development and redevelopment. These forces are outlined in the Guiding Principles that follow: • Build on core assets of greater downtown Monticello: o Monticello's role as the sub regional center between St. Cloud & Maple Grove o Mississippi River&city parks o Traffic generated by the Mississippi River crossing o New River Medical Center o Community Center o Employee/customer/visitor base created by Xcel,Cargill & New River Medical Center o New Walgreen's • A shared vision among property owners, business owners, and the City is the foundation for effective team work and long term success. • A shared understanding of realistic market potential is the foundation for design and generation of a healthy business mix. • A safe, attractive human scale environment and entrepreneurial businesses that actively emphasize personal customer service will differentiate downtown from other shopping districts. • The river is a distinctive asset that differentiates downtown Monticello and serves as a foundation for design and as a focus for activity. • • Property values can be enhanced if property owners and the city share a vision for downtown and actively seek to cultivate a safe,appealing environment and attractive business mix. • The city and business community must work actively with MnDOT to ensure safe local access to business districts. The consultant team also developed Goals for achieving the Vision outlined above. One of the primary purposes of stated goals is to use them to evaluate decisions and recommendations that evolve during the planning process. Goals will be used to evaluate alternative solutions for the CCD as plans are developed and refined. The following goals emerged as important from the review of prior directions and from research and interviews by the consultant team: LAND USE • Diversify Land use in the downtown; supplement retail and service uses with other activities that generate traffic. • Encourage redevelopment of old and obsolete structures; encourage consolidation of small parcels with multiple ownerships. • Balance parking and land use to ensure availability of adequate parking at all times. • Encourage mixed use but don't make it a requirement or prerequisite for development or redevelopment. • Discourage residential as a free-standing land use within the core downtown area. • Establish physical connections between the core downtown area and the riverfront and park. • Encourage land uses that serve as evening and weekend attractions to the downtown area. • 29 • Expand facilities and parking adjacent to West Bridge Park to help create an anchor attraction at III the north end of Walnut Street. TRANSPORTATION • Acknowledge that TH-25 will be limited in terms of providing direct property access. • Develop circulation patterns that utilize local streets for individual site access. • Recognize TH-25 as a barrier between the east and west parts of the historic downtown core areas extending to either side of the TH-25 corridor. • Consider developing in districts to reduce the need or desire to cross TH-25 between 7th Street and the river crossing. • Strengthen pedestrian ties throughout downtown including connections to other parts of the City to the south, west, and east. Downplay TH-25 as a corridor for pedestrian movement. • Improve pedestrian connections between Broadway and the riverfront park areas to allow the parks to serve as an attraction that brings people into the downtown area. • Improve access to the Mississippi River to expand on recreational opportunities. • Explore creation of a fourth signalized intersection on TH-25 at 4th Street to improve access to areas with development and redevelopment potential on either side of the TH-25 corridor. DOWNTOWN DESIGN AND IMAGE • Encourage design standards that elevate the quality of downtown development without creating undue hardships for property and building owners. • Acknowledge that the historic"Main Street" buildings and developments along Broadway Street • are functionally obsolete for many tenants and users in today's automobile and convenience- driven marketplace. • The public realm of streets, boulevards and sidewalks represents the best opportunity to create an interim image for downtown as it redevelops. • The TH-25 and Broadway corridors should be softened with streetscape and landscape features to offset the effects of high traffic volumes, and to help establish an identity for the CCD. • Development should orient toward the intersection of TH-25 with Broadway to take advantage of high traffic volumes in the TH-25 corridor. • New development in the TH-25 corridor should be scaled to allow visibility to development up to a block or more away from TH-25. • New buildings in the TH-25 and Broadway corridors should be located to allow for eventual widening of the corridor right-of-way and roadway. • To the extent possible, buildings should occupy street frontages and should front on public sidewalks with connections to a continuous "downtown"sidewalk pedestrian system. • Proposed uses should have adequate parking (private or public) within easy and convenient walking distance. • The downtown plan should provide strategically located public gathering spaces to bring people together to experience a sense of community that is associated with downtown. Concepts for downtown redevelopment should provide solutions to problems and issues identified in the research and analysis of downtown conditions that are directed by the stated goals for Land Use, Transportation, and Design and Image. The preferred solutions should be those that best meet those goals. • 30 • Development Plan Alternatives Four alternative plans for redevelopment were prepared utilizing the results of the research and site analysis, market investigation, and goals developed for Land Use,Transportation,and Downtown design and Image. The purpose of the alternative plans was to test the capacity of the downtown area to meet market demand, and to explore options for achieving the development goals. The direction taken in formulating alternatives was based on selecting a downtown strategy favoring redevelopment and reorientation of downtown over simply upgrading existing structures and filling gaps with selected infill development. Because the predominant opportunities for downtown redevelopment occur to the north of the 5th Street rail corridor,the alternative plans initially were focused within that portion of the CCD. Upgrading existing building stock and filling gaps appears to be a feasible, low cost approach to revitalization within the CCD, but this approach has issues meeting market expectations due to: • 80%of existing buildings don't orient toward TH-25 and the access and visibility it provides • Most existing downtown buildings o Have deferred maintenance issues o Need to be brought up to code o Have the wrong store front to depth dimensions o Are larger than most tenants desire • The cost to upgrade buildings and correct code deficiencies exceeds building value • Existing buildings do not meet the needs or expectations of credit tenants. Because of these shortcomings, the consultant team recommends a strategy to redevelop downtown • and orient it toward TH-25. This strategy for downtown revitalization meets many more of the market forces that affect where retailers and other commercial businesses prefer to locate, including: • TH-25 has twice the traffic counts of Broadway • Retailers want to locate with access from high-volume streets • Downtown needs anchor stores to attract customers • Many retailers need typical, contemporary store spaces that accommodate their prototypes • Retailers want convenient customer parking • Retailers want visibility from high-volume streets Within this overall strategy, the alternatives were consciously prepared with a variety of approaches concerning land use, building height, retention of public streets, and other factors affecting plan efficiency and total redevelopment square footage. This was done to allow the affects of different approaches to be compared. The four alternative plans are described below and include: Compact Scheme A Compact Scheme B Expanded Scheme C Minimalist Scheme D A number of concepts or solutions were adopted that appear in all four of the solutions prepared. These common themes represent solutions that the consultant team considers critical for a successful redevelopment plan based on the issues facing downtown Monticello. Common themes include: • 31 • Focus redevelopment activity on the north side of the 5th Street rail corridor in the areas of the • CCD with the highest percentage of aging and obsolete properties, and willing sellers. • Assume upgraded access from TH-25 in the form of a signalized intersection at 4th Street. • Offset the addition of a new traffic signal at 4th Street with access modifications at 3`d Street to help maintain traffic progression in the TH-25 corridor. • Plan redevelopment around the intersection of TH 25 and Broadway in a form that opens visibility from this major intersection to development in all four of the quadrants adjoining the intersection. • To the extent possible, create and maintain visibility from the TH-25 corridor to new developments. • Include a retail anchor in a prominent location. • Retain existing properties where property condition and fit with the proposed redevelopment warrants retention. • Supplement parking shortages in areas where parking shortages were observed, especially near Cargill and adjacent to Broadway. • Re-establish connections along Walnut Street from Broadway to West Bridge Park. The plans were prepared utilizing consistent criteria for parking, with an objective of providing 4 spaces per 1000 square feet of development throughout the CCD. The parking illustrated includes expansion of parking as required to provide 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet in support of existing structures to remain, even where that parking ratio is not currently achieved. The proposed parking ratio is low by typical suburban standards, but is appropriate for an urban setting where a variety of uses share common parking areas. • Uniform treatment has been assumed for all four alternatives for the area south of the 5th Street corridor. Primary components include: • Enhanced connections between the Cub Foods shopping center and the Community Center utilizing the Walnut Street corridor. • Creation of streetscape or urban design features at TH-25 and 7th Street establishing the southerly entrance to the CCD. • Long-term conversion of a portion of Block 14 east of the Community Center from retail use to open space to create both a civic gathering space in proximity to the Community Center, and to promote the Community Center by increasing its visibility. This change would also help balance parking demand in what is currently a problematic location. Compact Scheme A This alternative illustrates the concept of focusing similar uses in districts where complementary uses share areas that are located along the edges of the regional TH-25 and Broadway corridors that will provide access and visibility to uses. The role of TH-25 as a divider as well as a source of customers is acknowledged by the placement of most retail uses on the west side of TH-25 and most service commercial and office uses on the east side of TH-25. This organizing principle reduces the amount of pedestrian interaction that may be required across TH-25. Figure 14 on the next page illustrates the two 32 1111 • corridors and the arrangement of uses to either side. Existing structures to remain are included with the lighter color, and proposed structures are highlighted with darker color. .O>. ,,.,'. t�w..wacs r--e j , y v 25-..44 tl , FF /J # .-�_.�.�...__/ -- • •✓ .• (/('''r' / _ !—1:5 1 ..._ ,.- tij r + t}, EI 4s p,10'4 i. r 4:ki ,. j( 1 , • 1111 r ; 'q Ort 1;•: ,,l-- t) 1 C -...J.r.rr I 11--•- -'4' r- i a r .r I �...., _ _ 7-.- ,�..i (r • j t i v ..._y fig FeF ' 14, _.___..__._.. v__ ._ __.y' �.. _ .-_.� _ _.._:::a�.-, 1.L.. i` ' r—,, a,sf 44 ,, I t-.1 j 1 Llk,.1`��F i.—, }1 c-, . , .rtj•-ri !I.�'_ 11 I 1 n r,—' -'£-113 U t. ; F. ` a _ d i, ,17-1 i J I i i 41 iil,""' ,ll !i ;� 3H jfis( -. f 4 I r . 4,ff 1 - ___ i i+ _�" fir; 1 +. I i`i i 14 } --li { } -f I u l ID, ,s+� 'y'k; 1 ,w l ..--.._...._ 'mow / s r „ rciFic-ii , , 1 ! 1 aw,et- ` ,t.( �, 1 '-T"' t i -I ......_727:::, -t - 1 ki z/i .'�--ii r- 1 .jrt +i i E F _ • 1 n jA } Figure 14—Compact Scheme A The plan shows how development can be organized around the intersection of TH-25 with Broadway to allow visibility of new development in the adjoining blocks and beyond to Walnut Street. The east side of TH-25 from 5th Street to Broadway is programmed as service commercial, office, and medical office or clinic as predominant uses. New structures are pushed back from the TH-25 corridor where possible to open site lines and create convenient parking areas that relate to fronts of buildings oriented toward the highway. On the back side of these blocks adjacent to Cedar Street,the street corridor is framed by buildings constructed up to the right-of-way lines. This creates an edge that will make pedestrian circulation comfortable in the Cedar street corridor as opposed to the less desirable TH-25 corridor. ID 33 North of Broadway, the block to the east of TH-25 is illustrated with the Walgreen's development and • office or medical office on the balance of the block in a two-story configuration. The blocks to the east of Cedar Street also illustrate replacement of existing residential uses adjacent to Cedar Street with infill commercial uses to complete the commercial image along Cedar. In this scenario, Cedar Street is intended to facilitate north-south pedestrian movement on the east side of TH-25 in the same way that Walnut is intended to provide for pedestrian circulation on the west side of TH-25. On the west side of TH-25, north of Broadway, new retail and restaurant development is proposed between the highway and Walnut Street to create a retail node that can be developed with strong connections to West Bridge Park. The plan suggests the vacation of River Street west of the highway to allow direct connections between new structures and the Park. Given the vertical grade change that exists, it could be possible to develop the northerly structure with a lower level that opened directly onto the Park. While this space would not be suitable for retail use, it could support park programs and provide public indoor space for park-related uses. The block west of Walnut and north of Broadway includes replacement retail uses configured to reinforce the west edge of Walnut Street as a pedestrian corridor leading to the riverfront and park. The existing residential property at the northwest corner of River Street and Walnut could become surface parking to support expanded use of the park. The four-block area on the west side of TH-25 from 4th Street to Broadway is the core area of redevelopment proposed for Scheme A. This four-block area is proposed to be consolidated through the vacation of 3rd Street as a public Street, and the reduction of Walnut Street from its current cross- sectional width to a narrower two-way section without on-street parking, but with enhanced pedestrian facilities to ensure safety for pedestrians crossing Walnut Street from parking areas between Walnut and TH-25. The plan incorporates the existing mixed-use at Locust and Broadway, and the existing former Walgreen's building on 4th and Walnut. The balance of the area is reconfigured for a retail anchor store and multi-tenant retail shops along Broadway and 4th Streets. Although these structures • front along the streets to replicate the older buildings being replaced, the functional fronts of the structures would be oriented toward the internal parking area p that is fed from the north and south edges, from a 0 revised right-in/right-out access from TH-25 at 3rd Street, and from the east side of Walnut Street 51 52 53 ' w BROADWAY STREET' between 4th and Broadway. The parking area is sized 36 35 34 to support the retail uses shown. North of the anchor, parking is configured to maintain the existing 031 32L 33 I parking supply for the mixed-use property. The w W location of the anchor retail store requires the I 17 Z 16 N I removal or relocation of the recently renovated State ) a Q Farm Insurance building on Walnut Street. The o concept for Scheme A suggested relocating this L — — - - — structure to River Street at Cedar. To the south of 4th street, Walnut Street is flanked by structured parking to offset parking shortages at Cargill, the Community Center, and Block 14 retail; and the west half of Block 17 is reconfigured to add a daycare facility to support downtown daytime employees. Figure 15—Location Key Map • 34 • A summary of proposed new development is listed in Table 4 below. The blocks identified in the Location Key Map in Figure 15 on the previous page correlate to the Block Numbers in the Table, and can be used to compare existing development to proposed redevelopment. For Compact Scheme A,the total new development is just over 385,000 square feet, an increase of 108,000 square feet over the existing development within the same area. Table 4-Summary of Scheme A Development Square Feet of Floor Area City Block East of TH 25 Existing Proposed Change 16 19,000 26,000 +7,000 33 12,000 41,000 +29,000 34 27,000 37,000 +10,000 53 35,400 62,400 +27,000 West of TH 25 17 8,800 18,800 +10,000 32 21,000 26,000 +5,000 35 37,500 26,000 -11,500 52 39,000 28,000 -11,000 31 36,500 88,000 +51,500 36 27,000 18,000 -9,000 51 14,000 14,000 0 • Total 277,200 385,200 +108,000 Stakeholder reaction to Compact Scheme A was generally positive. Comments on potential problems with Compact Scheme A included: • State Farm should stay in place or be relocated to more favorable location. • Structured parking at Cargill removes an iconic structure from the corner of 4th and Walnut • The displaced Cargill facility is not replaced within the plan area • Two-story structures on Broadway suggest office over retail which may not lease • The configuration of Walnut Street between 4th and Broadway is not pedestrian friendly Compact Scheme B Compact Scheme B was developed as a variation on Compact Scheme A to compare altered approaches to the uses on the east side of TH 25, and uses within the four-block retail core area west of the highway. For Scheme B, Cedar Street is assumed to be vacated to provide additional area for parking development to allow higher square footage of redevelopment within the service commercial and office district. Additional parking area was also gained by utilizing two-story structures and moving them to the east side of what was formerly Cedar Street. The change is illustrated in Figure 16 on the following page. This modified approach increased redevelopment potential east of Cedar Street, achieving 45,000 i 35 square feet of additional net new redevelopment space; a 60% increase in the 73,000 square feet of net IIInew space achieved in Scheme A. To the west of TH-25 in the four-block retail core, adjustments were made to relocate the anchor use from west of Walnut to the block adjacent to Highway 25. This location was tested to determine if the impacts to the four-block area could be phased by relocating the anchor and potentially delaying redevelopment of the blocks west of Walnut. The first reaction to the revised anchor location is that it creates a mass next to TH-25 that blocks visual penetration from the traffic corridor of TH-25 to the west side of Walnut. The orientation of structures at the south end of the core area results in the rear of large stores turned toward 4th Street, and also to pedestrian and vehicle traffic on Walnut approaching 4th Street from the south. 1 Mg.Mn: ___•I R6 ieG..C.lta.. _ ll"_1_.. ,1171.,. i_f.- 11 -L.J '''.:..} ET ' i (F1.1 , �l3 tS{9 4 i R=�T[D r\. _t 1 , .. - , , ri _,t ` 1 lc 1 1-7 L`, tom._,/ •. ' 14 �ll._-_.JL f- i .-� CI - ---.-. • .; `M .----- {�1 I , r _�..^i (77.— b ......r ST.Y. cam S MK i t.K. _._� to�%V �.� 7 L3 v~ ` III E �1 1� L9T J a.. RN)'. t� _ ( �r—.._ 1,..._--.� i U 1 11 0-1=-4 to iiR C{WS. 1�. � EF o fly- a'T c' '` 0 1— r= , 1 f ti .....or,u u ♦ 25� ` 1 t n1) __LY i 1 1 _.� ---v._.._dit' t.} Q t� _ C O fj J \ tc C to J az 3t-Q ,:'tom .- l �5t —)# — ---1 , \.__—T t ;T ----- — r 14 Ili_.J� °,, , i 0 11 o fj . ._.____j� .-i `a ie �l 1 11 ig 56 16 .,1.,..1";77,,, .t `V -- •To. S*.B_T ..• Z owes ., 4 Ui.1e1 �� ( ! Jt HL . JJL MaiK r 24 zw .. -..+-..-�.-1_11_., jjJJT;..,. �-. Figure 16—Compact Scheme B 36 III • The central parking area of this variant is also deficient in providing the recommended 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet parking ratio,and relies on structured parking to make up the shortage of surface parking. While structured parking in this location could also meet some of Cargill's excess demand,the location is not very convenient for use by retail customers, nor by Community Center users. Further, the shortfall of surface parking also negates the possibility of simplifying phasing with the anchor in this location. Parking to support the anchor cannot be achieved in the two block area between Walnut and TH-25. The summary of development for Compact Scheme B is included below in Table 5. Table 5-Summary of Scheme B Development Square Feet of Floor Area City Block East of TH 25 Existing Proposed Change 16 19,000 31,000 +12,000 33 12,000 58,000 +46,000 34 27,000 55,000 +28,000 53 35,400 67,400 +32,000 West of TH 25 17 8,800 18,800 +10,000 32 21,000 88,000 +67,000 35 37,500 10,000 -27,500 52 39,000 28,000 -11,000 31 3 6,500 30,000 -6,500 36 27,000 34,000 +7,000 51 14,000 14,000 0 Total 277,200 434,200 +157,000 Most of the increase in redevelopment potential for Scheme B as compared to Scheme A is a function of changes illustrated to the east side of TH-25. With the large increase east of TH-25,this plan represents the highest redevelopment potential of the four capacity studies completed. In part because of the increase,the gaps along the east side of TH-25 allowing visibility to the back sides of the adjacent blocks have been filled in with buildings to capitalize on the expanded parking area of this Scheme. So, although the redevelopment potential is higher, visibility for buildings along Cedar Street has diminished. Expanded Scheme C This alternative was developed to explore remedies for visibility problems appearing in Scheme B, and to explore expansion of the retail core west of TH-25 from four to six blocks. For this scheme, structures on the east side of TH-25 were moved away from the highway frontage where possible, and those along the highway were assumed to be single story. With this adjustment, the available parking area was reduced, resulting in the need to reduce building area proportionately. These changes reduced net new redevelopment east of TH-25 from the 118,000 square feet achieved in Scheme B to 70,000 square feet in this alternative. This comparison demonstrates the increased efficiency achievable with two-story development. With the same ground area affected for redevelopment,Scheme B achieved a nearly 70% increase in floor area as compared to Scheme C. • 37 Figure 17 illustrates the gaps created along the east side of TH-25, and the westerly expansion of the III retail core area on the west side of TH-25. The retail core area was expanded across Locust Street, requiring the vacation of Locust Street and its utilities, and requiring the conversion of the blocks between Locust Street and Linn Street from single-family residential use to commercial use. As this alternative design was being explored,anchor retail locations as far west as Linn Street were considered. However, the configuration shown in Figure 17 was determined to be a reasonable compromise between maintaining anchor visibility from the TH-25 and Broadway intersection, and limiting the amount of residential property required for the retail area. +tel p ts 1riciT -�--� 1, "' �> `ice, f ______--:—_.==77:::F\, r -�� j, . �!».,� .��� ..�,n� 1. i3� I NG +!ar ,� t 1 b t'>' ;s .�.e tG_-.. Jt �l .,{ ! 'T'✓,) ' i ( '� r0-4-0a ar- j I II . x .c � �: ){ c-,_------ ) (,1; .,-...--__a ,) . eetRc. � _q _p " , cy____,_04---, i - ',0_17,:-i) III t �. t!_____!- _..,...I 7 t �yac7—m:"'g ‘.1-_-_-_-„,_" i1 i . e G to Ate. iK J yr 13 i_..!' z Ie.^ t 0 ,3 a _ is `r 1 .0. I w : .. ,, - j 4 iM�:r'F +.+. _.. / +tw-� „i. { _......-.___...as 4wt t. l � (_`) , , p K ji.ia,.Y ,:ili i , c I - 1 t " 1 "wr qr.`'-.7,1_4, I ' -' ----_—,_..f I .,7— L 'J..—_.... 1 nk.w i ✓..I.- i I t y ._ AS,o I AAAA �� . _ t „a. \. 'I fir- n'-� u "`+ Y • l.T Figure 17- Expanded Scheme C The new retail development achieved in this district for Scheme C compared to the comparable area of Scheme A shows the incremental development potential gained by extending an additional half-block to the west. The appropriate comparison is with Scheme A because Scheme B incorporated structured parking, and like Scheme C,Scheme A is supported by all surface parking. 38 • • The retail area south of Broadway and west of TH-25 contains 114,000 square feet of proposed retail for Scheme C (blocks 31 and 36) and 106,000 square feet of retail for Scheme A. However, Scheme A includes 44,000 square feet of two-story space. Adjusting Scheme A to include only the ground floor space appropriate for retail use reduces comparable new retail floor area for Scheme A from 106,000 square feet to 84,000 square feet. On that basis, Scheme C achieves a 30,000 square-foot increase in development as compared to Scheme A. Based on this comparison, the acquisition of multiple single- family homes,the cost for the removal of a two-block length of Locust Street, and the cost for relocation of several hundred feet of underground utilities are unlikely to be warranted by the potential increase in development. The summary of redevelopment for Scheme C is listed in Table 6 below. Table 6-Summary of Scheme C Development Square Feet of Floor Area City Block East of TH 25 Existing Proposed Change 16 19,000 29,000 +10,000 33 12,000 42,000 +30,000 34 27,000 45,000 +18,000 53 35,400 47,400 +12,000 West of TH 25 17 8,800 18,800 +10,000 32 21,000 38,000 +17,000 35 37,500 20,000 -17,500 52 39,000 25,000 -14,000 • 31 36,500 50,000 +13,500 36 27,000 64,000 +37,000 51 14,000 9,000 -5,000 Total 277,200 388,200 +111,000 The configuration required for parking in Scheme C also has a profound effect on Walnut Street, resulting in Walnut Street and its desired pedestrian linkage traversing through the center of a parking lot for much of the distance between 4th and Broadway. While the configuration with parking on one side as configured in Scheme A has the benefit of a generous pedestrian corridor on at least one side, the configuration of Scheme C has little potential appeal for pedestrians. On the basis of potential costs and negative consequences for Walnut Street, Scheme C seems to demonstrate that Locust Street is the appropriate edge for the retail district west of TH-25 from 4th Street to Broadway. Minimalist Scheme D Scheme D was prepared as a variant of Scheme A to test alternate approaches to the staging of redevelopment, and to additional avoidance of functioning existing developments. For the use district on the east side of TH-25,the approach to retaining the public street function of Cedar Street was again incorporated into the plan. North of Broadway, Cedar Street was converted to parking in Scheme A, but remains a public street connection to River Street behind Walgreen's in Scheme D. This approach reduces parking and potential redevelopment on Block 53 adjoining the new Walgreen's store. Scheme • 39 D also retains the Motor Vehicle office building at the northwest corner of 3rd and Cedar Streets, • reducing flexibility to maximize re-use of Block 34. Total development for the four block area east of TH- 25 is reduced from 137,400 square feet in Scheme A to 127,400 square feet in Scheme D. The additional area achieved in Scheme A required vacation of a block-long street and replacement of the Motor Vehicle building,suggesting that the Scheme D approach may be more economical. West of TH-25 and south of Broadway, three major adjustments are incorporated in Scheme D. First, the existing bank at 4th and Pine Street is retained, along with its existing drive-through function. Second, the State Farm office on the west side of Walnut is retained with parking to the rear that also serves the mixed-use building at Locust and Broadway. Finally,the retail shops parallel to Broadway are located so that the existing structures along Broadway could stay in place until replacement structures are completed and available for occupancy. The combined effect of these changes results in limitations on the location and size of the desired anchor development. Scheme D is illustrated in Figure 18 below. 11 J ��1.PKC r _� j r /� w.tc s k"� �........_..._.. L.-,„ .Cf r .j _._._.__..__�_ ! - ...in s-,c sr ______.`. I I C�T �� i � '`a; M:x _.._� II 1 H ;: e .__i ...c,...._,.____..., „:-, . f 4._______...., sz.....= 0 + L.�J —. ) fr,.. . . -� 4,,___-_,,,,____,,-,F \ „---,) (= f 7 -1 �L__1,4,67„—__,) 4 ( ;. I I r!K V Gtip ._ . F `r, U!y j i L 1 t c,_,,,, , _ �a ..s G + _ i 1 �b '6,L . s ! i'�.-"lt' • ,„Li 6 f� L+ L 3 KK i 6 P Y,t+W�'i? _ ' < wD ',eel' w:. �f �^1i �"' -�._C J l+ Q (y.—_ .1 54. T:saC'� E�- ._.._ rr*-----—-f I,v,,,.. ,-,,„1,:# u " t, t--0,..—i --.4,74:--1) (—E3 IT:—7 ii-- v: , „.;_,,,ip.w.,,ii, a___,;____ )) fp i; 1 11 N1 44 x1 1i: t.,t.4.♦.T+ 1'y : .7,'--`1 _ -e t , ` c.."7"*"""" : • As illustrated, the anchor store has insufficient parking in the remaining area in front of the store, and the retention of the bank further reduces available parking. The addition of structured parking to the south provides enough spaces to hit the target parking ratio for Cargill and the anchor store, but the location and competition for spaces with Cargill makes its use for the anchor store unlikely. The only apparent approach under these circumstances would be the substantial reduction in size of the proposed anchor. For that to be workable, the size reductions should occur on the south side of the structure in a way that increases parking immediately to the south of the retail use. Reduced width suggests reduced depth to retain reasonable building proportions for retail use, so a reduced size will also decrease utilization of the western part of the block adjacent to Locust Street. The approach to leaving existing structures in place until after the completion of new structures would possibly be an attractive phasing strategy. However, as noted above, this approach constrains available parking on the interior of the block and ultimately moves the retail uses away from the Broadway frontage. While this may increase parking along Broadway, it dramatically changes the character of Broadway, and creates confusion about which side of the new structures should be the front. A similar approach is applied to the north side of Broadway from TH-25 to Locust Street, and the resulting change to the Broadway corridor is multiplied when buildings are pulled back on both sides of the street. Another variation illustrated in the blocks west of TH-25 and north of Broadway is creation of a more structured, urban edge for the West Bridge Park as the northerly terminus for Walnut Street as a pedestrian corridor. This Scheme illustrates the vacation of Walnut street north of Broadway, and the introduction of a pedestrian plaza space in the vicinity of the former intersection of River Street with Walnut. The purpose of this space would be to provide a useable public space and focal point to draw pedestrians from Broadway to the park. The south and west edges of the park would be reinforced by • retail development on the south, and park facilities on the west that are incorporated as part of potential structured parking. This approach creates an auto-free pedestrian zone around all of the park and adjacent retail to strengthen downtown ties to the park and river. The block by block development summary for Scheme D is listed in Table 7 below. Table 7-Summary of Scheme D Development Square Feet of Floor Area City Block East of TH 25 Existing Proposed Change 16 19,000 27,000 +8,000 33 12,000 36,000 +24,000 34 27,000 27,000 0 53 35,400 37,400 +2,000 West of TH 25 17 8,800 18,800 +10,000 32 21,000 21,000 0 35 37,500 17,000 -20,500 52 39,000 25,000 -14,000 31 36,500 87,000 +50,500 36 27,000 15,000 -12,000 51 14,000 10,000 -4,000 • Total 277,200 385,200 +44,000 41 Village Green Concept • As stated in the introduction to the redevelopment plan alternatives, a consistent approach to the area of the CCD south of the 5th street railroad corridor is a recommended part of all four alternatives as formulated and analyzed. From a land use perspective, the primary recommendation is maintaining the status quo. From a transportation perspective,the recommendation is to find alternatives to pedestrian circulation in the TH-25 corridor, and to strengthen pedestrian ties between the Community Center and the Cub Foods center in the Walnut Street corridor. From a downtown design and image perspective, the entrance to the south end of the CCD area is lacking the gateway entrance to downtown Monticello that is provided by the bridge and park space adjoining the TH-25 corridor at the north end of the CCD. A "Village Green" concept is recommended to fill this need in the long term. Figure 19 illustrates a sketch plan for the Village Green Concept. URcitLLj (....c e5 b (� foe...) two-wfaY ORtvE -�_.. , IV tA1L�Wn 0 ctr( HAIL i 15$. 11 II -3Z :(-r" ) 1 j) 4.<7.0A t-trr C.7-1-----1) � tt I. ( REix,/c4rcuR c.E e- -117, v 8 V) 4. c \ I�1 to i Ti G I LIVtL i —.�:.ti, III� I _ _ ,J L__ _____ 9 ') . ft'---.—^ ' ctuuri'')7'111 Jj- b TN STREET w. C� n I ,),..4...),..., Ot5T cT F- I I KE 1ce..- IF,uno,a U I MAR125 ,._ f ,i ,i cuFT6ZY/ 0 3 A„ry 1 @ O Pngr5 ce4xr iiil_ t ii 1 It a oPes sAticE v ( ((per f 7 111 VueeT w. 'J{�y..AL ' " 111STV..�T E. r-pr--- 5? c-------\ c \ ,-ue, F.,-,or, KFC- 11I ?EV-x.4 rig Figure 19—Village Green Concept Efforts to strengthen the image and identity of downtown should include enhancements to create an identifiable and memorable gateway experience at the south end of the TH-25 corridor that equals the experience provided at the north end of the CCD. Limitations posed by existing development south of 7th street suggest that the appropriate location to begin creating an entry statement is at the intersection of 6th Street with TH-25. The cemetery on the east side of the highway already provides 42 III • some green, open space relief, and available space near the intersection for the creation of architectural elements, signage, or other gateway features that announce the entry to the CCD. On the west side of the corridor, the Municipal Liquor store is located on City-owned property that could be available in a longer-term time horizon to create a significant public open space that helps define the southerly entrance to the CCD, and provides a book-end to the public park at the riverfront end of Walnut Street; a space that opens view corridors to the Community Center and that can be programmed for use in conjunction with the Community Center. Reduction of retail use in the south half of this block also contributes to reducing unmet parking demand for the Community Center and for the retail shops located on the balance of the block where the Village Green is proposed. Preferred Alternative Alternative plans were presented to the Steering Committee, downtown property owners and stakeholders, and City staff to solicit feedback on the plans, their implications for changes both positive and negative, and their degree of success at achieving stated goals and objectives for Land Use, Transportation, and Downtown Design and Image. The various alternatives developed for the downtown study result in differences in the efficiency of land consumption and the amount of development that can be supported as compared to the existing condition. Feedback on the plans from interested parties included their judgments based on application of goal and objective criteria, and assessment of feasibility from the available information absent • detailed financial analysis and comparisons. Reaction from public involvement and staff review indicated that Compact Scheme A best represented the basis for redevelopment of the CCD consistent with goals and objectives for the downtown Monticello area. The evolution of support for Scheme A included suggestions for modifications and improvements that were extracted from other alternatives, or from new ideas generated from the alternatives including: • Adjustments to Block 53 north of Broadway and west of Cedar Street to retain the existing former newspaper office. • Relocation of potential structured parking to support the Community Center, retail uses in Block 14, and Cargill to the west side of Block 17 adjacent to the Wells Fargo bank. • Alteration of the proposed retail anchor west of TH-25 to retain the State Farm office and balance parking requirements. • Termination of the north end of Walnut Street at a prominent open space/urban design feature to tie West Bridge Park to Broadway. • Vacation of River Street at West Bridge Park to ensure the potential for two-level space south of the park if appropriate. • Incorporation of structured parking and attached enclosed park facilities to support expanded use and programming of West Bridge Park as a downtown attraction for weekend and evening use. • Vacation of River Street west of Cedar to allow expansion of West Bridge Park and connection to retail uses on Block 52. • 43 Figure 20 illustrates Refined Scheme A as the recommended basis for the further definition of financial feasibility and implementation plans and phasing for redevelopment of downtown Monticello. The III framework of land use districts, areas for maintaining existing development, areas for promoting redevelopment, approaches to transportation corridors, and improvements to preserve and enhance the downtown image are represented in Refined Scheme A. These elements will become the basis for policies and guidelines to direct future development and redevelopment in the CCD. i 7 11 � .F/t:ugly. JA t ( l� t e-m-• / i.:--7.";-,--om —_... 1 I i r 1 , s� Y 1 i_,' :r--i - ., , ' TJ `9 C - ti , ._._ <.: �-- �' � r----rhe -� ,:.: '�,w,e- `--`-�= 7 l'7.--'-'71,7:-"Ti 17-2,'. (--,,,„ i➢S I➢ I 1 I ,... I �. fl n *i-ft 1 / I L, t ,. _----ii a ;;.0 jt - . I1: 1 i T 0 '1 0 ° 0 -;,„-- ---0 I , --,-;"'! P.:) 'r-' M7: to ._ r c I , _.—_--,.-- _..„___,-1,:, CS7 ri • �. i .:� i E �, i .4 1 ➢ t { nti-_ i il i 1'nT �...-a...�, t .. ev•r i 1 f 0..' r : , ri-ff.'; MK k. w.[ r I a l� , Cr--,,—t.,1 ,1.,;,.....--1)1 1 III _._1 : r r_____., r uuy,u. �� �— l:, ^'1.- .J t 'L_-r 1 1 r .._� i M°� 1 ➢ ti 1 , „._ ■ - r II —`1 ---- , . .-.-_..-. .—.._--,----i-,..,-.7„,-;-..„„6,...- --1 L_..(,,,by Fke:t:1-li Figure 20—Refined Scheme A Table 8 on the following page summarizes the potential redevelopment square footage illustrated for the CCD north of 5th Street,and identifies the block by block change from the existing condition. 44 III 411 Table 8-Summary of Refined Scheme A Development Square Feet of Floor Area City Block East of TH 25 Existing Proposed Change 16 19,000 26,000 +7,000 33 12,000 36,000 +24,000 34 27,000 37,000 +10,000 53 35,400 47,400 +12,000 West of TH 25 17 8,800 8,800 0 32 21,000 26,000 +5,000 35 37,500 13,000 -24,400 52 39,000 28,000 -11,000 31 36,500 64,000 +27,000 36 27,000 24,000 -3,000 51 14,000 14,000 0 Total 277,200 324,200 +47,000 Transportation Solutions for the Preferred Alternative The development scenario illustrated in Refined Scheme A was used as the basis for analyzing potential • traffic impacts from downtown redevelopment activities. A complete copy of the Transportation Study completed for the CCD is included in Appendix C of this report. Traffic impacts associated with proposed CCD redevelopment are expected to be minor. In total, redevelopment as represented by refined Scheme A is anticipated to result in a net increase of 9,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT). Of this total, the largest increase to any one street is expected to be around 3,000 ADT. Compared to existing traffic volumes of 30,000 ADT on TH-25, 12,000 ADT on Broadway Street, and anticipated background growth to 2030 estimated at 20% with an additional river crossing, or up to 60% with no additional crossing, additional traffic generated by redevelopment in the CCD will be minimal. Under both existing and future conditions, the intersection most critical to traffic flow in and around the Monticello CCD is the intersection of TH-25 and Broadway. Because of high east/west traffic volumes and turning volumes at this intersection, little spare green time is available for heavy through traffic volumes on TH-25. Current plans for the intersection of TH-25 with Broadway, as identified in the City's recently published 2030 Transportation Plan, call for the addition of roadway capacity at this intersection. Plans include dual left turn lanes for the two heavy movements from eastbound to northbound, and from southbound to eastbound, and the addition of dual right turn lanes for the westbound to northbound movement. With this improved geometric layout, the intersection is anticipated to function acceptably through 2030, under one important condition. The condition required for acceptable operations at the TH-25/Broadway intersection is that a second river crossing over the Mississippi River must be constructed to provide an alternate route for trips between Monticello and Big Lake that currently use the TH-25 crossing. This second crossing, as noted in the City's Transportation Plan, is the difference between 20% growth in background traffic and 60% • 45 growth in background traffic between now and 2030. Without this vital second connection, no 1110 additional improvements at TH-25 and Broadway will be able to withstand projected traffic growth and maintain acceptable performance thresholds at this critical intersection at the hub of the CCD. As noted, the proposed CCD redevelopment will bring a modest amount of additional traffic to the CCD, spread among the many roads and intersections within the downtown core. In order to provide for adequate access to the proposed retail facilities, creation of an additional signalized access point at 4th Street is proposed. This intersection will not only be capable of providing the additional access needed by the new retail facilities, but will also provide a much-needed alternate route for local east-west through traffic in the downtown core, improving operations at the critical TH-25/Broadway intersection, and in turn, along the TH-25 arterial corridor. In order to maximize the benefit of the traffic signal at 4th Street and offset the impact of the addition of signalized access points, access restriction at the intersection of TH-25 with 3rd Street is proposed. Conversion to right-in/right-out access is recommended to provide local access to developments on either side of TH-25 and to increase the spacing between full-movement intersections. In addition to the benefit to vehicular traffic resulting from a new signal at 4th Street, pedestrians will also benefit. Currently, a 5-block separation exists between signalized crossing points of the high traffic volume TH-25 corridor. The addition of a traffic signal at 4th Street will limit the distance a pedestrian must go out of his or her way to cross TH-25 to one and a half blocks. Improved traffic operations at TH-25 and Broadway as a result of the 4th Street traffic signal will also be of benefit by limiting the potential for queues on Broadway to extend upstream to both Walnut Street to the west and Cedar Street to the east. Analysis of post-redevelopment traffic operations at these III intersections shows levels of service above acceptable thresholds with little queuing impacts from the critical TH-25/Broadway intersection. Other geometric roadway improvements recommended to improve traffic operations in the CCD have been identified in the 2030 Transportation Plan and will be implemented as traffic volumes in the CCD increase. These include an additional westbound approach lane at the TH-25 intersection with 7th Street, and revised signal phasing and extension of the westbound storage bay at the 1-94 North Ramp intersection,which MnDOT will soon be completing. Transportation Solutions for Walnut Street Potential traffic issues for the segment of Walnut Street extending from 4th Street to Broadway emerged during review and discussion of redevelopment plan alternatives. The proposed anchor location on the west side of Walnut Street and the parking required to support it in a configuration acceptable to a national retailer will convert the function and image of Walnut Street for this two block segment resulting in the following concerns: • Roadway capacity will be reduced to the point where the function of Walnut as an overflow or alternate to TH-25 for local traffic will be diminished, increasing congestion at critical downtown intersections. 46 III • As vehicles seek to avoid TH-25 congestion on Walnut Street, the proposed configuration with a • design similar to a shopping center parking lot will limit through traffic flow and will endanger pedestrians moving from parking areas to the storefront areas on the west side of the street. • Numerous intersections of parking aisles with Walnut Street will be a barrier to north-south pedestrian flow on the east side of Walnut, and will reduce the capability of the corridor to function as a meaningful north-south pedestrian linkage. Several steps were taken by the consultant team to respond to these concerns. Alternate roadway geometry was developed and analyzed that provided for continuous through movement for vehicular traffic from Walnut Street south of 4th Street to the intersection of Locust Street with Broadway. The variations analyzed affect on access to Cargill from 4th Street, retail access from 4th Street, right-of-way configuration and area requirements, and impacts on proposed retail and neighboring residential land uses. The conclusions from this analysis suggested that rerouting traffic in this fashion would be very expensive and counter-productive to goals of capturing an anchor tenant for the downtown. With this background, methods to encourage the rerouting of traffic on the existing street system were discussed. Application of changes to the design and appearance of Walnut Street from 4th to Broadway could help discourage growth in cut-through or diverted traffic as traffic volumes grow. Constricting Walnut Street and altering its image to coincide with its function as a storefront drive aisle would encourage through traffic to avoid this segment of Walnut. Suggested changes include: • Narrowing the functional street to one lane in each direction • Narrowing the throat at the intersections with Broadway and 4th to appear more like a parking lot entrance and less like a public street. 110 • Removing on-street parking from the west side of the roadway. • Changing roadway surface materials at the entrances from 4th and Broadway and at locations for pedestrian crossing along the two-block segment between 4th and Broadway. Assuming these techniques would be effective at rerouting traffic from Walnut to Locust Street and Linn Street, additional intersection capacity analysis was completed for downtown intersections around the core retail area bounded by Locust, TH-25, 4th Street and Broadway. Utilizing forecast for 2030 and traffic projections from the proposed redevelopment, it was determined that sufficient capacity would be available to accommodate traffic diverted from Walnut Street. Techniques for maintaining the north-south continuity of pedestrian circulation in the Walnut Street corridor also need to be applied to the east side of Walnut if the proposed solution is to be successful. The following treatment of landscape islands proposed along the east side of Walnut Street will help maintain that continuity: • Provide islands of sufficient width to maintain an adequate pedestrian walkway through the islands,with landscaping or urban design features on either side of the walkway. • Provide barrier-free walking surfaces without ramp transitions where walkway intersects curbing around the parking lot islands. • Provide delineation of walkways across Walnut Street and through parking lot areas by changing surface treatments on the pedestrian walkway. • Provide canopy plantings for summer shade and winter protection. • Provide accent landscaping with seasonal interest and human scale. • 47 • Provide pedestrian-scale lighting to supplement street and parking lot lighting and increase pedestrian's sense of security by ensuring that they are visible to motorists at all times. • Improvements of this type in shopping center settings have successfully demonstrated that the continuity desired for pedestrians in the Walnut Street corridor can be maintained. Recommendations for Pedestrian Improvements in the CCD In the Research and Analysis section, review of off-site sidewalk connections and existing facilities within the CCD suggest that a number of missing segments of sidewalk could be added to improve connectivity for pedestrians that would promote pedestrian use in the CCD. These include potential sidewalk segments to be added: • From Minnesota Street to Elm Street along either side of future 7th Street • From Minnesota Street to Elm Street along the north side of 4th Street • From Locust Street to Maple Street along either side of 6th Street • From Maple Street to Elm Street along either side of 6th Street • From Cedar Street to Washington Street along either side of 4th Street Completion of these missing segments is recommended to proceed based on available funds. These locations are not dependent on, or affected by proposed redevelopment within the northern part of the CCD. In the blocks where expected redevelopment will occur, the objective for pedestrian sidewalk facilities is to provide sidewalks and planted boulevards on both sides of all local streets to provide continuous sidewalk connections and develop a consistent, recognizable streetscape approach. • An exception to this recommendation is the TH 25 corridor. Because the environment in the corridor is dominated by traffic, the primary north-south pedestrian routes should follow the local streets. As properties along TH-25 redevelop, sidewalks that currently abut the highway at the curb line should be removed and relocated with a boulevard space protecting pedestrians from roadway impacts. The goal is to reduce sidewalks in the TH-25 corridor to one sidewalk located along the east side of the roadway. Suggested dimensions and relationships to the roadway are included in the recommended Design Guidelines for the CCD. Pedestrian crossings of the TH-25 and Broadway corridors provide important connections for the CCD pedestrian network. However, the need for pedestrian crossing of the TH-25 corridor has been moderated by creating districts for uses on either side of the TH-25 corridor that won't encourage pedestrian interaction from one side to the other. The existing crossing locations will also be supplemented with a new controlled crossing location at 4th Street with the addition of a traffic signal in that intersection location. A detailed description of the function of the traffic signal at this location for pedestrians is included in the Traffic study contained in the appendix to this report. Pedestrian crossings at Broadway are also critical for continuity of pedestrian movement through the CCD. Currently, only one signalized crossing opportunity exists for crossing under high traffic conditions, at TH-25. Under existing conditions, low traffic volumes on Broadway permit crossing at the unsignalized intersections to the west and east of Broadway (Walnut, Locust, Cedar, etc.) However, as 48 • traffic volumes on Broadway continue to grow, crossing at these unsignalized locations will become • more problematic. One solution for this problem would be to add a traffic signal at one of the nearby unsignalized intersections. The mostly likely candidate for future signalization is Locust Street. Although Walnut Street and Cedar Street experience higher daily and peak hour traffic volumes, their lack of separation from TH-25 (one block/approximately 330 feet) suggests that operations could become problematic at some point in the future due to queues interfering with the intersection at TH-25. Locust Street, at two blocks separation to the west would be the next best option in terms of proximity to the heart of the CCD,traffic volumes, and separation from TH 25. Neither the intersection of Walnut Street nor Cedar Street currently meets peak hour vehicular volume warrants for signalization. Noting that traffic volumes are slightly lower on Locust Street indicates that this intersection would also not meet peak hour signal warrants for peak hour volumes. There are also signal warrants for pedestrian crossing activity at intersections, but in order to meet pedestrian warrants for signalization, the intersection would, at a minimum need, to experience over 190 pedestrians crossing in the peak hour. Based on field observation indicating minimal pedestrian activity, this threshold is far from being met. The existing downtown area is also lacking in other pedestrian facilities and amenities such as benches and seating areas, sidewalk area landscaping, and directory and way-finding signage to facilitate movement through the downtown. Existing facilities are limited to benches in some locations along Walnut and Broadway Streets, and around the entries to some of the public facilities such as the Library and Community Center. Expansion of amenities for pedestrians should be incorporated into plans for 111 revitalizing downtown. Recommendations for Bicycle Trails and Facilities in the CCD The Monticello Parks and Trails System Plan identifies two corridors within the CCD as bicycle corridors: • Broadway is identified as a Primary Pathway Route • Highway 25 is identified as a Secondary Pathway Route Both corridors extend through the CCD to destinations outside of the CCD. For the purpose of these trails, safe circulation through the CCD is the primary purpose, and opportunity to access other, local destinations within the CCD from these corridors is a secondary objective. Due to space constraints within the CCD, the expected route for bicycles once they have left the designated routes is on the local street system. Downtown businesses should be encouraged to provide facilities to support the use of bicycles for alternate transportation in the downtown area. At a minimum, bicycle racks convenient to building entries should be provided with new developments. In public locations such as West Bridge Park, the Community Center, and the Village Green if implemented, more substantial facilities such as lockers, changing space, and even showers could be considered. The designated routes through the CCD need to be planned in conjunction with MnDOT for TH-25 and with the County for Broadway. However, the existing conditions and function of the two corridors strongly suggest individual solutions for each. On Broadway, the desire to maintain continuous sidewalks from storefronts to the street, and to maintain on-street parking through the CCD, dictates an . 49 on-street bicycle path solution. The suggested configuration would include a striped bicycle lane between the outside traffic lane and the parking lane on each side of the roadway. The current width of • Broadway cannot support two minimum-width bicycle lanes in addition to the traffic and parking lanes. An on-street bicycle trail solution will need to be coordinated with future roadway design improvements if redevelopment activities can provide the needed right-of way width. In the TH-25 corridor, on-street bike lanes are inconsistent with MnDOT policies for arterial highways. An off-road dedicated bike trail is proposed in the design guidelines recommendations for the TH-25 corridor. The objective for removing pedestrian walks from part of the corridor, and for providing additional corridor width as sites redevelop will provide space in the corridor for the trail. The preferred location as illustrated in the design guidelines is along the west side of the corridor from the 1-94 bridge to the river bridge. • 50 • • Chapter 3 - Downtown Framework Plan and Design Guidelines Framework for Downtown Development The alternative downtown redevelopment concepts, including the preferred alternative illustrated in Refined Scheme A (Figure 20) represent and illustrate possibilities for ways that market demand that exists in the Monticello Trade Area can fit within the northern half of the CCD where the greatest potential for redevelopment exists. The plans show specific uses and parking -.--- -\-7--'s i relationships that may, or may not accurately depict how opportunities are • captured over time within the CCD. W Public )1 However, what is specific about the W Padang ; , preferred alternative is the general W N �,Y. `g,, � organization of uses, and the location ,,,,,...,,,,4,,,,,'4". 2 �-H'.L . of types of uses within the CCD. Figure -"""0" .;F ,,ST`EET 21, the Redevelopment Framework "`' ,�- ;�. , r v i"° Plan, illustrates the recommended use ' w - -- -,.,t 1 € , if` districts consistent with the p*, s` o E Lt_t preferences illustrated in Refined , � Scheme A. if Public 4TH STREET Parking r "• w-_ �_=i Proposed use areas, or districts, in the • +l Carg�tl ' : 3 '�. J k;t Framework Plan are based on access, location within the CCD, and .L '` .' . surrounding land use relationships. The c J° °D1t -it Framework Plan represents the 6TH STREET o +�"" �� flexibility needed to capture all 0 40 ti P"b ft ` potential development and MO Ez sTPEEr ° O j Tj"Sj�E redevelopment opportunities for the a CCD. As opportunities present 0 Ex Reta.T themselves and are evaluated, ExEstingRetar7 SOF--, locations for uses should fit the ,. I purpose and capabilities of the districts Y illustrated in the Framework Plan. The 1-94 use districts are defined in greater detail as part of the proposed Design Figure 21- Framework Plan Guidelines for the CCD. Structure for Design Guidelines The Design Guidelines are intended to correspond to the limits of the CCD Zoning District, and to establish development controls within the CCD. With the forthcoming modifications to the Monticello Zoning Code, the development standards for the CCD District will be revised to refer to the CCD Design Guidelines as the controlling legislation for land use, site development standards, and building design 0 51 standards. The proposed CCD Design Guidelines have been structured to provide these controls while maintaining the flexibility that will be important to allow response to a wide variety of development and • redevelopment opportunities as they present themselves. A key feature of the Design Guidelines is the attempt to draft them so that while they remain somewhat flexible, they also provide enough certainty so that prospective owners and developers can evaluate how they relate to site and building design and the cost implications of conforming to the standards outlined by the Guidelines. The most basic purpose of the Design Guidelines is to establish direction and controls for land use within the CCD. The Framework Plan is the basis for the definition of uses and relationships that have been determined to be desirable to achieve the desired results for the redevelopment of the downtown. Use areas or districts for the CCD are established and described in the Design Guidelines as either Landmark Areas, or Flex Areas. The establishment of these districts, and their location in the CCD, is illustrated on Figure 22 on the next page. The Landmark Areas represent locations that have individual, single purpose from a land use perspective. The Flex Areas present a greater range of land use options, and represent the most flexible portions of the CCD. Transitional areas that provide use buffers to adjacent, established residential neighborhoods are included as one of the Flex Area land use types. Eight Landmark Areas have been defined in the Design Guidelines as specific use recommendations that are consistent with the recommended redevelopment plan. These include the following as illustrated in Figure 22: • L-1: Public parking ramp to the west of West Bridge Park • L-2: River-oriented shopping in the northwest quadrant of Broadway and TH-25 • L-3: The Cargill properties • L-4: The Community Center • • L-5: The Riverfront Park(West Bridge and East Bridge Parks) • L-6: Future Open Space (current liquor store site) • L-7: Permanent Public Open Space (cemetery) • L-8: Freeway retail (blocks 1,2, and 3 adjacent to 1-94) Each of these use areas has its own distinct set of requirements related to the development objectives for the specific use zone. In contrast to the Landmark Areas, Flex Areas have also been established that define areas within the CCD District that require land use flexibility to encourage the success of downtown. Three types of Flex Areas have been defined and incorporated into the Design Guidelines: • F-1: Shopping Area west of Highway 25 • F-2 : Convenience and Service Area east of Highway 25 • F-3: Transition zones The primary distinction in the Flex Areas is to encourage retail uses west of Highway 25 and to encourage service commercial, office, and clinic uses to the east of Highway 25. This land use arrangement is recommended in order to emphasize Walnut Street as the primary pedestrian zone and north-south connector through the CCD, and to limit the need for pedestrian interaction across TH-25. The transition zones are established with uses that will help buffer commercial activity in the CCD District from adjacent residential neighborhoods to the east of Palm Street, and to the west of Maple and Linn Streets. The two blocks east of Cedar Street between 3rd and 5th Streets are recommended Transition Zones, but are currently outside the CCD Zoning District. These blocks should be rezoned. 52 1111 • -. 7 ;l: jr ,_,... _ 1 L______, \\,_ i F-3 PARK PARK i I ' I L1 L5 L5 t. L_._ , ` F-3 r , 1 L-2 F1 F-2 ,{: i p� • t`/ 1 _ -- F13 a4 p D F-1 ' iI II 2: ,L-3 L ,-1 F ;I F. F-3 n O 6 _ -_:_ F-3 • L- e 1 F-1 PUBLIC O.S.L-7 F-3 ®" L-8 L-S 03 Landmark Areas: Corridors: L-1 Public Parking Ramp 1 Broadway Street L-2 River Oriented Shopping 2 Walnut Street L-3 Cargill Site 3 Highway 25/Pine Street L-4 Community Center Site 1-5 Riverfront Park L-6 Future Public Open Space L-7 Permanent Public Open Space L-8 Freeway Retail(5-4 Zoning Standards) Flex Areas: F-1 Shopping Area West of Hwy 25 F-2 Convenience and Services F-3 Transition Figure 22— Design Guidelines Use Areas 41111 53 Because transportation corridors within the CCD are such a large and important component of what III shapes the downtown and the use of downtown, the Design Guidelines also include use and design recommendations for three corridors: • TH-25/Pine Street between 7th Street and Broadway • Broadway Street/CSAH 75 between Linn and Palm Streets,and • Walnut Street The corridor component of the Design Guidelines includes recommendations for additional right-of-way where warranted, general description of roadway travel lanes and their geometry, descriptions for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, descriptions for streetscape and edge treatments, and recommendations for how buildings should relate to the streets. Figures 23-25 illustrate graphic examples of the corridor recommendations included with the Design Guidelines. 10' SETBACK/LANDSCAPE ZONE 100' EXISTING R.O.W. 10' SETBACK/LANDSCAPE ZONE I - r-- 7-,,,,,',, rL `---- PROPOSED BUILDING FACE BUILDING ' ,� OR PARKING EDGE BUILDING FACE OR PARKING EDGE 16` LL 28' 3' 40' 13'x` x 1 5 6' 14' 1 14' 14' 12' 14' _,..I4 ;L-!. 1' •h ( `I I , 1 EDGE FEATURES EDGE FEATURES z _-� ----- (WALL OR FENCING) (WALL OR FENCING) t*'-1 `, 10' LANDSCAPE----/fi "N___10' LANDSCAPE ZONE • 9' MULTI-USE TRAIL —6' BLVD. WITH L CONCRETE 6' BLVD. 6' WALK (PED. & BIKE) — 2' CONC. STRIP MEDIAN WITH 2' CONC. STRIP Figure 23— Highway 25 from 7th to Broadway 10' SETBACK EXISTING 100' R.O.W. 10' SETBACK / / ._../ STREET TREES AT BUMP-OUT AREAS ONLY. 10' . 6': _../._._-z /6', 10' / „-I STOREFRONT -- EXISTING STOREFRONT f 's Ist I -PROPOSED STOREFRONT OR EDGE FEATURES .C,.'IS cif STOREFRONTJ'.Y o 28' TWO "r4, 40'THREE Y o/sTOREFRO�IT � _ �a a _.,_.L �yy i� I SIDEWALK 6'-16' CONCRETE SIDEWALK, LANES I LANES ,Q�,SIDEWALK� I ZONE.ami am'ZONE SIDEWALK j a0 mpD. mt 16' 88' FACE TO FACE TYPICAL I 16' Figure 24— Broadway Street from Linn to Palm 54 III • 80' EXISTING R.O.W. J :. i STREET TREES REQUIRED TO It 12' 1 REINFORCE "BLOCK" PATTERN Y -1 LIMIT OF '- a 6' CONC. >o- SURFACE BUILDING LINE —1 ;WALK ��_ PARKING FOR NEW RETAIL c- i,97 . 1"EDGE" TREE PLANTING PLANTING ZONE I- \ .r.,--:4‘ PARKING I 24' 16' I __ 16' -/-6'-/6 .___12'__/ STREET SCALE �_.T REFRO i NE -' LAN .__'.-- _- E ✓ LIGHTING ySTOREFRONT LANE LANE I LANDSCAPE I SIDEWALK 1 ISLAND 24' ZONE I Figure 25—Walnut Street looking north at Anchor Block Component Parts of the CCD Design Guidelines Beyond the land use directives contained in the Design Guidelines the document provides direction and III controls for site development standards and building design necessary for the creation of a mixed-use pedestrian-oriented development. Architectural controls have been intentionally structured to allow enough flexibility for creative building solutions while remaining prescriptive in areas where necessary to complete the downtown vision. Although many of the historic structures which have contributed to the identity of downtown Monticello no longer exist, they can still provide visual cues for proportion, character, and rooflines. Figure 26 illustrates how historic buildings from Broadway Street were used to inform recommended building proportion criteria contained in the Design Guidelines. ' !I *—„r4hA.��, • h .. ', Tie i ` l t h 5 9-' Cci f x t ±� I. I' r,3 Y 1�.Mil .1 ti ti4 ”" i Figure 26— Historic Building Proportions III 55 Component parts of the architectural controls included within the Design Guidelines include: • • Building Orientation • Building Design and Massing • Building Materials • Screening • Franchise design • Site treatments • Parking • Exterior Lighting • Signage The use, site development, and architectural design controls included in the Design Guidelines are intended to apply to all of the Landmark and Flex Areas except for Landmark Area L-8, the Freeway Retail areas adjacent to 1-94. A unique approach is recommended for development control within Landmark Area L-8 so that any new or redeveloped uses within this area conform to the existing site and building standards that occur there. Because the L-8 areas have been developed under zoning standards consistent with the current B-4 District requirements, the Design Guideline recommendation for this particular Landmark Area is to apply the B-3 District standards for use, site development, architecture, and signage to this part of the CCD District. A complete copy of the proposed CCD District Design Guidelines is contained in Appendix B to this report. • 56 • • Chapter 4 - Implementation Approach Capitalize on Market Opportunities Market research conducted as a part of the planning process identified demand for additional stores and services in downtown Monticello. Market support was demonstrated for stores which typically anchor shopping districts including department stores and grocery stores. These stores would be located in the portion of downtown north of the railroad tracks. These stores would complement Hi- Way Liquors and the recently opened Walgreens which anchors the north end of downtown and Cub and Kmart at the south end of downtown. Anchor stores attract customer traffic that can shop at smaller retail stores and services. A medium size department store would attract an average of 600 customers per day to downtown Monticello. A small grocery store could attract over 400 customers per day. Market support also exists in the food service category, full service restaurants and limited service restaurants. Demand for additional services includes personal services and health care. Attracting more shoppers to downtown is a key ingredient in revitalizing the business district. Attracting more stores to downtown will reduce shopping trips to neighboring communities reinforcing the shop local movement. Redevelopment Objectives 411 Value creation for business and property owners is one of the primary objectives of the implementation plan. The City of Monticello and its residents will benefit from increased property valuations and economic activity. A key component of the value creation strategy is to capitalize on the customer traffic attracted by anchor stores to provide customers for existing and new retail stores, restaurants and services. Attracting additional customers to downtown Monticello creates the opportunity for businesses to increase their sales and grow the value of their business. Property owners will benefit from the increased value of their buildings. The City of Monticello will benefit from the increased real estate value which will result in larger tax revenues, creating tax increment that will pay for redevelopment costs. Businesses, as a result of their increased sales volume, will be able to afford additional property taxes. An example of value of creation is provided by Union Crossing anchored by SuperTarget and Home Depot. Recently, the inline store portion of that mall, known as Monticello Center, located between Home Depot and SuperTarget sold for about $7.9 million or $176 per square foot. Tenants in this building include Office Max and Petsmart. This center sold at this price because the retail sales performance of the individual stores supports the rental rate, which justifies the purchase price of the shopping center. In contrast, two buildings on Broadway have been offered for sale at$46 and $68 per square foot in the past year. While these prices may represent the extreme end of the value spectrum, there is a significant disparity,which reflects age, location and anchor store presence of the properties. Many downtown buildings have low values because of their location, size and shape. These are conditions that are difficult to change in response to market demand. Those buildings that do not have the ability to be adapted to current space and location needs of prospective tenants will need to be 11111 57 replaced over time by buildings that are desired by retail tenants. Value creation for businesses, • buildings and the City of Monticello occurs when: • Each business and building has a location that is appropriate for its business occupant. • When each business has a store space is the right size to properly display merchandise or perform the tenant's service. • Each building can offer its tenants an affordable rent that is supported by sales potential. • Each retailer experiences sales increase as a result of the larger customer draw of the re- developed downtown area. • Each building owner has rental income and net operating income that supports building cost or value. • Potential for increased rental income is created by increased tenant sales. The anticipated results of the value creation strategy are: • Increased economic activity and vitality in downtown Monticello. • A growing number of businesses with increased sales and profits. • Buildings that increase in value based on increased sales derived by its tenants. • Increased tax revenues to the City of Monticello resulting from more prosperous businesses. • Increased tax increments to support continued revitalization in downtown Monticello. Flexible Implementation Downtown Monticello is a relatively small geographic area with a limited amount of land for • redevelopment. Successful redevelopment will depend on flexibility in building location, parking, rental rates and other development related issues. Parking Parking is currently the largest land use in downtown and will be the largest land use in the future. Parking requirements for new and existing buildings become a constraint on buildable area on each block. In planning for redevelopment or new development, the amount of parking allocated for each use needs to be carefully considered. A parking ratio of five spaces per 1,000 square ft of retail store space is commonly considered a minimum requirement by zoning codes. Not all businesses, however, need five spaces per thousand square feet and many can be successful with substantially less parking. As each new development moves through the approval process the parking needs must be carefully considered to meet the needs of the business, but not over allocate the amount of space devoted to parking. Requiring parking that is not needed has the effect of limiting the amount of development and tax base that can be created, and reduces economic vitality. Location Businesses have different locational needs based on their relative relationship on a scale of convenience to destination. Convenience retailers (supermarkets, drug, liquor and hardware) are examples of 58 • • businesses that need convenient and visible locations. Destination businesses such as many services and office uses, need accessible and visible locations but not necessarily TH-25 frontage. Typically these businesses have a more personal business relationship with their customers. Rental Rates Rental rates in downtown will need to vary based on location, type of business and store size. In a typical shopping center, rents per square foot can range from $7.00 per square foot to over$35.00 per square foot. In most cases, those stores with the lower rents are larger and serve as anchors to draw customers to the shopping area. In evaluating development proposals it is important that rents be affordable by the individual business based on its sales and gross margin. The implementation plan needs to have the flexibility to recognize the different needs of businesses considering a location in downtown Monticello. Downtown Property Values Values of downtown properties vary widely based on site size, building size and location. A summary of downtown property values is included in Table 9 below. Block numbers for downtown are shown on Figure 27 on the next page. Much of the land that will be redeveloped in downtown Monticello is also occupied by buildings which increase the value and the cost of acquisition. The land and building value by block for existing buildings that may be redeveloped at some point in time range from $13.70 to $70.43 per square foot of land area as shown in Table 9. These values are as of January 2, 2010 for taxes 411 payable in 2011. Table 9— Downtown Property Values RANGE OF PER SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL LAND VALUES (TAXES PAYABLE 2011) Land & Building Block Vacant Land Low High 1 $ 11.45* $ 20.57 37.61 16 14.64* 30.07 30.07 17 24.00 24.00 31 14.69 18.12 32 13.70 15.03 34 19.77 58.75 35 20.98 70.43 36 7.55 16.43 33.63 51 20.80 30.57 52 17.99 37.21 *Includes parking lot improvements Source: MLS,Wright County,City of Monticello and McComb Group,Ltd. There are very few privately owned vacant commercial land parcels in downtown. Two parking lot parcels were valued at$11.45 and $14.64 per square foot respectively. A vacant parcel in the northeast corner of Locust and 3rd Street west was assessed at $7.55 per square foot. This parcel was recently • 59 appraised at about $8.94 per square foot based on other land transactions in Monticello. High land and 41111 building cost is a common problem in redevelopment that generally results in the need for a land cost write down. Illustration of Potential Land Plan for Implementation Refined Scheme A represents one concept for how individual blocks in downtown could be redeveloped. Figure 27 below illustrates Refined Scheme A with the Block Numbers labeled for reference. It is unlikely that downtown will redevelop with complete consistency with the layout illustrated in Refined Scheme A, but as the recommended plan it illustrates a number of important components responding to the physical and market analysis of the Monticello CCD. —Di, f ----X,`,7,'-:. ��—� /II �� N.-. _ � i--1 `J I "it. : =''''' �5�""I i 54 f•� • 1 _ r ,,.��, , 1st,..e..et. ca , I ! C, e�..acs 1 1 I _ —..� 1 I i - } t ! ,,.. t F I{ SI :;5 RI I _:._____:„.„..50,.. — x-50 -1 I� ��� I 1 . ,sc 52 u U 'Dc cam., I _ —. �4r III �, 41..E cu I1 /r -7l 1,1 n _. i ) (r-- -- 'I 1;�; Qii,s0-i 4 d t-- ; __-i i , I `j_! •'SL. ,,,, I 37 1 o--- D--- {a35--- �• d34_, \ I'~, )444, ;0 -. n C�?> i f � 4JJ , ..----, ----____. ___T\ r . ; , zot rid fi.',f, -1 30 31 �' J- :32 li i'l L._ 3 ire If s i, I IOF � ,14,''3 .i LI I 4 AY> at * ikv ♦1,. 31V e 4 M Vogt W ----^, u .._— l--, ,D i-----Thi (8_..., f--_ { Cr__—'---`_.. �1 I uFY u:_. f Q `- es.. o ;a 1-6 ' , G- j. .�----, �t < S 9 fl--477-� % I 11 Figure 27—Implementation Plan Illustration 60 110 • The most important message conceived by Scheme A is the relationship of building area to parking area at a parking ratio of four spaces per thousand square feet of building area. This plan is recommended to serve as a guide on which to base implementation planning. Much of the land that will be incorporated in potential development sites is currently owned by the City or the EDA. The City of Monticello has compiled a list of willing property sellers of downtown property. The potential redevelopment sites have been created taking into consideration the City owned land and willing property sellers. Implementation Framework Downtown Monticello is laid out on a typical street and block grid with individual lots on each block. This street and block grid system does not provide for anchor store sites and needed parking in the most efficient manner. The solution to this problem is to combine blocks to create larger developments and to incorporate concepts from the shopping center industry. In many shopping centers the anchor store owns (or leases) its building pad site and the shopping center owns the common area which includes parking, circulation, sidewalks and landscaping. Tenants pay common area maintenance (CAM) fees to cover operating costs of the shopping center and common area. The shopping center approach has been adapted to downtown Monticello. Buildings will own their building pad and the City will own and maintain the common area. The common area contains all other areas including parking, circulation, landscape elements, sidewalks and other features commonly associated with a shopping center. This approach provides the flexibility to offer the appropriate 4110 amount of parking to retailers and simplifies the provision of shared parking for businesses whose peak demands are different. This reduces the overall amount of parking required to support the proposed developments. Implementation of this approach is fairly simple. Building owners will purchase from the City its building pad site plus a variable width maintenance perimeter. Building pad sites will be priced at a cost appropriate for each use. In addition, each building will purchase a parking license from the City for the number of spaces needed to support its business. The parking license will provide each building with parking rights on the common area. Common area maintenance charges will be assessed to each building based on the amount of common area utilized for their business and construction costs associated with the common area. Sources and uses of capital funds for redevelopment are summarized below. Tax increment funds may also be utilized along with other revenues depending on total costs. Building developers will purchase pad sites for their building and will also purchase a parking license for needed parking spaces. The parking license will be a per stall price with two components: • Land cost for the parking area • Development costs for constructing the parking and other common area elements Uses of funds include the typical redevelopment costs (acquisition, relocation, demolition, etc.) and the cost for the construction of new improvements. Development costs include both hard and soft costs. III 61 Downtown Development Costs III Sources Uses Building Pad Sales Land Acquisition Parking License—Land Tenant Relocation Parking License—Development Demolition Capitalized Tax Increments Site Preparation Other Funds Common area Development Parking Sidewalks Landscaping Streetscape Infrastructure Other Costs The downtown common area described above will be owned and maintained by the City. The costs of operation and maintenance will be recovered through Common Area Maintenance (CAM) charges paid by each building for its proportionate share of the parking and common area. It is assumed that building owners will pass CAM costs on to their tenants. Typical CAM cost components are shown below: Downtown Operation and Maintenance Costs Sources Uses Common Area Maintenance fees Common Area Maintenance Downtown Marketing Funds Parking Lot and Sidewalk III Property Owner Contribution Lighting Business Owner contribution Landscaping City Contribution and/or Snow Removal Convention and Visitor Bureau Contribution Security Trash removal Other Maintenance and Repair Insurance Downtown Marketing and Promotion Advertising Promotions and Events Seasonal Decorations Other Many shopping centers have marketing funds that are supported by tenants and the shopping center owner. If such a marketing fund is created in downtown, the fees could be collected as part of the CAM charges. The City could also contribute to the promotion fund to promote shopping in downtown. Preliminary Financial Planning The estimated preliminary redevelopment costs for each downtown block were calculated using assessor's market values and a contingency to cover other costs. The amount of additional retail or office space that could be located on each block, if it was developed, was based on Refined Scheme A III 62 • along with the estimated tax increment generated from the new development and estimated revenues from sale of pad sites and parking license fees. The result was a preliminary estimate of the financial feasibility of redeveloping each block. Preliminary estimated costs and revenues of redeveloping blocks in downtown are contained in Table 10 below. This table is generally based on Refined Scheme A with modifications, in some cases, to reflect how the private sector would approach development. Information considered in these estimates includes square feet of land area to be acquired, estimated acquisition cost, proposed new building size, total revenues, and positive or negative balance for each block. Land acquisition has been reduced by the assessed value of City or EDA land on each block. Revenues include tax increment supported bonds and sales of pad sites and parking license fees. Positive and negative balances for redevelopment per block range from $215,000 positive to over$1.7 million negative. This analysis demonstrated that some blocks are relatively inexpensive to redevelop, while others are more expensive and/or yield less tax increment. This analysis was used to identify the areas where redevelopment would be most effectively implemented. Table 10— Preliminary Downtown Redevelopment Economics Estimated Total Block Cost Revenues Balance Southwest Block 34 $ 279,890 $ 472,625 $ 192,735 Block B $ 322,400 $ 537,200 $ 214,800 Anchor Block(s)31,32,35,36 $3,636,750 $ 2,493,864 $(1,142,886) • Block 33 $ 998,270 $ 695,077 $ (303,193) Northeast Block 34 $ 1,462,110 $ 235,611 $(1,226,499) Block 52 $ 1,948,310 $ 563,161 $(1,385,149) Block 53 $ 948,350 $ 490,860 $ (457,490) Block 35 $ 2,246,010 $ 515,589 $(1,730,421) Block 36 $ 1,291,680 $ 400,050 $ (891,630) Block 51 $ 1,255,540 $ 310,846 $ (944,694) Block 16 $ 1,189,760 $ 647,914 $ (541,846) Source:McComb Group,Ltd. Catalytic Redevelopment Sites Market research, planning, and financial analysis results were considered along with development related events in downtown to prioritize areas for redevelopment. Based on the study findings and local retailer needs and opportunities,three types of development blocks were identified. These are: Anchor Blocks, Relocation Blocks and Priority Blocks. Anchor Blocks Market research indicated support for a medium size department store and planning analysis determined that an anchor store site could be created along Walnut Street. This site, shown on . Figure 27, and its associated parking, would utilize portions of Blocks 31, 32, 35 and 36, which are 63 referred to as Anchor Blocks. There are several businesses on this site that may need to be relocated and buildings to be acquired. The actual number of businesses and buildings will depend • on the size of the anchor store and more detailed planning. Two buildings are potentially available for purchase: Ace Hardware and the NAPA Building. NAPA is moving its business to a new building south of 1-94. Relocation Blocks Planned property acquisitions are creating a need for buildings to accommodate existing downtown businesses. Based on financial analysis, planning, City land ownership and willing sellers, blocks 34, B and 53 were identified as Relocation Blocks. The City currently owns a large site on Block B. An adjacent parcel is currently for sale and could be incorporated in this site. Block 34 has several city owned parcels and properties owned by willing sellers. Two city wells are located on this block. Preliminary relocation planning indicates this block can be redeveloped without having to move the wells. This block is a good location for Ace Hardware and other retail businesses. Redevelopment of this block should include redeveloping the remaining parcels along Broadway to create a fully redeveloped block. Block 53 has been partially redeveloped with Walgreens. Three other parcels could be redeveloped. The former Times Building is a potential relocation site for one or more of the businesses to be relocated. As downtown redevelopment planning proceeds, other business relocations will occur. The • objective should be to use these relocations to cause new buildings to be developed downtown. Priority Blocks Two Priority Blocks were identified. Block 33 is relatively inexpensive to redevelop and could accommodate a 20,000 square foot building in addition to the existing office building. There is potential for a small grocery store in downtown. Block 33 would be a good location for that type of business. Block 52 is a priority block due to its location near the park and Mississippi river. This block should be redeveloped with uses that can capitalize on the block's proximity to the park and Mississippi River. Short-Term Implementation Redevelopment of downtown can be initiated with two current opportunities. The planned acquisition of 100 Broadway on Block 34 for proposed TH-25/CSAH 75 intersection improvements will require relocation of four businesses. It would be best if these businesses were retained downtown. Ace Hardware would like to expand its business in downtown and move to a more visible location. Block 34 is a logical location for Ace Hardware. To provide for future expansion of the hardware store,the owner 64 • • plans three retail tenant spaces. With coordinated relocation,this could accommodate some businesses displaced from 100 Broadway. This would require acquisition of one building and relocation of a tenant. Redevelopment of a portion of Block 34 for a possible Ace Hardware store appears to be economically attractive because the 100 Broadway building will be acquired with other funds and the City owns parking lots on the block. The anchor block is the potential site for a medium size department store. The proposed department store pad would be located on Block 31 and would incorporate parking on Blocks 32, 35, and 36 along with portions of street ROW on 3rd Street West and Locust. Relocation of Ace Hardware and purchase of the NAPA building and the vacant land at 213 3rd Street West would provide most of the site. Acquisition of Walnut Plaza would be required and possibly 321 Walnut. This would require additional business relocations. Preliminary analysis indicates a negative balance of about$1,150,000. Anchor block parcels result in a negative balance of over$1.1 million, but is proposed for a medium size department store. This estimate includes three of the blocks that are part of this proposed development. There will be additional costs, such as reciprocal parking easements and other development costs for an anchor store. Block B is a relocation block and is an excellent location for a professional office building that could accommodate relocated businesses. Block B results in a positive balance since much of the proposed development site is currently owned by the City. A small commercial building and a house east of the City parcel are recommended for acquisition to unify land use on the block. • The desire for a specialty grocer to complement the offerings of Cub was expressed during the course of the downtown evaluation. Block 33 could be the location of a 20,000 square foot store, possibly a grocery store. This block would require acquisition of several residential properties and associated relocation. This block has an estimated negative balance of about$300,000. These four development opportunities have a combined negative balance of slightly more than $1.0 million. These costs may rise as planning for each development proceeds, but they appear to be within the City's available resources. Preliminary redevelopment economics for this short-term redevelopment scenario are summarized in Table 11 below. Table 11—Short-term Redevelopment Scenario Economics Estimated Total Block Cost Revenues Balance Southwest Block 34 $ 279,890 $ 472,625 $ 192,735 Block B $ 322,400 $ 537,200 $ 214,800 Anchor Block $3,636,750 $ 2,493,864 $(1,142,886) Block 33 $ 998,270 $ 695,077 $ (303,193) Subtotal $5,237,310 $4,198,766 $(1,038,544) Source:McComb Group,Ltd. • 65 Redevelopment Summary III Existing building acquisitions and business expansion needs create the opportunity to launch redevelopment in Downtown Monticello. Seizing these opportunities will set the stage for additional redevelopment. Downtown Redevelopment Financing Tools A number of tools for financing redevelopment and public infrastructure for redevelopment are available to the City of Monticello. Success in identifying and utilizing available funding sources will contribute greatly to the success of achieving Monticello's redevelopment objectives. Part of Monticello's approach to financing redevelopment should include constant monitoring of federal, state, county, and private foundation and non-profit sources for grants that can be applied to public and private costs for redevelopment activity. The primary financial tools available for redevelopment at this time include: Tax Increment Financing(TIF): TIF can provide assistance for land write-down, public infrastructure and/or site improvements. Redevelopment TIF Districts are established based on blight and functional obsolescence criteria and may be 25 years in length. Monticello has a fund balance of over $1 million in two TIF districts (1-5 and 1-6) that will decertify in 2012 and 2013. Another TIF district (1-22)will expire in 2024; it could provide additional resources for downtown revitalization. Public hearings are required by the governmental unit for review and approval of a TIF District budget and spending plan as well as a Development Agreement. Tax Abatement: Tax Abatement can be established to operate in a fashion similar to TIF, but with III potentially more flexibility in the use of funds. The state statute establishing tax abatement allows political subdivisions to grant an abatement of the taxes they impose to be used for increasing or preserving tax base, providing employment, acquiring or constructing public facilities, redeveloping blighted areas, or financing or providing public infrastructure. Revenue from abated taxes is used to fund bonds for improvements in a fashion similar to the typical use of TIF revenue, but without the stricter use limitations applied to TIF districts. Tax Abatement may be applied for periods up to 15 years for the purposes outlined above. The City of Monticello could request that other political subdivisions such as the County or School District also abate taxes within a district established by the City, but the other jurisdictions are not obligated to do so. Tax abatement cannot be applied within an active TIF District, so for the downtown area of Monticello this financial tool may have more applicability in the future as the current TIF districts expire. The EDA and Monticello City Council would need to establish a policy for the utilization of Tax Abatement to finance redevelopment activities. USDA Rural Development Community Facilities Grant and Loan Program—These funds are used to assist communities with population less than 20,000 in developing/redeveloping essential public facilities and/or infrastructure. Grants require other funding sources to be involved; the grant amount is based on a community's economic capacity & economic distress data. Loans generally carry favorable interest rates and long payback periods of 25 to 30 years. Applications must be submitted to the USDA staff/offices. The USDA staff will work closely with applicants via a pre- 66 • • application process to ensure that projects meet the eligibility guidelines and the goals and risks are understood by the involved parties. Minnesota DEED Redevelopment Grant Program: Grant funding can be used in Downtown Redevelopment efforts/projects for land acquisition, demolition, infrastructure and other redevelopment project related improvements. The Grant dollars may total up to 50 percent of the costs for the eligible items. A Redevelopment Grant application must be submitted to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) per the application schedule/deadline. The next deadline is January 3, 2012. Minnesota DEED Small Cities Development Program (SCDP): Funding is awarded as a grant directly to a public entity to support development of public infrastructure, housing, small business growth and expansion; funds may offered by the public entity to private sector developers/businesses and non-profit organizations as loans for real property purchases/renovation and/or new construction and equipment purchases or improvements; an application must be submitted to Minnesota DEED per the application schedule/deadline. Minnesota Legacy Grants: In 2008, Minnesota voters passed constitutional amendment dedicating an additional 3/8 of one percent of sales and use tax to Clean Water, Wildlife, Cultural Heritage and Natural Areas for a 25-year period beginning July 1, 2009. These funds can provide a key source of funding for parks and trail connections, Mississippi River amenities, history and history preservation, clean water, and arts and cultural projects associated with Monticello's downtown revitalization effort. In 2011, $10.5 million was available for Arts and Cultural Heritage —this represents about 20% of the total funding available each year. Applications are submitted through different state • agencies based on funding category. Agencies involved include the MN Department of Natural Resources, MN Historical Society and MN Arts Board. Small Business Administration 'SBA 504' Loans-The Small Business Administration provides direct loans to qualifying for-profit businesses for fixed assets (land, building and equipment) for 40% of total project costs. They require 10% equity, 50% loan participation from a private lender as well as job creation. SBA 504 loans provide an attractive option for small businesses seeking to own their own facility. Benefits include a low down payment (10%), longer term (20 years for loans that consist primarily of real estate);and a fixed interest rate, at a low rate (currently less than 5%). Small Business Administration Loan Guarantee 'SBA 7A' — The Small Business Administration encourages private lenders to lend to small businesses by providing a loan guarantee which reduces the lenders exposure if there is a default. These loans can be used for equipment purchases and/or working capital; the bank completes the application steps with the borrower and makes the loan to the borrower. Greater Monticello Enterprise Fund (GMEF): The Monticello EDA acts as a lender to commercial and industrial businesses. The minimum loan size is $25,000 and maximum may not to exceed 50% of the remaining GMEF balance. Funds can be used for acquisition of real estate and/or construction or renovation of buildings and purchase of equipment, providing the business meets certain economic development criteria. There is some flexibility in how funds are deployed; options include a direct,subordinated loan; loan participation or loan guarantee. • 67 Designated Downtown Loan Funds: Many communities involved in downtown revitalization • establish revolving loan funds to support facade improvements and/or renovation activities related to bringing older buildings up to current code building code standards. Examples of this approach include: • Facade improvement loan programs typically provide relatively small ($2,000 — 8,000) loans. They may carry no/low interest rate and be subordinated to bank and may require a matching contribution from a bank or the business or property owner. They may be structured to provide an incentive for property owners to freshen up the exterior appearance in accordance with design guidelines. Because they are relatively small loans, the term on these loans is relatively short. • Loan funds targeted to code related building renovation (e.g. electrical, mechanical, handicap access, etc.) typically provide larger loans ($8,000 — 15,000). In all other respects they are structured similar to the façade improvement loans. The EDA and Monticello City Council would need to establish a policy for the utilization of Designated Loan Funds finance building renovations. MnDOT Transportation Economic Development Pilot Program (TED): This program is an example of grant initiatives that appear from time to time through MnDOT to address transportation-related issues like economic development, safety, roadway beautification, and other, similar issues. The TED program was set up in 2011 to provide $39 million in MnDOT funds for transportation improvements that would improve the statewide transportation network while promoting economic growth through the expansion of an existing business, or development of a new business. Grants of up to $10 million dollars were available under this program. Proposals were solicited from • applicants that were required to be governmental entities as defined by state law, but governmental entities were allowed to partner with private concerns. Typical of most state funding programs, a local match for a portion of the funds was required, so governmental units applying for a grant must have some local funding available for the proposed project. Monticello should actively monitor funding programs offered by MnDOT and other state agencies. Organizing to work together effectively Successful downtown revitalization requires common purpose and vision for redevelopment efforts, and cooperation between participants representing public and private-sector interests. Simply stated, revitalization requires: • Commitment to a shared vision; • Clear understanding of market realities; • Establishing ground rules for valuation of property; • Engagement of public and private sector leaders,and downtown business and property owners • A long-term commitment to civility and cooperation through the complex process of redevelopment and revitalization. It is important to address the following organizational topics in a forthright manner to ensure successful project implementation: 68 • • 1. Structure 2. Leadership 3. Organizational processes a. Strategy b. Systems to measure progress and impact c. Systems to inform/update strategy 4. Financial resources aligned/targeted to support plan implementation 5. Strong communications plan & execution Recommended approaches for establishing the organizational framework for effective implementation of the redevelopment of the Monticello CCD are outlined in the sections which follow. 1. Structure Successful implementation of the downtown revitalization initiative will require the engagement of public and private sector leadership. The Monticello Economic Development Authority (EDA) will play the key public sector role in the revitalization of downtown because it has: • Statutory powers to engage in development projects in the City of Monticello, • Land in downtown Monticello • Financial resources, and • Staff resources. The EDA has responsibilities beyond downtown revitalization and its structure does not actively engage community resources that can be critical to success. Its role should be complemented by the creation of a downtown development corporation. The two should have a close working relationship, with at least one EDA member participating on the development corporation governing board. It may be possible for the development corporation to affiliate with another non-profit organization to minimize the administrative burden. Consistent with the principle of"form follows function" Monticello's downtown revitalization effort should maintain a clear focus on redevelopment/revitalization. Promotional activities and special events for downtown businesses are best addressed by existing organizations. It should be lead by a public-private partnership (e.g. development council or corporation) that includes individuals with specific expertise, as well as representatives of key groups and organizations that have a vested interest in the success of downtown, and the capacity to contribute leadership and resources. • Major employers should be represented — they have a vested interest in health of the overall community — as a business location and as a place to which they bring customers, suppliers. The health of the community impacts the living/working environment for many of their employees and impacts their ability to attract employees. Senior managers in these organizations have the skills to manage complex projects. As significant taxpayers, they have a vested interest in ensuring the long-term health of Monticello's tax base. • Business and property owners provide critical insights into the real challenges and opportunities facing business and property owners downtown and must be actively engaged. Because of the potential for real or perceived conflicts of interest, representatives 1111 69 should be carefully selected and recuse themselves from deliberations if a potential for conflict of interest exists. • • Certain technical perspectives are valuable:finance, real estate, legal, and accounting. • In Monticello, the Community Center and Eastbridge/Westbridge Park can be important traffic generators and are critical to creating downtown Monticello as a distinctive destination for shopping, dining and recreation. Representatives of the parks board and civic center management should be part of the team. • Development corporation leadership should include representation from the following categories. The structure should allow for staggered terms to ensure both continuity of leadership and integration of new leadership. o Major employers o Business owners o Property owners o Banking o Accounting o Legal o Downtown Association o Chamber of Commerce o Parks Board o Civic Center o Monticello EDA/City Council o City staff 2. Leadership • There are two components to leadership—volunteer and staff/consulting resources. Volunteer leadership-The goal is a functional, balanced team with the qualities and skills needed to accomplish the community's downtown revitalization goals. • Effective leaders and effective team players • A balance of entrepreneurial creativity/drive and caution/risk-management • Demonstrated experience in managing complex organizations and projects • Unquestioned ethics and integrity • Creative, problem-solving skills • Respectful communication skills • Priority focus on community goals and community service Staff/consulting leadership — City staff and consultants are available to support the EDA and can provide important support to the development corporation. The development corporation may want to secure part-time help; engage consulting support; and/or retain the services of an existing organization to meet the range of administrative and professional services that will be required. As a first step, all personal qualities (e.g. communication and problem-solving skills) and potential responsibilities should be outlined. Opportunities to engage existing local organizations to provide in-kind or contracted support should be explored. Required skills and capacity not available 70 • • through existing resources should be identified and serve as the basis for a position description or request for proposal. In addition to appropriate technical skills, part-time staff or consulting resources should demonstrate many of the same qualities as described above for volunteer leadership. • Effective leader and effective team player • A balance of entrepreneurial creativity/drive and caution/risk-management • Demonstrated experience in managing complex organizations and projects • Unquestioned ethics and integrity • Creative, problem-solving skills • Respectful communication skills • Priority focus on community goals and community service 3. Organizational Processes A well-researched strategy is a key foundation of effective organizational processes. Executing the plan is the next step and should include performance measurement. The EDA and development corporation should agree on metrics to measure progress and impact over the near term and long term — including measures involving successful business relocations, sustainable rents, new investment, employment, increase in traffic, sales and other relevant factors. Performance measures should be communicated regularly to all public and private stakeholders and serve as the basis for informing and refining the strategy. 4. Financial Resources • Financial resources must be aligned to support implementation of the plan. A three-year budget for the development corporation should be developed and funds committed in advance by public and private sources to ensure that staff/consulting leadership can focus on achieving results rather than fundraising. 5. Communications Leadership should develop a communication strategy based on input from all key stakeholders in the redevelopment process (property owners, business owners, EDA members, city council members, development corporation funders, etc.). The communications plan should reflect different approaches for each group(e.g. property owner outreach will be different than city council communication;some audiences want weekly communication, for others quarterly may be fine). As much as possible, the communications strategy should be agreed to by all groups in advance. A range of communications activities should be part of the plan including electronic media, community meetings and presentations, individual outreach, opportunities for engagement in committees, etc. An annual report should be prepared summarizing goals, progress, impact, volunteer recognition and a look ahead to the next phase of revitalization. • 71 Chapter 5 - Implementation Action Plan • A coordinated plan of action is essential for the implementation of the redevelopment plan for the CCD that has evolved from the Embracing Downtown Monticello study process. The following sections describe specific actions recommended to implement the plan approach outlined in the preceding chapter. j`r a , --1 0 " ri Ci 1 J r r� J'-' - Cr J ,; r 2iti .6 Cit Ci $�" r 'Fe R3 ' t a 1:04-0 d QOA ti u J' , a a - C)9 ' . is 'WY I a U 3 • I F. :J J Jc?,, a TiiC. tI `tj :1 !l t J ti, — t J `4.i.it:i.i.i.i4J t ( tjJJ.l:l'''1t'�1 ;:,JJ MV .so 1/4.-- 11100011111* "" .'Jtr:,ta . 34""z)i.)� 111/ iJL5*-'-' r1 III J ti .ta Ay 0.0 0 J C `i 4) diJ a ...4 .' °?.kaa:itttJ•i w,^`-444„k ,it.J'26, .* 4, 6 U t .,4444 1Y� J. ' yv / .f.:___,-illi ri j 't1• 17 lrir— u � isio r 1jt, �Z 6 , „ _.. .._ -.. Figure 28— Illustrative Redevelopment Plan Planning and Zoning Actions The initial Planning action required for implementation of the redevelopment plan for the CCD following adoption of the study results will be completing a Comprehensive Plan update for the Downtown Focus Area segment of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Chapter. The primary purpose of the focus area description will be to identify, summarize, and communicate the changes in Land Use policies, goals, and objectives established through the Embracing Downtown Monticello study process. 0 72 Zoning actions will also be required following the study to adjust the limits of the CCD - Central • Community District zoning district to add blocks F and G between Cedar Street and Palm Street to the district so that the Design Guidelines will apply to these two blocks and identify their role as transitional areas between commercial development flanking TH-25 and the largely single-family residential neighborhood to the east of Palm Street. Because the recent Zoning Code update anticipated the use of the CCD design guidelines to regulate use and design within the CCD District, it will be necessary to codify the draft Design Guidelines and adopt them as part of the CCD District. Transportation Improvements The traffic study completed for the CCD Redevelopment scenario analyzed critical downtown intersections and intersections along TH-25 from the 1-94 ramps north to County Highway 11 on the north side of the river. The traffic impacts from redevelopment of the CCD are minor as compared to the impacts from continued growth of background traffic that utilizes TH-25 as a river crossing between 1-94 and Highway 10. For that reason, the single most important transportation improvement that will help maintain the viability of the downtown area is the implementation of another river crossing to relieve traffic growth on TH-25. The analysis of alternative routes and effects on other parts of Monticello has already been undertaken in the recently completed 2030 Transportation Plan component of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. Selecting the second river crossing location and developing funding for a second crossing and related roadway improvements should be a high priority for the promotion of the CCD as an ongoing downtown business center. Another series of needed short-term capacity improvements are occurring as a result of the ill redevelopment of the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Broadway with TH-25 for Walgreen's. Intersection improvements that have been completed or are pending will provide sufficient capacity to support CCD redevelopment to at least the year 2030 if a second river crossing is implemented. Pending improvements at the intersection of 7th Street with TH-25 also fall into the category of needed improvements that have been identified and are in the process of being planned and completed. Improvements at Broadway and at 7th Street will provide sufficient traffic capacity to support the revitalization plan for the near term,and for the long term with the addition of a second river crossing. Other transportation improvements have been identified that are desirable for business promotion and convenience of local access, but that are not essential for the maintenance of adequate traffic capacity in and through the downtown core area. These include: • The proposed traffic signals at the intersection of 4th Street with TH-25 • The conversion of the intersection of 3rd Street with TH-25 from full movement to right-in and right-out movements together with the addition of a median on TH-25 from 4th street north to Broadway, and • The addition of a signal system to promote pedestrian accessibility across Broadway at Locust Street,when warranted. While these improvements may not be critical for short-term successful traffic operations, they are all extremely important for establishing an environment that promotes retail use by improving access from TH-25, and improves pedestrian movement through the downtown area. The timing for these improvements will be based on the ability of Monticello to establish funding sources for their III implementation. Since they are not critical for traffic operations, Wright County and MnDOT are 73 unlikely to participate in funding for them except, or unless they qualify for an existing or future grants • program with transportation funding, such as the TED program for 2011 that MnDOT offered in conjunction with the Department of Employment and Economic Development. The recommended strategy for these improvements will be to work with the agencies to obtain approval to implement the changes, followed by efforts to identify funding for the improvements. For the traffic signals to be implemented at 4th Street,the requirements for meeting signal warrant eight will need to be pursued as the side street traffic volumes will preclude the ability to meet any of the other warrants. A part of meeting the requirements of warrant eight is local approval of the access or development plan that requires installation of the signals. Adopting the CCD Redevelopment plan will be the first step in that process for the Monticello City Council. Other recommended improvements in the TH-25, Broadway, and Walnut Street corridors can occur over a long period of time as redevelopment transforms the downtown area. These improvements include: • Landscaping and visual or aesthetic enhancements, increased corridor width to implement bike lanes along TH-25 • Increased corridor width for medians and turn lanes on TH-25 • Increased corridor width on Broadway to allow on-street bike lanes and retained on-street parking • Sidewalk area expansions and improvements for pedestrians on Broadway and along Walnut Street. - 4.-.�_ L fir'"°} 6;,, ) • • < t fi k a' 4* l rC,-y .*Xe..'ALLU.rr A 7�' I. 4 ti = A. --• ; i:: . '11)611, `11jii!44 ' 11�! . ...— • tin r.„'T .. _ i _.' f Figure 29—Walnut Street at the Anchor Block The Design Guidelines recommend building setbacks for these corridors that are aimed at retaining needed corridor width for the improvements recommended and listed above. Since local funding will be required for all of these improvements, timing will need to follow the availability of funding. As 74 4110 • properties develop and redevelop along these corridors, the City should encourage the implementation of improvements identified for the adjacent corridors. Parks,Trails & Community Center The Community Center and West Bridge Park can serve as important traffic generators for the downtown. The Community Center and meeting rooms generate well over 230,000 visits per year with additional visitors to the senior center and National Guard facility. Strategic programming of both assets can bring visitors to the downtown area in all seasons, during the week, on weekends, throughout the day and evening. Some events and activities can be purposefully structured in concert with the business community to bring additional traffic to downtown businesses. Examples of possible activities for the park include: • Individual or family activities: skating, sledding, picnicking, canoe/kayak rentals, canoeing/kayaking, bicycling, walking, fishing, historic interpretation, Great River Road interpretation,gardens, birding • Small group activities: rentals of pavilion/shelter space for reunions, weddings & other gatherings,scouting or other youth activities, island camp-outs • Events: Farmer's market; triathlon, marathon or fun runs; snow sculpture contests; fishing contests; canoe races; summer concerts, swan-themed activity, Mississippi River or Huck Finn themed event; partner on a paddle event with St. Cloud, Coon Rapids or another partner; historic-themed event (ferry boat or other local historic connection) • Interviews indicate that residents south of 1-94 visit the Community Center, but don't connect to downtown further to the north. Increased programming at West Bridge and East Bridge Parks can draw more regional residents to Monticello and draw south-side residents through the downtown area. A revitalized downtown shopping district can capture additional spending power related to this traffic. Expansion of physical development in West Bridge and East Bridge Parks was one of the primary concepts included in the strategy for redeveloping the CCD as alternative plans were explored and discussed. The following components could be developed over time to help promote pedestrian traffic movement along Walnut Street and to attract new users to downtown Monticello: • Plaza and public gathering space at the terminus of Walnut Street • Fountain or interactive water play feature • Amphitheater or other outdoor performance space • Hard-surface or grass area for Farmer's Market • Nature Center or Interpretive Center for swans on the river • Trail head facilities for nature walk on islands • Bicycle trail user facilities • Small boat/canoe/kayak launch facility • Fishing Pier • Restaurants and outdoor dining space • Kitchen facilities for catering and/or food preparation • Picnic shelter or enclosed dining facilities • • Public restrooms 75 • Public food and snack concessions • • Surface and/or structured parking VOL � ^1 J y,,.,a. t ;,tea s _ zr w ^� - '.tee. ,. � r ....;:„. �.4.-,.. %':4w t. Autumn r- t '" n y .r• .fid.• •.l.„ +,` 1 • .7..., ,p1a IR., , 4 !, ' j' "� 7 S : {� :±r . } tik t C. ..M pis1...s4,„,,. T✓x��. u ¢" -a "Sy .ice � s It 4t R 1lri�; {reBSwe IFS't �` d! .�'a f } $ 3. i A s arm c ' ___ ___ /_#5iMzg 4 A.i1 sem. r r'*%.v— -- . _ A_ ‘,. . Figure 30—Walnut Street from West Bridge Park • Redevelopment Implementation Actions The preceding chapter described redevelopment opportunities involving portions of six blocks in downtown. If implemented, these opportunities would have a significant impact on improving business in downtown. This section describes actions that will be needed to implement the initial phase of the Embracing Downtown Monticello plan. • Marketing Program Targeted marketing programs and information should be prepared for use in marketing downtown Monticello. This will include information from the Embracing Downtown Monticello plan and other Monticello marketing collaterals. • Market Business Opportunities to Those That Can Execute Downtown Monticello and its retail and development opportunities should be marketed to retailers, brokers, and leasing agents that represent desired retailers, as well as developers, bankers, and lenders. • 76 • ♦ Contact Interested Retailers Submit development and store location offers to department stores and interested retailers. ♦ Refine Redevelopment Costs Determine redevelopment costs for anchor block, relocation blocks, and priority blocks. Redevelopment costs include, but may not be limited to: land acquisition, demolition cost, identify potential contamination issues, relocation costs, administrative costs, and other costs. ♦ Common Area Development Costs Development costs need to be prepared for common area elements including, but not limited to: infrastructure, parking, landscaping and entrance features, pedestrian areas,street furniture, and other items. ♦ Relocation Planning Business relocations resulting from proposed redevelopment need to be identified. Businesses need to be contacted and kept informed on progress. Relocation sites must be identified in existing or new buildings. Developers for new buildings need to be identified. Relocation should be coordinated with new building construction. ♦ Financing for Small Businesses • Summarize financing tools available to for small businesses and make available electronically or in a flyer. Engage bankers, accountants and attorneys in the community — inform them of the overall redevelopment strategy and tools available to help small businesses. Conduct a financing workshop for small businesses and involve bankers and accountants as presenters or panelists. ♦ Anchor Block Acquisitions Initial land acquisitions for anchor block redevelopment should be completed. Key parcels include acquisition and relocation of Ace Hardware, NAPA building, and land at 213 3`d Street West. ♦ Implement Initial Relocations and Redevelopment Initial relocation resulting from acquisition of 100 Broadway West and 216 Pine on Block 34 must be implemented. Costs associated with these activities must be determined. ♦ Build Organizational Capacity Strengthen public-private cooperation and leadership for downtown revitalization through the engagement of business and community leaders experienced in addressing complex projects and achieving long term goals; downtown business and property owners; professionals who understand redevelopment and business finance; and city, parks and civic center leadership. • 77 Develop appropriate structure, processes, and budget. Note: this process may take time, and is • not a pre-requisite to getting underway with other steps. ♦ Communications plan Establish a communications plan for outreach to business and property owners based on dialogue with all key stakeholders including elements such as an easy-to-find web presence; a monthly e-newsletter; meeting notice procedures, etc. These implementation actions and tasks are necessary to properly promote downtown Monticello to businesses and developers and determine the cost and benefits of implementing the Embracing Downtown Monticello plan. The City of Monticello must embrace the findings of the Embracing Downtown Monticello process. Implementing the initial steps identified in the Embracing Downtown Monticello report will require City staff and/or representatives acting on behalf of the City to make financial representations and/or commitments. Developers and businesses will need to be assured that these commitments and/or representations will be honored by the City. Planning for a major development is expensive. No business is going to commit funds planning a development in Monticello if it does not believe the City is committed to implementation. • 78 • 0 FINAL REPORT Embracing Downtown Monticello Monticello CCD Revitalization City of Monticello, Minnesota 40 Appendix A Market Study • 0 DRAFT FINAL REPORT Embracing Downtown Monticello Monticello CCD Redevelopment City of Monticello, Minnesota • Appendix A Market Study • • DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO MARKET ANALYSIS AND RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL Prepared for City of Monticello August 2011 DMc o■n �� CONll3 CTROL-I;Ltd. R E A L L•' S T A T E AND RETAIL CONSULTANTS • DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO MARKET ANALYSIS AND RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL Prepared for City of Monticello Prepared by McComb Group, Ltd. August 2011 • ©Copyright 2011 McComb Group, Ltd. TABLE OF CONTENTS • Chapter Subject Page INTRODUCTION iv Report Purpose v 1 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO 1-1 Monticello Commercial Areas 1-2 Retail Establishments 1-2 Service Establishments 1-4 Regional Access 1-4 Traffic Counts 1-5 Downtown Orientation 1-6 2 COMPETITIVE SHOPPING AREAS 2.1 Regional Shopping Influence 2-1 Community Shopping Areas 2-2 Neighborhood Shopping Areas 2-3 Convenience Retail Areas 2-4 New Retail Development 2-4 Summary 2-4 • 3 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO CUSTOMER SURVEY 3-1 Summary 3-4 4 MONTICELLO TRADE AREAS 4-1 Population and Households 4-2 Household Income 4-4 Demographic Characteristics 4-6 Employment 4-10 Purchasing Power 4-11 5 MONTICELLO RETAIL SALES AND MARKET SHARE 5-1 Retail Sales 5-1 Market Share 5-2 Sales Potential 5-4 6 MONTICELLO RETAIL POTENTIAL AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1 Monticello Retail Potential 6-2 APPENDICES under separate cover • LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 1-1 Summary of Monticello Retail and Services by Area 1-2 1-2 Monticello Retail Establishments by Area 1-3 1-3 Monticello Service Establishments by Area 1-4 1-4 Monticello Traffic Counts: 2008 and 2030 1-6 1-5 Downtown Commercial Building Orientation; Area North of Railroad Tracks 1-7 3-1 Downtown Monticello Customer Survey; October 2010 3-1 3-2 Downtown Monticello Customer Survey; October 2010: Survey Respondents by Residence Location 3-2 3-3 Downtown Monticello Customer Survey; October 2010 Survey Respondents that Work in Monticello by Residence Location 3-2 3-4 Downtown Monticello Customer Survey; October 2010 Survey Respondents by Reason for Stopping 3-3 3-5 Downtown Monticello Customer Survey; October 2010 Survey Respondents by Gender 3-3 • 3-6 Downtown Monticello Customer Survey; October 2010 Survey Respondents by Day of Survey 3-4 4-1 Monticello Downtown and Secondary Trade Areas; and Minneapolis- St. Paul MSA Population and Households: 1990 and 2000 Census; 2010 and 2015 Estimated 4-2 4-2 Downtown and Secondary Trade Areas and North Submarket Population and Households: 2000 Census; 2010 and 2015 Estimated 4-3 4-3 Monticello Downtown and Secondary Trade Areas and Minneapolis- St. Paul MSA Average and Median Household Income: 1990 and 2000 Census; 2010 and 2015 Estimated 4-4 4-4 Monticello Downtown and Secondary Trade Areas and Minneapolis- St. Paul MSA Household Income Distribution: 1990 and 2000 Census; 2010 and 2015 Estimated 4-5 4-5 Monticello Downtown Trade Area Demographic and Income Snapshot 4-7 4-6 Monticello Secondary Trade Area (Donut) Demographic and Income Snapshot 4-8 4-7 Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA Demographic and Income Snapshot 4-9 4-8 Wage and Salary Employment; 2000-2010 4-10 4-9 Monticello Downtown Trade Area Retail Purchasing Power; 2010 and • 2015 4-11 ii LIST OF TABLES (continued) • Table Title Page 5-1 Monticello Retail Sales and Service Sales: 2002 and 2007 5-1 5-2 Monticello Purchasing Power, Retail Sales and Market Share; 2007 5-3 5-3 City of Monticello Market Share and Downtown Trade Area Sales 5-4 5-4 Downtown Monticello Retail Purchasing Power, Market Share and Sales Potential; 2015 by Merchandise Category 5-5 5-5 Downtown Monticello Retail Sales Potential and Supportable Space; 2015 by Merchandise Category 5-5 6-1 Downtown Monticello Suggested Supportable Space Summary by Merchandise Category 6-2 6-2 Downtown Monticello Supportable Space; 2010, 2015 and 2020 by Merchandise and Service Category 6-4 LIST OF MAPS • Map Title Page 1-1 Downtown Monticello Study Area 1-1 2-1 Competitive Shopping Areas 2-1 3-1 Downtown Monticello Trade Area and Customer Spotting 3-1 4-1 Monticello Downtown and Secondary Trade Areas 4-1 4-2 Monticello Downtown and Secondary Trade Areas Estimated 2015 Household Density 4-3 Monticello Downtown and Secondary Trade Areas Estimated 2015 Household Income: Percent Above $75,000 4-6 • iii • INTRODUCTION This report was prepared for the City of Monticello by McComb Group, Ltd. and its subcontractor Economic Development Services, Inc. This report contains the retail market research and findings. Work tasks conducted during this engagement are summarized below. • Business establishments in downtown Monticello were identified and categorized by type to determine tenant mix and market orientation. Business establishments that were evaluated include, but were not limited to: retail stores, food service, service establishments, and medical offices. Factors evaluated include, but were not limited to: regional access to downtown Monticello, pedestrian circulation, parking, and proximity to other uses in downtown. • Shopping areas that are competitive with downtown Monticello were identified and evaluated. Principal competitors were identified and evaluated for anchor stores and tenant mix. New developments anticipated in Monticello were identified, to the extent Possible to determinepossible coin etitive impacts. • Retail businesses in downtown Monticello were asked to participate in a survey of their customers to determine where they live and work and why they shop at that business. Nine businesses participated in the survey and three other businesses provided customer information. This information was used to assist in identifying the downtown trade area • for Monticello retailers and the amount of inflow patronage. • The trade area for downtown Monticello was delineated based on arterial road patterns, competitive shopping areas, customer survey results, and McComb Group experience. The economy of the trade area was analyzed to identify and quantify those factors that generate support for retail and service establishments. Factors that were evaluated include, but were not limited to: employment, population, households, and household income. Retail and service purchasing power of trade area households was estimated using McComb Group's proprietary retail purchasing power software that contains spending potential for over 120 business establishments. • Retail sales trends in Monticello were examined to determine market share trends, which included Monticello retail sales for 2002 and 2007 from the Retail Census updated by McComb Group using local information and Minnesota sales tax records. • Market demand for retail, food service, and service business establishments in downtown Monticello were identified based on estimated trade area population and household growth taking into consideration competitive impacts, trade area demographics, trade area purchasing power, and estimated market share. Based on this analysis, sales potential and future demand for retail, food service, and service space was estimated by business type for Monticello for 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030. Short-term estimates (2010, 2015, and 2020) are contained in the report. Long-term estimates are contained in • iv a separate appendix. This analysis included identifying niche markets and specialty retail • opportunities in downtown Monticello. Report Purpose This report was prepared in accordance with our contract dated September 10, 2010. This report was prepared with the understanding that the results of our work will be used by the client to determine market demand for additional development in downtown Monticello for the period 2010 to 2030. Our report was prepared for that purpose and is subject to the following qualifications: • Our analysis did not ascertain the legal and regulatory requirements applicable to this project including zoning, other state, and local government regulations, permits, and licenses. No effort was made to determine the possible effect on the proposed project of present or future federal, state, or local legislation, or any environmental or ecological matters. • Our report and analysis was based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed from research of the market, knowledge of the industry and discussions with the client. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur; therefore, actual results achieved will vary from the analysis. • Our analysis did not evaluate management's effectiveness nor are we responsible for future marketing efforts and other management actions upon which actual results are 411dependent. Our report is intended solely for the purpose described above and should not be used for any other purpose without our prior written permission. Permission for other use of the report will be granted only upon meeting company standards for the proposed use. • v • Chapter 1 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO Monticello is located about 37 miles northwest of Minneapolis and about 27 miles southeast of St. Cloud. Monticello has become a sub-regional center for consumer, business, and medical services. Monticello is home to Cargill Kitchen Solutions, New River Medical Center, Xcel Energy, Bondus, UMC, and Haugland Bus and Truck Company. Its location on I-94 and proximity to two major metropolitan areas has made Monticello a growing residential and commercial area. Downtown Monticello, shown in red on Map 1-1, is located between the Mississippi River and I- 94. Downtown Monticello includes about 18 square blocks and is bound by River Street on the north, I-94 on the south, Maple Street on the west and Palm Street on the east. This downtown Monticello definition, which is used throughout this study, differs from the Monticello Downtown Business Association downtown boundaries, shown in blue on Map 1-1. The south end of downtown is anchored by Cub Foods and Kmart, and the north end is anchored by Broadway. A Walgreens has recently opened at Broadway and TH-25. Downtown Monticello offers a variety of goods and services for area consumers. Map 1-1 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO STUDY AREA i 4y� ,4 a WA,' /7 of q 1, 4 f: C it MMDBA Ares ' o Study Awa • 1R 0 01 02 03 Swk i':0 24 rrvdes � s 1111 1 Copyright 2011 McComb Group:Ltd 02/28/11 1-1 MONTICELLO-COMMERCIAL AREAS III Monticello has added a number of major retailers over the last ten years as a result of its strategic position and increasing trade area population. This new commercial growth, primarily south of I-94 and east of downtown, complements the established downtown shopping area. In general, there are three commercial areas in Monticello: downtown, east Monticello, and south of I-94. These three commercial areas are described below. Monticello's three retail areas have 247 retail and service establishments, as shown in Table 1-1. These businesses were identified during a windshield survey conducted in September 2010 for this study. Downtown Monticello has the largest concentration of retail and service establishments with approximately 150 establishments. The south of I-94 retail area contains over 74 retail and service establishments; while the east Monticello retail area has 23 stores. Vacancy represents store spaces and is highest in the east Monticello area with 14.8 percent of the store fronts vacant. Downtown vacancy is slightly lower at 13.8 percent, and south of I-94 has been experiencing retail vacancy of 10.8 percent. Table 1-1 SUMMARY OF MONTICELLO RETAIL AND SERVICES BY AREA South of East M erchandise Category Downtown 1-94 M onticello Total RETAIL Convenience Goods 5 0 2 7 Food Service 18 13 4 35 10 Convenience/Gas 3 3 2 8 Shopping Goods 25 7 5 37 Other Stores 3 11 I 15 Total Retail 54 34 14 102 SERVICES Personal Services 24 8 2 34 Other Services 8 11 19 Automotive Services 3 5 2 10 Financial 21 9 3 33 Other Offices (Other than Financial) 20 3 23 Medical 10 3 2 15 Other 1 1 Community 10 10 Total Services 96 40 9 145 TOTAL 150 74 23 247 VACANT 24 9 4 37 Percent 13.8% 10.8% 14.8% 13.0% Source:McComb Group,Ltd. Retail Establishments Almost one-half of all the commercial establishments are retail stores. Downtown has the largest concentration of retail stores with 54 establishments, as shown in Table 1-2. The two largest retail categories within downtown are food service and shopping goods. Almost one-half of downtown retail establishments are shopping goods (25) concentrated in the other shopping Ill 1-2 II goods category. Downtown has 18 food service options, which is the largest concentration of food service within Monticello. This area also has five convenience goods stores and three convenience/gasoline establishments. The south of I-94 area has 34 retail establishments with food service being the largest category with 13 restaurants (nine limited service and four full service). Motor vehicle dealers and parts has eight establishments consisting of four auto dealers, one recreational vehicle dealer and three tire or auto parts stores. Additionally, there are seven shopping goods stores and three convenience/gasoline establishments. The east Monticello area has the smallest number of retail establishments; however there are three big box retailers located in this area: SuperTarget, Home Depot, and Office Max. The largest category in this retail area is shopping goods with five establishments, followed by food service with four establishments. There are also two convenience goods stores and two convenience/gasoline establishments. In total, Monticello's largest retail categories include limited service restaurants and other shopping goods, followed by full service restaurants and motor vehicles and parts. Table 1-2 M ONTICELLO RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS BY AREA South of East illM erchandise Category Downtown 1-94 Monticello Total CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores 1 1 Specialty Food Stores 1 1 2 Other Convenience Goods 3 1 4 Subtotal 5 2 7 FOOD SERVICE Full Service 7 4 1 12 Limited Service 9 9 2 20 Snacks&Beverage Places 1 1 2 Drinking Places 1 1 Subtotal 18 13 4 35 CONVENIENCE/GAS 3 3 2 8 SHOPPING GOODS General Merchandise 1 1 1 3 Home Furnishings 3 1 4 Home Appliances/M usic 4 2 1 7 Other Shopping Goods 17 3 3 23 Subtotal 25 7 5 37 OTHER STORES Building M aterials/Garden I 3 1 5 Motor Vehicles&Parts 2 8 10 Subtotal 3 II 1 15 Total Retail 54 34 14 102 Source:McComb Group,Ltd. • 1-3 Service Establishments 1110 Monticello has approximately 145 service establishments located throughout the three retail areas--downtown, east Monticello, and south of I-94--as shown in Table 1-3. The largest concentration of service providers is in downtown Monticello, which contains 96 service establishments. This area has a wide variety of service establishments, with the largest categories including personal care/personal services, financial, and other office. These three categories represent over 65 percent of this area's services. Medical and community are also well represented in this area with 10 establishments each. Additional services include seven other services, three automotive services, two dry cleaning/laundry services, and one recreation/entertainment establishment. The south of 1-94 retail area has 40 service establishments with the largest categories being financial (nine), personal care (six), and automotive (five). Other service establishments include four recreation/entertainment services and three medical providers. This area is one of the newest retail developments within Monticello and contains two major entertainment venues: River City Extreme and Muller Family Theatres with 15 screens. Table 1-3 MONTICELLO SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS BY AREA South of East Merchandise Category Downtown 1-94 Monticello Total S ERVICES Personal Care 11 6 2 19 Dry Cleaning/Laundry 2 2 Personal Services 11 2 13 Rental/Leasing 1 1 Recreation/Entertainment 1 4 5 Automotive Services 3 5 2 10 Other Services 7 6 13 Financial 21 9 3 33 Other Offices(Other than Financial) 20 3 23 Medical 10 3 2 15 Other 1 1 Community 10 10 Total Services 96 40 9 145 Source: McCombGroup,Ltd. The east Monticello retail area has the smallest concentration of services with nine establishments. Service establishments for this area include three financial offices, two personal care establishments, two automotive services, and two medical providers. A detailed list of Monticello business establishments is included in the Appendix. REGIONAL ACCESS Regional access to Monticello is provided by I-94 and TH-25. I-94 runs east/west through the central portion of the state and connects Monticello to the cities of Moorhead, Fergus Falls, Alexandria, St. Cloud, Minneapolis, and St. Paul. TH-25 extends south to Buffalo and 410 1-4 • communities west of Minneapolis and north to the Brainerd lakes area. Monticello, situated between the metro areas of Minneapolis-St. Paul and St. Cloud, benefits from its position as a major Mississippi River crossing and high traffic counts on TH-25 and I-94. Primary access to Monticello is via I-94 (east/west) and TH-25 (north/south). TH-25 is a four- lane expressway crossing the Mississippi River running north/south providing convenient accessibility to downtown. This highway also provides access from Big Lake/TH-10 and Buffalo/TH-55. TH-25 is the only Mississippi River crossing in a 25-mile portion of the Mississippi River. TRAFFIC COUNTS The Mississippi River and I-94 both serve as physical barriers that funnel traffic to downtown Monticello. TH-25 carries 34,000 daily trips south of the Mississippi River and 34,800 trips north of I-94. At the north end of downtown, Broadway carries 25,100 trips, and I-94 entrance and exit ramps at the south end of downtown carried 23,000 trips. Excluding I-94, these are the highest traffic counts in Monticello. Traffic counts for downtown Monticello, shown in Table 1-4 are the highest for TH-25 north of Broadway at the river crossing with approximately 34,000 average daily trips in 2008, which is estimated to increase to 47,300 trips by 2030. TH-25 between Broadway and Seventh Street carried 29,500 average daily trips in 2008; while 34,800 trips were recorded between Seventh Street and 1-94. Traffic counts in these areas are expected to increase to 33,900 and 39,000 respectively, in 2030. TH-25 carries a larger volume of local traffic than does I-94, which 411 carries high volumes of through traffic. Broadway(CASH 75) extends west from downtown and is the only road that has a bridge over I- 94 in the vicinity west of Monticello. Xcel Energy is located west of downtown. Broadway also serves the New River Medical Center to the east and provides access for residents living south of the Mississippi River. Traffic counts for Broadway in 2008 were 14,300 east of TH-25 and 10,800 to the west, with projections increasing to 16,400 and 12,400, respectively, in 2030. Seventh Street at the south end of downtown serves as a service road that runs parallel to 1-94 and provides access to Cub Foods and Kmart, and extends east to Target and Home Depot. In 2008 traffic counts for Seventh Street were 7,400 east of TH-25 and 8,500 west of TH-25, and are estimated to increase to 10,000 and 14,000 trips, respectively, in 2030. Traffic counts for TH-25 south of I-94 were 27,500 in 2008 for the segment between I-94 and Chelsea Road. Traffic counts for this segment are expected in increase to 33,600 by 2030. In 2008, 22,300 average daily trips were recorded for TH-25 south of Chelsea Road and estimates anticipate an increase to 27,000 trips by 2030. Chelsea Road serves as a frontage road on the south side of I-94. Traffic counts for Chelsea Road east of TH-25 were 4,900 in 2008 and are estimated to increase to 7,900 by 2030. Chelsea Road west of TH-25 carried 7,400 trips in 2008 and is projected to increase to 9,400 by 2030. • 1-5 Table 1-4 • MONTICELLO TRAFFIC COUNTS:2008 AND 2030 Location 2008 2030 DOWNTOWN TH 25 North of Broadway 34,000 47,300 Between Broadway and Seventh St 29,500 33,900 Between Seventh&I-94 34,800 39,000 Broadway East of TH-25 14,300 16,400 West of TH-25 10,800 12,400 Seventh Street East of TH-25 7,400 10,000 West of TH-25 8,500 14,000 I-94 Exit/Entrance Ramps East of TH-25 17,000 20,400 West of TH-25 6,000 7,200 SOUTH 0E1-94 TH-25 Between I-94&Chelsea 27,500 33,600 South of Chelsea 22,300 27,000 Chelsea East of TH-25 4,900 7,900 West of TH-25 7,400 9,400 Source: Mn/DOT,WSB,Westwood,and McComb Group, Ltd. DOWNTOWN ORIENTATION Traffic patterns in Monticello have changed since downtown was platted in the mid 1800's. When downtown Monticello was originally developed, Broadway was the "main street" and primary route along the south side of the Mississippi. Those persons crossing the Mississippi used one of two ferries, a low volume form of travel. At that time, Broadway was the high volume street. Subsequently, a bridge was constructed, greatly facilitating access to the north. Over time, this river crossing was improved by newer and larger bridges increasing traffic on Pine Street, which became TH-25. Eventually, the traffic counts on Pine Street rose to where they were over twice as high as Broadway. Pine Street had become the new "main street," shifting the commercial orientation of downtown Monticello by 90 degrees. This re-orientation of downtown's "main street" and contemporary retail store desires to be located with access and visibility from the high traffic volume street, suggest that downtown should be re-oriented to Pine Street(TH-25). The 12 downtown blocks bounded by River, Palm, and Locust Streets, and the railroad tracks contain about 60 commercial buildings, excluding Cargill. Over half the buildings (53 percent) • 1-6 • orient to Broadway, as shown in Table 1-5. About one-quarter orient to side streets and only 12 buildings (20 percent) orient to TH-25, Monticello's highest traffic street. Table 1-5 DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL BUILDING ORIENTATION AREA NORTH OF RAILROAD TRACKS Orientation Number Percent Orient to Broadway 32 53.3 % Orient to Side Street 16 26.7 Orient to TH-25 12 20.0 Total 60 Source: McComb Group, Ltd. To achieve successful redevelopment, new retail stores should be oriented to TH-25 to accommodate retailer desire for visibility from high volume traffic streets. a • 1-7 Chapter 2 III COMPETITIVE SHOPPING AREAS Monticello retail and service establishments compete with a variety of other shopping areas. Regional shopping options include large concentrations of retail and services in Maple Grove, St. Cloud, and Albertville Premium Outlets located along I-94. Community scale competitors include Elk River, Rogers, and Buffalo, the most competitive nearby communities; while St. Michael, Albertville, Otsego, and Big Lake represent competition in convenience categories. Smaller nearby communities including Becker, Clearwater, and Maple Lake, are less competitive with Monticello retail areas. Competitive shopping areas are shown on Map 2-1 and summarized below. Map 2-1 COMPETITIVE SHOPPING AREAS dos , •-- �1 r ---..•'ri 0 Competitive Retail Areas 7 / 1' \ • . • 0 Home Centers • y •� yV) • Grocery • / / / 1, ` .w - • •J- r 0 Kmart 1/ • • / ' c Target • �� ,.4r :a/ .i - `,SuperTmgat vltle . , / �� ! • ®Walmart Tmm Walmart Supercenter • H 7 C4anveter •t I .J __ la*w, ♦• 1 -'N?, Scent_1'•532 ales Becker r &9 take •l h 1•• 'A 2 •.� 4� • h »thrn Oak G:. 15/1k Row' i-' a =7 ,A- • , ' ••••••••••••"..... ..-----ii ' (((( • 1' e. • i',.e.'/, . pi. 4 -- c 41., irs= •11 \\,.., 11\ .• ' { ; at�am +,`" -.- 1 ~. * ( . C . 1 , j. 'jf li. 4 l24 i .. ~C: ee C: �'.. 4 •e r \` `i ., . - MeileG roohlyri F 1 3 J. { CD:G4l8ti /' 0 Copyrigft2011 McComb Group Ltd_ �l 12,09/10 N Regional Shopping Influence The nearest regional shopping concentrations are Maple Grove, St. Cloud, and Albertville Premium Outlets, located about 26, 31, and seven miles, respectively, from Monticello. While these regional shopping areas do not directly compete with the stores in Monticello, they do influence shopping habits because of the large number of retail stores that are not located in III Monticello. 2-1 . • Maple Grove regional shopping area is located about 26 miles southeast of Monticello on I-94. Maple Grove is one of the largest retail concentrations in the state. This regional retail node includes retail located in various retail concentrations throughout the city. Maple Grove retail includes such big boxes as: Menards, Walmart, Sam's Club, Rainbow,Target, Home Depot, Lowes, Cub Foods, Costco, Kohl's, and JCPenney; along with many other large retailers and food service providers. Retail centers include Maple Grove Crossing (270,000 square feet), Shoppes at Arbor Lakes (370,000 square feet), Fountains of Arbor Lakes (800,000 square feet), and the newly developed "The Grove" (538,000 square feet)located east of I-94 on Maple Grove Parkway. • St. Cloud, located 31 miles northwest of Monticello, is a regional shopping destination conveniently located between TH-10 and I-94. The West Division Street area is St. Cloud's regional shopping area that extends from western St. Cloud into Waite Park. This shopping area contains the largest selection of shopping and convenience goods and other stores within the St. Cloud area with over 1.4 million square feet of retail space. This area includes Crossroads Center and a large number of big box retailers including: Walmart, Sam's Club, Kohl's, ShopKo, Cub Foods, Cash Wise Supermarket, Best Buy, Menards, Gander Mountain, Scheels, Home Depot, and Petsmart; along with a number of other large retailers. St. Cloud also contains a number of other retail areas including downtown St. Cloud, Centennial Plaza, and Northgate Shopping Center. • Albertville Premium Outlets is located about seven miles east on I-94 and attracts S heavy patronage from a large area, typically a one hour drive time. It contains over 100 retail stores including 65 apparel and accessories stores and 24 other shopping goods stores. This retail destination has also stimulated adjacent new development, including out lots. Although Albertville Premium Outlets are located in Albertville, it functions as a separate destination,pulling visitors from many Twin Cities and northern communities. Community Shopping Areas Community scale shopping areas are generally anchored by discount stores, superstores, and supermarkets, and provide a varied selection of convenience and shopping goods. These community scale retail areas also affect the trade area for Monticello. Tenant mix for these shopping areas is summarized below. • Rogers is approximately 17 miles east of Monticello, located at the intersection of I-94 and TH-101. Rogers has a rapidly changing retail area and is anchored by SuperTarget, Kohl's, Cabela's, Cub Foods, Lowes, and Best Buy. This heavily traveled retail area has over 200 business establishments, with more than half of them in the service category-- predominately medical services, financial services,personal care, and auto services. This area also has over 25 food service options. Unanchored strip center development flourished during the early 2000's and much of this space remains vacant. • Elk River, located 12 miles east of Monticello, is situated between TH-10 and TH-169, two major commuter routes. Elk River has two retail concentrations: downtown and the • TH-169 retail area. Downtown is the original retail center and still provides area residents with a variety of retail stores and services. TH-169 retail area is home to big 2-2 • • Buffalo, located about 10 miles southwest of Monticello, has two separate retail areas: downtown and highway strip commercial. Both areas offer a variety of goods and services for area consumers. While the highway area offers big box retail and a large number of medical services, downtown Buffalo has the largest concentration of specialty shops. Major retail establishments located in Buffalo include Walmart Supercenter, Target, Cub Foods, and Menards. Neighborhood Shopping Areas Neighborhood scale shopping areas are generally anchored by supermarkets, drug, liquor, and hardware stores. These anchors are complemented by other retail stores, food services, and a wide variety of services. • Albertville, located about 13 miles from Monticello, has seen tremendous growth recently in both retail and service industries. Currently, Albertville has 37 retail stores and 46 service establishments. Convenience retail and food service are the largest categories in Albertville. This shopping area is anchored by Coborn's supermarket and a hardware store. Services include personal care/personal service establishments and auto service establishments, along with a number of other services. Commercial development in Albertville was active in the early 2000's with several new developments. However, there are a large number of retail and office vacancies within Albertville at the present time. • St. Michael, 11 miles east of Monticello, is an older community that experienced major commercial and infrastructure changes during the past 10 years. Expansion of TH-241 has resulted in an increase of retail and service establishments to locations along the highway. Currently, the largest concentration of merchants is in the convenience retail and food service categories. Services are represented by financial, medical, and personal care/services categories being the most common. Marketplace Foods serves as an anchor to Town Center, which includes a bank, CVS, and a new library (under construction). Walgreens recently opened a store in the downtown area. This slowly developing commercial area will help to revitalize St. Michael's commercial area. • Big Lake is located on TH-10, about 3.5 miles north of Monticello. It has a number of retail stores and service establishments, primarily to meet the convenience retail and service needs of area residents. Big Lake's largest retailers include Do It Best Lumber, Hardware Hank, and Coborn's supermarket. • Otsego, a small community about 11 miles east of Monticello, is located on the banks of the Mississippi River along TH-101. This service orientated retail area primarily serves the convenience retail and service needs of area residents, as well as travelers on TH-101. Otsego is home to SuperTarget, 101 Market, Holiday Stationstore, a number of food service establishments, and Holiday Inn. 2-3 • Convenience Retail Areas Convenience retail areas in greater Minnesota serve small trade areas and are typically anchored by small supermarkets and other convenience retailers. Nearby convenience retail communities are described below. • Becker is a small community located on TH-10, about seven miles northwest of Monticello. This community has over 60 business establishments providing convenience retail to area residents. Becker retail includes Jubilee Foods, Holiday Stationstore, and a number of food service establishments. Becker is also home to Becker Furniture World, a regional destination for furniture and home furnishing needs. • Clearwater is located on I-94 about 16 miles northwest of Monticello. This community has a number of retail establishments to serve its residents and interstate travelers. Convenience retail includes Coborn's supermarket, True Value Hardware and McDonald's Meats. Clearwater Travel Plaza, a large traveler's stop, attracts interstate travelers with their general store,bakery,restaurant, food court, and fueling options. • Maple Lake is located on TH-55, about 13 miles west of Monticello. This community has over 50 businesses to serve its residents and TH-55 travelers. Convenience goods stores include Maple Lake Bakery,Ace Hardware, and A-1 Meat Shoppe. New Retail Development • Typically, increased residential development stimulates increased commercial development. Over the last several years, this has resulted in significant retail development in St. Michael, Rogers, and Albertville. However, current economic conditions have slowed residential development resulting in reduced tenant demand for retail space. Summary Competition for Monticello retail and service establishments is provided by neighborhood centers anchored by convenience goods stores, and community centers anchored by discount stores and other big box retailers. These centers have located along major highways in surrounding communities, such as Elk River, Big Lake, Albertville, Otsego, and Rogers to provide easy access for area consumers. Communities such as St. Michael, Maple Lake, Clearwater, and Becker grow their retail offerings slowly as their population increases. However,these communities currently only serve limited convenience needs of area consumers. • 2-4 Chapter 3 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO CUSTOMER SURVEY III Retail and service businesses in Downtown Monticello were asked to conduct a brief survey of their customers as part of this study. Nine businesses participated in this survey to determine home address, work zip code, and trip purpose of their customers. Businesses that participated in the survey are listed in Table 3-1. These businesses collected information from 479 respondents, which provided important information on downtown Monticello's customer base and their residence location. Three businesses provided customer residence location that was used in analyzing downtown Monticello's trade area, but is not included in the customer survey results. Table 3-1 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO CUSTOMER SURVEY;OCTOBER 2010 I Business Participants Cornerstone Café&Catering Monticello Library Grady's Hardware Monticello Printing Hi-Way Liquors Quiz no's Mateo's Soccer Store Walgreens Monticello Chamber of Commerce Contributed Customer Information Monticello Community Center New River Medical Center Olsen Computer Services Results from the customer survey were used to determine downtown Monticello's trade area, which is shown on Map 3-1. Survey respondent residences, each represented by a red dot, are • clustered in Monticello and distributed throughout the area. Map 3-1 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO TRADE AREA AND CUSTOMER SPOTTING ept' v, „ 4 t Augusta - 4,• rCt•` Ake I a° a k aI .v .1 t rd. •r NSIIT \... .:„. A ...... ..4 ' I s4,414.... •• b •,r • iE /4 : � , - s • • _ - J 1...\\Y Dar1e Ei Dovntovn Trade Are • {.�' far a_i trt 1 • . ,,44 f 1 •NM Customer 5901 a - \\~.. ' � 1 . Y ManLve� � 3 1 t -;•1-7.4•-3 Ce= r � ,,, a � el S Copyry-^t 2011 McComm Group Ltd 01:'1.1/11 3-1 • About three-quarters (74.7 percent) of the survey respondents live within downtown Monticello's trade area,as shown in Table 3-2. Survey results by city indicate that 44.5 percent of respondents live in Monticello and about 30 percent live elsewhere in the trade area. Inflow customers (respondents that live outside the trade area)represented 24.4 percent of respondents. Table 3-2 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO CUSTOMER SURVEY;OCTOBER 2010 SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY RESIDENCE LOCATION Residence Location Number Percent Trade Area Monticello 213 44.5 % Big Lake 70 14.6 Becker 26 5.4 Buffalo 17 3.5 St.Michael 11 2.3 Maple Lake 8 1.7 Otsego 7 1.5 Albertville 6 1.3 Subtotal 358 74.7 % Inflow 117 24.4 % No Response 4 0.8 % Total 479 100.0 % Source:McCombGroup,Ltd. • Only 276 respondents (57.6 percent) divulged a work zip code, as shown in Table 3-3. Of the trade area respondents that provided a work zip code, 60.9 percent work in Monticello. Forty- two percent of those respondents that work in Monticello live outside the city. These employees provide additional support for downtown businesses. Table 3-3 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO CUSTOMER SURVEY;OCTOBER 2010 SURVEY RESPONDENTS THAT WORK IN MONTICELLO BY RESIDENCE LOCATION Work in Monticello Residence Location Number Percent Trade Area Monticello 97 57.7 % Big Lake 24 14.3 Becker 7 4.2 Buffalo 2 1.2 St.M ichael 3 1.8 Map le Lake - - Otsego - - Albertville/Otsego 4 2.4 Subtotal 137 81.5 % Inflow 31 18.5 % Total l68 100.0 % Source:McComb Group,Ltd. 3-2 Survey responses to the question: "Why did you stop here today?" are contained in Table 3-4. • Over half of the trade area respondents (51.3 percent) and 23.9 percent of inflow respondents consider themselves a "regular customer" of the business. Forty-two percent of the respondents living in the trade area said the reason they stopped was because the business was "close to home." Twenty-two percent of trade area respondents and 34.5 percent of inflow respondents gave "close to work" as their reason for stopping, reinforcing Monticello's employees as a source of customers. Trade area respondents choosing "running errands"and "driving by" (15.4 percent and 8.1 percent, respectively) reflect Monticello's convenient location. The response for "other"is typical of response levels in other surveys. Table 3-4 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO CUSTOMER SURVEY;OCTOBER 2010 SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY REASON FOR STOPPING Trade Area Inflow Total Reason Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Close to Home 144 41.7 % 4 3.5 % 148 32.3 Close to Work 75 21.7 39 34.5 114 24.9 Driving By 28 8.1 28 24.8 56 12.2 Running Errands 53 15.4 10 8.8 63 13.8 Regular Customer 177 51.3 27 23.9 204 44.5 Other 63 18.3 39 34.5 102 22.3 Total Respondents 345 75.3 % 113 24.7 % 458 95.6 Source:McComb Group,Ltd. III The distribution of female and male respondents was almost equal: 203 female respondents and 200 male respondents, as shown in Table 3-5. Over 10 percent of respondents (11.3 percent) did not respond to this question. Some respondents indicated both genders, which appears to reflect shopper parties of two or more. Females living in the trade area (45.0 percent) outnumbered males(39.9 percent). Males were a larger proportion(47.1 percent)of inflow customers. Table 3-5 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO CUSTOMER SURVEY;OCTOBER 2010 SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY GENDER Trade Area Inflow Total Gender Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Female 161 45.0 % 42 34.7 % 203 42.4 % Male 143 39.9 57 47.1 200 41.8 Both 17 4.7 5 4.1 22 4.6 _ Subtotal 321 89.7 % 104 86.0 % 425 88.7 % No Response 37 10.3 17 14.0 54 11.3 Total 358 100.0 % 121 100.0 % 479 100.0 % Source: McComb Group,Ltd. • 3-3 Survey responses for all respondents by day are shown in Table 3-6. Responses were highest on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday ranging from 18.1 percent to 20.7 percent. Sunday had IIIthe lowest responses (2.0 percent). Table 3-6 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO CUSTOMER SURVEY; OCTOBER 2010 SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY DAY OF SURVEY Trade Area Inflow Total Day Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Sunday 9 100.0 % - - % 9 2.0 % Monday 61 68.5 28 31.5 89 19.6 Tuesday 71 75.5 23 24.5 94 20.7 Wednesday 48 72.7 18 27.3 66 14.5 Thursday 61 73.5 22 26.5 83 18.3 Friday 60 73.2 22 26.8 82 18.1 Saturday 25 80.6 6 19.4 31 6.8 Subtotal 335 73.8 % 119 26.2 % 454 100.0 % Source: McComb Group,Ltd. Summary Survey results indicate that about three-quarters of downtown Monticello customers live in the trade area. Survey respondents are generally regular customers of the business and many IIIrespondents consider the business to be close to home. III 3-4 Chapter 4 MONTICELLO TRADE AREAS 1111 Monticello's trade areas, shown on Map 4-1, were delineated for Monticello by McComb Group based on the location of competitive shopping areas, arterial road network, natural boundaries, customer survey responses, and previous experience. Monticello has two trade areas: downtown and secondary. The downtown trade area was delineated utilizing customer survey data described in Chapter 3. The downtown trade area is the area in which 75 percent of downtown Monticello's customers live and includes Monticello, Becker, Big Lake,Albertville, St. Michael, Buffalo, and a portion of western Elk River. The downtown trade area extends east of Monticello, seven miles east into Otsego, 10 miles south to include Buffalo, west to Annandale and 11 miles north to include Becker. The secondary trade area covers a much broader area and represents the extended draw of Monticello big box retailers—SuperTarget, Walmart Supercenter, and Home Depot. The secondary trade area extends south of Monticello 14 miles, west 20 miles to include South Haven, north 19 miles to TH-95 and east 20 miles to the western border of Elk River. Communities included in the secondary trade area are Annandale, South Haven, Clearwater, and Clear Lake. The downtown and secondarytrade areas cover approximately 380 and 755 square miles respectively. Map 4-1 MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARY TRADE AREAS • !,• . ,Sattey� `\ - [\�V . ` .•- Sc pods se,, , ase h_ Prince olf ' d .`b 1.,....- ;,„:.-. ..,11, p i • {St CI r `<( l - J_ ,..,,old J••.-7-----ockville / I, }� 0 3 •t Augusta \\ ak' ..d i.. . 5 •,: Zim e n *' - 1,...-441P.'r 4' . -' • \ k - • j f�1 ` 4 Si Francis--,. g *. l Bec,, 6r N ,• ' S. , / e '' r, ..• 1 Lake Nowthen Oak zlley ( J �y s� Elk Fiver __ . a- �i - I 11 ales • •w • t, ./,- 1 Ots .o Ramse` Ando — , • `` > `5. .T �' Kinastont • '{ % 0,- ,t - „ St•hhCha: -Ro• s r�� r ( alo�os!' ��•� Dayton -Z \ 0 i Cha S 1ooi� •nover Q x • w 1 V o Dmtllre ,Trade Area _, t �`- 1 Q Secondary Trade Area j —" I 1 r Corcoran Map. : •�•klyn 3 U • Greenfield_ ( >. tt. Muvw --, a o=� .� i Brno.,- III ®Copyright 2011 McComb Group,Ltd. : y 0./10!11 4-1 • Population and Households Population and household growth trends in Monticello's downtown and secondary trade areas and Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA are shown in Table 4-1. Historically, Monticello's trade areas have been growing at faster rates than the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA. Table 4-1 MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARY TRADE AREAS,AND MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL MSA POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS 1990 AND 2000 CENSUS;2010 AND 2015 ESTIMATED Downtown Secondary M inneap olis-St.Paul Trade Area Trade Area M SA Population 1990 43,171 19,416 2,542,631 2000 65,264 26,233 2,968,806 2010E 93,500 33,690 3,302,532 2015E 104,277 34,634 3,465,615 Annual Growth Rate 1990-2000 4.22 % 3.05 % 1.56 % 2000-2010E 3.66 2.53 1.07 2010E-2015E 2.21 0.55 0.97 Households 1990 14,307 6,505 961,627 • 2000 22,368 9,114 1,136,615 2010E 32,931 11,871 1,265,491 2015E 37,258 11,866 1,294,127 Annual Growth Rate 1990-2000 4.57 % 3.43 % 1.69 % 2000-2010E 3.94 2.68 1.08 2010E-2015E 2.50 (0.01) 0.45 E:Estimated. Source:U.S.Census,Scan/US,Inc.and McComb Group,Ltd. Monticello's downtown trade area population increased at an annual rate of 4.22 percent from 43,171 people in 1990 to 65,264 in 2000. Downtown trade area population growth rate fell slightly between 2000 and 2010 increasing at a 3.66 percent annually, bringing population to 93,500 by 2010. Population is estimated to increase at an annual rate of 2.21 percent to 104,277 people by 2015. Population growth in the secondary trade area is somewhat slower. Secondary trade area population increased from 19,416 to 26,233 between 1990 and 2000, an annual growth rate of 3.05 percent. From 2000 to 2010, population increased by 2.53 percent annually to 33,690. Estimates show secondary trade area population increasing at less than one percent annually to 34,634 people by 2015. Population growth in the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA is much slower than Monticello's trade areas. Population in the MSA increased at 1.56 percent annually from 1990 to 2000 and 1.07 percent from 2000 to 1010. Estimates show that population in the MSA is expected to increase at less than one percent annually through 2015. S 4-2 In 2010, Monticello's downtown and secondary trade areas had a combined population of 127,190 which is estimated to increase to almost 139,000 in 2015, an annual growth rate of 1.74 • percent. Downtown trade area households increased at a rate of 4.57 percent annually between 1990 and 2000 and an annual rate of 3.94 percent from 2000 to 2010. Households are estimated to increase from 32,931 in 2010 to 37,258 by 2015, an annual growth rate of 2.50 percent. Household growth for the secondary trade area is somewhat slower; households increased at a rate of 2.68 percent annually from 2000 to 2010, increasing households to 11,871 in 2010. Households are expected to decrease by five households to 11,866 by 2015. Households within the MSA are increasing at slower rates. From 1990 to 2000 MSA households increased at an annual rate of 1.69 percent, which dropped to 1.08 percent annual growth between 2000 and 2010. Estimates show MSA household growth of less than one percent from 2010 to 2015. Monticello's downtown and secondary households are estimated to increase from 44,802 in 2010 to 49,124 in 2015, an annual growth rate of 1.86 percent. Physical barriers created by the Mississippi River and I-94 and the resulting impacts on local road systems influence local travel patterns. These barriers direct customers living north of I-94 and the Mississippi River through downtown Monticello on their way to the retail area along south TH-25. About one-third of the downtown and secondary trade area population and households live in this northerly portion of Monticello's trade areas, as shown in Table 4-2. Table 4-2 DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARY TRADE AREAS AND NORTH SUBMARKET • POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS:2000 CENSUS;2010 AND 2015 ESTIMATED Downtown Trade Area Secondary Trade Area North Submarket North Submarket Total Number Percent Total Number Percent Population 2000 65,264 20,747 31.8 % 26,233 11,471 43.7 % 2010E 93,500 28,646 30.6 33,690 16,090 47.8 2015E 104,277 31,411 30.1 34,634 16,163 46.7 Households 2000 22,368 6,815 30.5 % 9,114 3,278 36.0 % 2010E 32,931 9,320 28.3 11,871 5,151 43.4 2015E 37,258 11,911 32.0 11,866 5,051 42.6 So urce: Scan/US,Inc.and McComb Gro up,Ltd. Estimated household density in 2015 for the Monticello trade areas is shown on Map 4-2. Density is highest in the larger trade area communities, but there are large areas outside the cities with medium levels of density, indicative of rural large lot development. 4-3 Map 4-2 III MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARY TRADE AREAS ESTIMATED 2015 HOUSEHOLD DENSITY i f4, ..a rt• R:Yt '.� �% >.. • �+ r r u.rk 71 4=71 \ 1 • I' )�/� �' v - . .. ��:_ . 1 .. ri z al !' It, r - 1... , • 46;ye., • - Itt c+ fir-� \ T , B1 < ' • A' ,. _ ':•r- I r • -,�, . 1 ` '4' A ',. 1 t t, .`rte 1 • d � � 2015 HH Density . p �,'�. '. d' T A. „ I f �i '---,c')t. a Q Downtown Trade Area .�t • t \a .. Sr , I -- _ ' • U SerOIN1aY Thee Area �I_ I' {I l G. • — "( - „ R p't � �. Densrypn Se eh n7roasl ' �. %; ,caw» J 7 c� 4 .i� t.' • 0000.0017 ` , •g l .. 1 t-- 0 017.0070 y, '� 'z� • •'' r X 0.070.0.56L S1 1 \. . r,. 00549• G_5 '' ,, . Li- -}_ jj ^J. 0 2 a e 4 4. r \ 1 '4.--,44e.. - ■ .a u e I R` ,Ir r 0 Copynght 2011 McComb Group,Ltd. 02'14'11 III Household Income Average household income in Monticello's downtown and secondary trade areas and Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA are shown in Table 4-3. Downtown trade area average household income in 2010 was $80,066 compared to $83,046 in the secondary trade area and$86,856 in the MSA. It is estimated that average household incomes for these three areas will continue to increase through 2015, increasing Monticello's downtown and secondary trade areas average household incomes to $84,957 and$88,495, respectively, and$93,497 for the MSA. Table 4-3 MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARY TRADE AREAS AND MINNEAPLIS-ST.PAUL MSA AVERAGE AND MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME 1990 AND 2000 CENSUS;2010 AND 2015 ESTIMATED Downtown Secondary Minneapolis- Trade Area Trade Area St.Paul M SA Average Household Income 1990 $ 39,037 $ 38,087 $ 43,703 2000 64,631 67,377 67,713 2010E 80,066 83,046 86,856 2015E 84,957 88,495 93,497 Median Household Income 1990 $ 34,861 $ 33,951 $ 37,631 2000 56,060 55,547 54,734 2010E 69,448 68,680 65,421 IIII2015E 74,290 73,295 69,896 E:Estimated. Source:McComb Group,Ltd. 4-4 The proportion of Monticello's trade area households with incomes above $75,000, $100,000, 110 and $150,000 are shown in Table 4-4. Downtown and secondary trade area proportions of households with incomes above $75,000 are similar. In 2010, 45.2 percent of downtown and secondary trade area households had incomes above $75,000, households with incomes above $100,000 in both trade areas were about 24.0 percent, and households above $150,000 represented over 5.6 percent of the households in the downtown trade area and 6.1 percent of households in the secondary trade area. In 2015, the downtown and secondary trade areas are expected to have over 13,900 households with incomes above $100,000 and over 3,100 households with incomes above$150,000. Table 4-4 MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARY TRADE AREAS AND MINNEAPLIS-ST.PAUL M SA HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION 1990 AND 2000 CENSUS;2010 AND 2015 ESTIMATED Downtown Secondary M inneapolis- Trade Area Trade Area St.Paul MSA Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Households above$75,000 1990 873 6.2 % 398 6.2 % 107,842 11.2 % 2000 6,222 27.9 2,509 27.6 357,670 31.5 2010E 14,864 45.2 5,349 45.2 548,648 43.4 2015E 18,778 50.4 5,914 50.0 605,975 46.8 Households above$100,000 1990 321 2.3 % 116 1.8 % 47,969 5.0 % 11111 2000 2,586 11.6 989 10.9 192,041 16.9 2010E 8,131 24.7 2,829 23.9 350,110 27.7 2015E 10,656 28.6 3,255 27.5 398,807 30.8 Households above$150,000 1990 99 0.7 % 33 0.5 % 17,264 1.8 % 2000 549 2.5 255 2.8 67,087 5.9 2010E 1,841 5.6 724 6.1 137,558 10.9 2015E 2,310 6.2 830 7.0 158,679 12.3 E:Estimated. Source:McComb Group,Ltd. Distribution of households with incomes above $75,000 in 2015, shown on Map 4-3, demonstrates that the affluent households are distributed throughout the trade area. In large sections of the downtown and secondary trade areas, over 50 percent of the households have incomes above$75,000. 4-5 Map 4-3 11111 MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARY TRADE AREAS ESTIMATED 2015 HOUSEHOLD INCOME: PERCENT ABOVE $75,000 4A% ' ---- V tr'e ‘4,, „, . , , - _ ,„, .., ..,„7 1 ' . : , ,,- 4-0,1"1:4--; , ' ,i s kittPi acs.L. I , • p "- �4,t. �'� ., —, y '_ I �� B. ii: �'.W T c.• .t sr., _ fir 3 - • l e. ` . �.• t t.S . ..� '�*, w ti t: r„nr:c i. ci , , V,i }, __ _ c, 1 of s,- , i A ..i.,. . .,,, .,,,_, . ,.� 4_► 's _ t�� i x' �'Fts.. WA 2015 Percent of HHs a -` ` " 0R zv j' r. l'' " v l�` ,, a 1- 2 ^ r4 f 67`, - G t,� O Downtown Trade Area , 7,2-7.-....,,- 11i a • ,R., `, 1 -4 B, ■ �Y y tA.a . `r 0, 't O Secondary Trade Area .'.f t I ■ lir White:No Data .i VA, ♦:- \. _ ".8�. t `t I •e sir. 1 fnduseiaLPark'Cemetdy . l'[S..iLt� d r ' N4 i, t- . . .r /; + '' ��✓'_ ,. �'r, .,•i 1 t 25%of HHs nave � �• :�, Incomes Above$75 000 °" / r°` lc f .4 C r in k 25 to 50%of HHs have 1 e '` f S 4 r>,,.,A22„, R �,'�� 1 1 j e ``` t` •:, 71:5 7'�. Incomes Above 575 000 .g r r ti E% ir• , „-i•r' - F . ri50to75%of HHs have ` '��1q� Wait ' Incomes Above 575.000 i we i It 4 r ' . v Y.`�. 1�` �. �� _ �d rte! i. 075 to 100%orHHs have 3 i ,,.� 6 e•.—.-�.:_et y1-♦a�i r �_ r tj., ,..tj i Incomes Above 575,000 j .� . - 11 f�l 4 7 w y l (' y. - -riga! ry i N' Scala 1'46/emixs � .. 3 � vcroes .. I ., y 1. 1Iiii , _.. _ .ig._ N C Copyright 2011 McComb Group,Ltd 12/21/10 Demographic Characteristics Demographic characteristics for Monticello's trade areas and Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA are summarized in the demographic snapshots contained in Tables 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7. These snapshots contain census data for 1990 and 2000, as well as estimates for 2010 and 2015. These estimates were provided by Scan/US, Inc., a source of census comparable demographic information. Significant characteristics of the Monticello trade areas include the following: • In 2010, 32.7 percent of the population in the Monticello downtown trade area was under the age of 19. By 2015, Monticello's downtown trade area is expected to have 32.9 percent of the population under the age of 19. This is slightly higher than the secondary trade area with 30.7 percent under the age of 19 in 2010 and 30.6 percent in 2015. • There is a higher percentage of population over the age of 65 in the secondary trade area than in the downtown trade area. In 2010 9.2 percent of the population of the secondary trade area was over the age of 65 and it is expected to increase to 11.1 percent by 2015. Downtown trade area percent of population over the age of 65 was 8.3 percent in 2010 and is projected to reach 9.7 percent by 2015. III 4-6 Table 4-5 Cry McComb • po DEMOGRAPHIC AND INCOME SNAPSHOT cup Group,Ltd. Monticello Downtown Trade Area 11/4/2011 SNAPSHOT 1990 Census 2000 Census 2010 Estimated 2015 Projected Population 43,171 65,264 93,500 104,277 Households 14,307 22,368 32,931 37,258 Families 11,355 17,325 24,813 27,726 Per Capita Income $ 12,979 $ 22,417 $ 28,304 $ 28,903 Median Household Income $ 34,861 $ 56,060 $ 69,448 $ 74,290 Average Household Income $ 39,037 $ 64,631 $ 80,066 $ 84,957 Average Household Size 2.99 2.89 2.82 2.93 Median Age 29 32 34 34 Annual Percent Change TRENDS 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2015 Population 4.22 % 3.66 % 2.21 % Households 4.57 3.94 2.50 Families 4.32 3.66 2.25 Median Household Income 4.87 2.16 1.36 Average Household Income 5.17 2.16 1.19 1990 Census 2000 Census 2010 Estimated 2015 Projected HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Less than$15,000 2,208 15.6% 1,437 6.4% 1,553 4.7% 1,565 4.2 % $15,000-$24,999 2,219 15.7 1,662 7.4 1,665 5.1 1,677 4.5 $25,000-$34,999 2,648 18.7 2,388 10.7 2,430 7.4 2,422 6.5 $35,000-$49,999 3,598 25.4 4,013 18.0 4,349 13.2 4,396 11.8 III$50,000-$74,999 2,614 18.5 6,607 29.6 8,039 24.4 8,383 22.5 $75,000-$99,999 552 3.9 3,636 16.3 6,733 20.5 8,122 21.8 $100,000-$149,999 222 1.6 2,037 9.1 6,290 19.1 8,346 22.4 $150,000+ 99 0.7 549 2.5 1,841 5.6 2,310 6.2 POPULATION BY AGE Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent <19 15,598 36.1 % 22,983 35.2 % 30,616 32.7 % 34,307 32.9% 20-24 2,667 6.2 3,367 5.2 5,447 5.8 6,882 6.6 25-34 8,252 19.1 10,707 16.4 13,972 14.9 13,243 12.7 35-44 6,665 15.4 12,112 18.6 14,085 15.1 14,077 13.5 45-54 3,982 9.2 7,587 11.6 13,220 14.1 14,495 13.9 55-64 2,481 5.7 4,111 6.3 8,475 9.1 11,053 10.6 65-74 1,861 4.3 2,323 3.6 4,723 5.1 6,361 6.1 75-84 1,676 3.9 1,492 2.3 2,121 2.3 2,815 2.7 85+ NA NA 549 0.8 829 0.9 938 0.9 RACE AND ETHNICITY Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White 42,748 99.0% 63,914 97.9% 88,992 95.2 % 99,063 95.0% Black 43 0.1 134 0.2 1,018 1.1 1,356 1.3 Native American 133 0.3 193 0.3 368 0.4 417 0.4 Asian/Pacific Islander 188 0.4 275 0.4 1,133 1.2 1,251 1.2 Other Races 58 0.1 747 1.1 1,989 2.1 2,190 2.1 Hispanic(Any Race) 191 0.4 726 1.1 2,119 2.3 2,711 2.6 Source:U.S.Census,Scan/US,Inc.and McComb Group,Ltd. 4110 4-7 Table 4-6 • REM-1 McComb DEMOGRAPHIC AND INCOME SNAPSHOT 6011 Group,Ltd. Monticello Secondary Trade Area(Donut) 11/4/2011 SNAPSHOT 1990 Census 2000 Census 2010 Estimated 2015 Projected Population 19,416 26,233 33,690 34,634 Households 6,505 9,114 11,871 11,866 Families 5,257 7,153 8,958 8,784 Per Capita Income $ 12,748 $ 23,537 $ 29,354 $ 30,421 Median Household Income $ 33,951 $ 55,547 $ 68,680 $ 73,295 Average Household Income $ 38,087 $ 67,377 $ 83,046 $ 88,495 Average Household Size 2.96 2.85 2.81 2.89 Median Age 32 35 37 38 Annual Percent Change TRENDS 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2015 Population 3.05 % 2.53 % 0.55 % Households 3.43 2.68 -0.01 Families 3.13 2.28 -0.39 Median Household Income 5.05 2.14 1.31 Average Household Income 5.87 2.11 1.28 1990 Census 2000 Census 2010 Estimated 2015 Projected HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Less than$15,000 1,104 17.0% 695 7.6% 692 5.8% 638 5.4% $15,000-$24,999 1,092 16.8 729 8.0 623 5.3 551 4.6 $25,000-$34,999 1,215 18.7 819 9.0 727 6.1 643 5.4 • $35,000-$49,999 1,586 24.4 1,650 18.1 1,534 12.9 1,352 11.4 $50,000-$74,999 1,102 16.9 2,706 29.7 2,929 24.7 2,749 23.2 $75,000-$99,999 287 4.4 1,524 16.7 2,528 21.3 2,667 22.5 $100,000-$149,999 85 1.3 736 8.1 2,112 17.8 2,433 20.5 $150,000+ 33 0.5 256 2.8 726 6.1 832 7.0 POPULATION BY AGE Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent <19 6,665 34.3 % 8,862 33.8% 10,327 30.7% 10,615 30.6% 20-24 952 4.9 1,067 4.1 1,526 4.5 1,686 4.9 25-34 3,237 16.7 3,486 13.3 4,055 12.0 3,812 11.0 35-44 3,124 16.1 5,140 19.6 5,289 15.7 4,795 13.8 45-54 2,037 10.5 3,568 13.6 5,509 16.4 5,347 15.4 55-64 1,421 7.3 2,136 8.1 3,865 11.5 4,542 13.1 65-74 1,199 6.2 1,177 4.5 2,103 6.2 2,643 7.6 75-84 781 4.0 617 2.4 779 2.3 927 2.7 85+ NA NA 180 0.7 238 0.7 268 0.8 RACE AND ETHNICITY Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White 19,238 99.1 % 25,766 98.2 % 32,376 96.1 % 33,290 96.1 % Black 31 0.2 74 0.3 373 1.1 446 1.3 Native American 68 0.3 83 0.3 132 0.4 146 0.4 Asian/Pacific Islander 63 0.3 72 0.3 263 0.8 272 0.8 Other Races 17 0.1 239 0.9 546 1.6 481 1.4 Hispanic(Any Race) 50 0.3 238 0.9 570 1.7 647 1.9 Source:U.S.Census,Scan/US,Inc.and McComb Group,Ltd. III 4-8 Table 4-7 • 'E�j McComb DEMOGRAPHIC AND INCOME SNAPSHOT COO Group,Ltd. Minneapolis-St.Paul MSA 11/4/2011 SNAPSHOT 1990 Census 2000 Census 2010 Estimated 2015 Projected Population 2,542,631 2,968,806 3,302,532 3,465,615 Households 961,627 1,136,615 1,265,491 1,294,127 Families 649,907 744,303 813,402 822,812 Per Capita Income $ 16,667 $ 26,641 $ 33,625 $ 35,273 Median Household Income $ 37,631 $ 54,734 $ 65,421 $ 69,896 Average Household Income $ 43,703 $ 67,713 $ 86,856 $ 93,497 Average Household Size 2.59 2.56 2.56 2.62 Median Age 32 34 36 37 Annual Percent Change TRENDS 1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2015 Population 1.56% 1.07% 0.97% Households 1.69 1.08 0.45 Families 1.37 0.89 0.23 Median Household Income 3.82 1.80 1.33 Average Household Income 4.48 2.52 1.48 1990 Census 2000 Census 2010 Estimated 2015 Projected HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Less than$15,000 158,760 16.5 % 104,519 9.2 % 108,610 8.6% 108,837 8.4 % $15,000-$24,999 145,590 15.2 104,638 9.2 91,791 7.3 87,497 6.8 $25,000-$34,999 151,645 15.8 125,123 11.0 102,729 8.1 94,583 7.3 $35,000-$49,999 206,924 21.6 179,335 15.8 162,712 12.9 154,857 12.0 • $50,000-$74,999 188,993 19.7 265,330 23.3 251,001 19.8 242,378 18.7 $75,000-$99,999 59,873 6.2 165,629 14.6 198,538 15.7 207,168 16.0 $100,000-$149,999 30,705 3.2 124,954 11.0 212,552 16.8 240,128 18.6 $150,000+ 17,264 1.8 67,087 5.9 137,558 10.9 158,679 12.3 POPULATION BY AGE Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent <19 738,155 29.0% 873,680 29.4% 903,568 27.4% 956,584 27.6% 20-24 193,055 7.6 193,790 6.5 213,967 6.5 217,012 6.3 25-34 511,549 20.1 457,105 15.4 477,084 14.4 449,885 13.0 35-44 415,664 16.3 528,024 17.8 460,322 13.9 468,964 13.5 45-54 253,035 10.0 405,724 13.7 500,413 15.2 479,512 13.8 55-64 180,490 7.1 225,540 7.6 380,864 11.5 449,369 13.0 65-74 139,086 5.5 145,808 4.9 202,665 6.1 268,995 7.8 75-84 111,458 4.4 100,485 3.4 108,822 3.3 120,887 3.5 85+ NA NA 38,650 1.3 54,827 1.7 54,407 1.6 RACE AND ETHNICITY Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White 2,347,622 92.3 %2,556,851 86.1 %2,757,948 83.5 %2,868,321 82.8% Black 90,071 3.5 157,963 5.3 221,450 6.7 244,745 7.1 Native American 24,267 1.0 21,590 0.7 27,918 0.8 29,791 0.9 Asian/Pacific Islander 65,618 2.6 124,025 4.2 174,656 5.3 198,521 5.7 • Other Races 15,053 0.6 108,377 3.7 120,560 3.7 124,237 3.6 Hispanic(Any Race) 37,942 1.5 99,121 3.3 166,016 5.0 195,788 5.6 Source:U.S.Census,Scan/US,Inc.and McComb Group,Ltd. 1111 . . 4-9 • Both trade areas are primarily Caucasian with over 95.0 percent of the population being • white, which is expected to be about the same in 2015. • Average household size is similar for both trade areas, which ranges from 2.81 to 2.93 between 2010 and 2015. • Median age is higher for the secondary trade area with 37 as the median age in 2010 and 38 projected for 2015. The downtown trade area median age was 34 in 2010 and is expected to stay 34 for 2015. Additional demographic characteristics for Monticello's trade areas and Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA are contained in Appendix B. Employment Monticello wage and salary employment was 5,562 in 2000 according to the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, as shown in Table 4-8. Employment rose to a peak of 7,112 in 2007 and fell to a low of 6,639 in 2009, as the recession set in. Employment rebounded to 6,980, a five percent increase from 2009. Table 4-8 WAGE AND SALARY EM PLOYM ENT; 2000-2010 Year Monticello Downtown* • 2000 5,562 N/A 2001 5,825 N/A 2002 6,063 1,759 2003 5,945 1,678 2004 5,887 1,763 2005 6,315 1,505 2006 5,715 1,482 2007 7,112 1,474 2008 6,703 1,612 2009 6,639 2,206 2010 6,980 N/A N/A: Not Available. * Block groups 1002.03-3 and 1002.04-1. Source: Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development and U.S.Census Bureau. The U.S. Census Bureau compiles employment by census tract for the period 2002 to 2009. In 2002, employment in downtown was 1,759 and rose slightly to 1,763 in 2004. Employment declined to 1,474 in 2007 and then increased to 2,206 in 2009. This indicates that downtown appears to represent about one-third of Monticello's employment. The historic employment reported by the U.S. Census Bureau appears to understate downtown employment, since prior to 2009 it appears that Cargill and other employers were not included in employment count based on a review of downtown employment trends by two-digit NAICS code, which found wide swings of employment in individual categories. Census Bureau statistics are based on second • quarter employment in each year and is based on the location where paychecks are issued, which 4-10 may not be the location where the worker is employed. Employment reported in 2009 appears to more accurately reflect downtown Monticello employment than statistics for prior years. • Purchasing Power Retail sales potential for the Monticello trade area is based on estimated purchasing power and market share that can be achieved from the trade area. Retail sales from residents living outside the trade area are inflow sales. Purchasing power estimates of trade area residents are derived from retail sales by store type as reported by the Census of Retail Trade in 2002 and 2007. Retail sales for 2008 through 2010 were estimated using information available from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Future purchasing power estimates are expressed in constant 2010 dollars and reflect projected household growth. Purchasing power is based on the number of trade area households adjusted to reflect income characteristics. Purchasing power, for the purpose of this analysis, includes retail categories that are characteristic of tenants that could be located in Monticello. The estimated retail purchasing power summary table for the Monticello downtown trade area for 2010 and 2015 is shown in Table 4-9. The purchasing power estimates used in this analysis are condensed from the full purchasing power tables, which are contained in a separate Appendix. These estimates represent the potential dollar sales for a broad range of retail stores generated by residents of each trade area. Table 4-9 MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN TRADE AREA RETAIL PURCHASING POWER;2010 AND 2015 • (In Thousands of Constant 2010 Dollars) Merchandise Category 2010 2015 Shopping Goods $ 342,219 $ 406,932 Food Service&Drinking 128,799 153,156 Convenience Goods 194,830 231,673 Gasoline Service Stations &Convenience 141,624 168,404 Other Stores 339,606 403,819 Total $1,147,078 $1,363,984 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. Total purchasing power for Monticello's downtown trade area was estimated at about $1.1 billion in 2010 and is expected to increase to $1.4 billion by 2015, an annual growth rate of 3.5 percent in constant 2010 dollars. Purchasing power for shopping goods in this trade area is expected to increase from$342.2 million in 2010 to $406.9 million in 2015. Convenience goods purchasing power for this trade area was estimated at $194.8 million in 2010, estimated to increase to$231.7 million by 2015. • 4-11 • Chapter 5 MONTICELLO RETAIL SALES AND MARKET SHARE Future sales potential is based on market share that can be achieved by Monticello retail stores and services taking into consideration trade area households, future growth, and potential competitive development. Market share estimates for Monticello are based on analysis conducted as part of this engagement, which included 2002 and 2007 retail and service sales in Monticello and McComb Group's knowledge of the Twin Cities retail market. Retail Sales Limited retail sales information is available for Monticello from the U.S. Census of Retail Trade for 2002 and 2007, the latest information available. The Retail Census reported data for 62 retailers in 2002 and 59 retailers in 2007, as shown in Table 5-1. Table 5-1 M ONTICELLO RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE SALES:2002 AND 2007 Sales($1,000)and Establishments Sales 2002 2007 Change Category Est Sales Est Sales 02-07 RETAIL TRADE 62 $278,616 59 $387,448 6.8 % Convenience Retail Food&beverage stores 3 41,015 3 39,092 * (1.0) % • Food Service Food services&drinking places 21 14,453 30 23,341 10.1 % Full service restaurants 9 5,786 10 8,986 9.2 % Limited-service eating places 12 8,667 20 14,355 10.6 % Convenience/Gasoline 10 23,291 8 44,143 13.6 % Shopping Goods Clothing&clothing accessories stores 2 D 4 1,705 Furniture&home furnishings stores 4 1,483 3 1,605 * 1.6 % Electronics&appliance stores 5 4,708 4 5,238 2.2 % Miscellaneous store retailers 7 D 7 3,380 Home Improvement Building material&garden equipment&supplies dealers 8 13,052 8 34,187 21.2 % Other building material dealers 5 9,739 Motor Vehicles&Parts Motor vehicle&parts dealers 12 165,193 11 196,039 * 3.5 % New car dealers 4 148,129 SERVICES Personal Services Hair,nail,&skin care services 4 D 8 1,426 Personal care services 5 1,159 9 D Personal&laundry services 8 2,288 11 2,272 (0.1) % Child day care services 4 1,177 5 D Repair Services Repair&maintenance 7 2,767 10 6,387 * 18.2 % Automotive body,paint,interior,and glass repair 3 3,361 HEALTH CARE Health care&social assistance 32 52,308 31 83,050 9.7 % Offices of dentists 4 3,313 5 5,154 9.2 % • *M innesota sales taxrecords. D:Withheld to avoid disclosing data ofindividualcompanies;data are included in higherleveltotals. Source:U.S.Census and Minnesota Department o fRevenue. 5-1 Retail sales increased from $278.6 million in 2002 to $387.4 million in 2007, an annual growth • rate of 6.8 percent. Sales of food service and drinking places increased from $14.5 million in 2002 to $23.3 million in 2007, an annual growth rate of 10.1 percent. The number of gasoline/convenience stores decreased from ten to eight; however sales increased significantly from$23.3 million in 2002 to $44.1 million in 2007, an annual growth rate of 13.6 percent. Retail sales were reported in both years for only two shopping goods categories: furniture and home furnishings stores and electronics and appliance stores. Retail sales for these categories increased modestly at annual rates of 1.6 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively. Building materials sales increased sharply from $13.1 million to $34.2 million with the opening of Home Depot. Motor vehicle and parts dealers sales increased at an annual rate of 3.5 percent. Health care and social assistance increased from $52.3 million in 2002 to $83.1 million in 2007, a growth rate of 9.7 percent. Dental office sales increased from $3.3 million to $5.2 million, recording an annual growth rate of 9.2 percent. Monticello's retail sales have increased at a healthy rate reflecting its growing importance as a retail center. Market Share Market share for Monticello retail and service establishments in 2007 is estimated in Table 5-2, which also contains Monticello retail and service sales for 2007. Purchasing power was calculated by McComb Group. Retail sales derived from Monticello's trade area were estimated • for each retail category to determine trade area sales and market share as a percent of purchasing power. Food store sales were estimated at $35.3 million in 2007 with 85 percent from the trade area,resulting in$30.0 million from the trade area for a market share of 30.1 percent. Superstore (Walmart and Target) food sales from the grocery segment was estimated at $15.2 million with 65 percent being derived from the trade area. Liquor store market share was estimated at 20.6 percent with 90 percent of sales derived from the trade area. Gasoline/convenience stores retail sales were estimated at $44.1 million with 70 percent of the sales from the trade area. This results in trade area sales of$30.9 million, which is a market share of 25.4 percent of estimated purchasing power of$121.8 million. Inflow sales, about$13.2 million, are derived from shoppers living outside the trade area. Motor vehicle and parts dealer sales were estimated at about 50 percent or$98.0 million for a 48.8 percent market share. Market share in the services category ranged from 14.2 percent for hair, nail, and skin care services to 34.7 percent for auto body,paint, interior, and glass repair. Health care and social assistance trade area sales were estimated at $78.9 million, representing a 24.4 percent market share, and dentists achieved a 14.4 percent market share. • 5-2 • Table 5-2 MONTICELLO PURCHASING POWER,RETAIL SALES AND MARKET SHARE;2007 (b Thousands ofDo Oars) Purchasing Retail Trade Area Sales Market Business Type Power Sales Percent Dollars Share Convenience Food&beverage stores $116,131 $ 39,092 85% $33,228 28.61 % Food stores 99,679 35,323 * 85% 30,025 30.12 Superstore Capture 99,679 15,240 65% 9,906 9.94 Liquor stores 16,452 3,769 90% 3,392 20.62 Food Service Food services and drinking places $110,808 $ 23,341 75% $17,506 15.80 % Full service restaurants 45,775 8,986 65% 5,841 12.76 Limited-service eating places 34,839 14,355 70% 10,049 28.84 Gasoline/Convenience Gasoline stations/convenience $121,839 $ 44,143 70% $30,900 25.36 % Shopping Goods Clothing&clothing accessories stores $ 41,230 $ 1,705 90% $ 1,535 3.72 % Miscellaneous store retailers 11,770 3,380 90% 3,042 25.85 Building Materials Building material&garden equipment&supplies dealers $108,449 $ 34,187 70% $23,931 22.07 % Motor Vehicles&Parts Motor vehicle&parts dealers $200,887 $196,039 * 50% $98,020 48.79 % New Car Dealers 154,204 175,787 50% 87,894 57.00 Services Personal&laundry services $ 12,035 $ 2,272 95% $ 2,158 17.93 % Hair,nail,&skin care services 9,553 1,426 95% 1,355 14.18 Repair&maintenance 27,158 6,387 95% 6,068 22.34 III Automotive body,paint,interior,and glass repair 9,196 3,361 95% 3,193 34.72 Medical Health care&social assistance $324,020 $ 83,050 95% $78,898 24.35 % Offices of dentists 34,127 5,154 95% 4,896 14.35 •Minnesota sales tasrecords. Source:U.S.Census and McComb Group,Ld. Future retail and service sales potential for Monticello is based on market share that can be achieved taking into consideration past trends in Monticello, trade area households, future growth, and potential competitive developments. Market share estimates are based on analysis conducted as part of this engagement, McComb Group's knowledge of the Twin Cities area retail market, and assumptions contained in Table 5-3. Market share was estimated for each retail and service category taking into consideration past market share performance of Monticello retail stores, trade area size, competitive store locations, and industry experience. Using the convenience goods category for the downtown trade area as an example, market share is estimated at 20 to 40 percent with 85 to 90 percent of the sales derived from the trade area. Food service market share is estimated at 25 percent with 85 percent of the sales being derived from the trade area. Gasoline/convenience store market share is 25 percent with 70 percent of the sales from the trade area. In the shopping goods category, market share ranges from 20 to 25 percent with trade area sales of 85 percent. Building materials market share is 25 percent and auto parts is 15 percent with 85 percent of the sales being derived from the trade area. Market share for services is estimated at 45 percent with 85 percent of the sales derived from the trade area; and health care is estimated at 45 percent with 85 percent of the sales from the trade area. • 5-3 Table 5-3 • CITY OF MONTICELLO MARKET SHARE AND DOWNTOWN TRADE AREA SALES Market Trade Area Store Type Share Sales Convenience Goods Supermarkets 40 % 85 % Other Food Stores 20 85 Drug&Proprietary 25 90 Liquor 20 90 Hardware Stores 20 90 Other Convenience Stores 20 90 Food Service 25 % 85 % Gasoline/Convenience Stores 25 % 70 % Shopping Goods Apparel&Accessories 20 % 85 % Furniture&Home Furnishings 25 85 Electronics &Appliances Stores 25 85 Other Shopping Goods 25 85 Other Retail Stores Building Materials 25 % 85 % Auto Parts &Accessories 15 85 • Services 45 % 85 % Health Care 45 % 85 % Source: McComb Group,Ltd. Sales Potential Estimated retail and service space demand is a two-step process. Sales potential for each retail or service category is estimated first to determine if retail sales are sufficient to support a store. Next, store size is determined based on sales productivity and typical store size for each category. This methodology is illustrated for 2015 in Tables 5-4 and 5-5. These tables use convenience goods stores as an example to illustrate how supportable square footage of retail stores and services is determined. Using grocery stores as an example, resident purchasing power in the downtown trade area in 2015 is estimated at $132.4 million, as shown in Table 5-4, with market share of 40 percent results in $53.0 million in trade area sales. Adding inflow sales of$9.3 million results in total estimated sales of about $62.3 million. About 25 percent of the grocery store potential is estimated to be transferred to SuperTarget and Walmart, leaving about $45.8 million of sales potential for supermarkets. SuperTarget, Walmart, and Kmart draw their sales from the discount store and supercenter categories where sales potential is $151.9 million. The combined categories adding sales transfer from supermarkets increases sales potential to about $167.4 million. Estimated sales potential is about $5.1 million for liquor stores and $16.0 million for • 5-4 • drug stores. The same approach is used for other retail and service categories. Sales potential for other retail stores and services is contained in the Appendix(under separate cover). Table 5-4 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO RETAILPURCHASINGPOWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL; 2015 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Merchandise Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales Grocery Stores $ 132,422 40 % $52,969 85 % $ 9,347 $ 62,316 Drug Stores 57,651 25 14,413 90 1,601 16,014 Hardware 8,828 20 1,766 90 196 1,962 Liquor 22,739 20 4,548 90 505 5,053 Discount Stores 61,981 75 46,486 65 25,031 71,517 Supercenters 69,631 75 52,223 65 28,120 80,343 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. Supportable gross leasable area(GLA) for retail stores is estimated by dividing sales potential by sales per square foot productivity appropriate for each store. Supportable GLA for supermarkets is based on sales potential of $62.3 million divided by $500 per square foot, resulting in • supportable square footage of 124,632 square feet, as shown in Table 5-5. Estimated sales transfer to the supercenter category reduces supportable square feet to about 100,000 square feet. This results in total supportable square feet of discount and supercenters to about 462,000 square feet. Drug and proprietary store supportable space is 34,813 square feet, which is about twice the size of the typical drug store indicating support for two stores. Table 5-5 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SPACE;2015 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Merchandise Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High Grocery Stores $ 62,316,000 $ 500 124,632 31,676 52,500 65,888 Drug&Proprietary Stores 16,014,000 460 34,813 8,280 11,700 23,714 Hardware 1,962,000 185 10,605 5,638 13,831 27,743 Liquor 5,053,000 375 13,475 1,305 2,856 7,210 Discount Stores 71,517,000 275 260,062 57,720 94,788 141,986 Supercenters 80,343,000 450 178,540 90,134 151,980 217,447 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. The last column in this table contains low, median, and high store size for each store type from Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers, published by the Urban Land Institute. Median store size indicates a typical size for a store in each retail category. To the extent that supportable square III footage is above the low store size, sales potential exists to support that store type. Many 5-5 retailers will want to have stores that are closer to the median store size. Complete tables • showing supportable square footage by retail and service category for each target year are contained in the Appendix. Retail GLA supported by estimated sales potential for each retail store category is based on estimated sales per square foot (in 2010 dollars) by store type. Sales per square foot estimates are derived from median store sales per square foot for each tenant type contained in Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers, 2008. Supportable GLA is calculated by dividing sales potential by sales per square foot. This analysis was used to provide an estimate of the supportable square footage in each retail category. The detailed tables resulting from these calculations are contained in the Appendix. The results of this analysis are summarized in Chapter 6. • • 5-6 • Chapter 6 MONTICELLO RETAIL POTENTIAL AND RECOMMENDATIONS Monticello is a thriving community that has become a sub-regional center for consumer, business, and medical services due to its high volume Mississippi River crossing. Factors that support additional retail development in Monticello include: • Traffic counts on TH-25 at the entrances to downtown exceeded 34,000 trips per day in 2008 and are projected to exceed 47,000 trips at the river crossing in 2030. • Downtown Monticello trade area population was estimated at 93,500 in 2010 and is projected to increase to about 104,300 in 2015, an annual average growth rate of 2.2 percent. • Downtown trade area households are estimated at 32,931 in 2010 and are expected to increase to about 37,250 in 2015, a growth rate of 2.5 percent annually. • Monticello's large anchor stores (Cub Foods, SuperTarget, Walmart Supercenter, and Home Depot) create a secondary trade area. The population of the combined downtown and secondary trade areas was 127,190 in 2010 and is estimated to increase to about 138,900 in 2015. 11111 ♦ Downtown trade area and secondary trade area households total 44,802 in 2010 and are projected to increase to about 49,125 in 2015. • Average household income in the downtown trade area and secondary trade area were estimated at $80,066 and $83,046, respectively, in 2010. Average household income in the downtown trade area and secondary trade area are estimated to increase to $84,957 and $88,495, respectively, in 2015. • More importantly are the 20,213 downtown and secondary trade area households with incomes above $75,000 in 2010. Households with incomes above $75,000 are expected to increase to about 24,700 in 2015, a 22 percent increase. • Due to physical barriers created by the Mississippi River and I-94, about one-third of downtown and secondary trade area shoppers must pass through downtown Monticello to reach the shopping area south of I-94. • New River Medical Center, with 25 beds and 600 employees, and Monticello Clinic have established Monticello as a regional medical center. Monticello's many economic attributes, trade area population, and upper income households provide support for expanded retail stores, restaurants, and services. • 6-1 Monticello Retail Potential III Downtown Monticello is anchored by Cub Foods, Kmart, a recently opened Walgreens, and large community recreation center. Cub Foods and Kmart are located at the south end of Downtown and Walgreens is at the north end. Downtown has the largest concentration of shopping goods stores (25) as well as the largest concentration of restaurants (16). Estimated additional GLA by store type category that can be supported in downtown Monticello through 2020 is summarized in Table 6-1. A more detailed list of stores and supportable GLA is contained in Table 6-2 later in this chapter. Existing retail space in downtown Monticello is estimated at about 390,000 square feet. This includes Cub Foods and Kmart, as well as the estimated functional GLA of other individual stores and services in downtown. Table 6-1 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SUGGESTED SUPPORTABLE SPACE SUMMARY BY M ERCHANDISE CATEGORY (Gross Leasable Area) Future Additional Estimated Supportable Square Feet Merchandise Category Existing 2010 2015 2020 SHOPPING GOODS Discount Store 85,000 - - - Department Stores&Other General M erchandise Stores - 65,000 75,000 87,000 Other General Merchandise Stores 8,000 8,000 8,000 Apparel&Accessories - 12,000 24,000 30,000 Furniture&Home Furnishings 9,000 9,000 9,000 15,000 III Electronics&Appliances Stores 4,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 Other Shopping Goods 38,500 17,000 17,000 24,000 Total 136,500 123,000 145,000 176,000 CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores 71,000 20,000 45,000 45,000 Other Convenience Goods 30,700 18,000 19,300 24,800 Gasoline Service Stations/Convenience 6,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Automotive Parts Dealers 13,000 - - - Total 120,700 43,000 69,300 74,800 FOOD SERVICE Food Service-Full Service 31,500 9,000 9,000 15,000 Food Service-Limited Service 27,000 3,000 3,000 6,000 Food Service-Snack&Beverage Places 1,500 4,000 4,000 6,000 Total 60,000 16,000 16,000 27,000 SERVICES Personal Care Services 12,800 2,000 4,000 8,000 Dry cleaning&Laundry Services 3,600 - - - Other Personal Services 9,100 5,000 7,500 7,500 Rental and Leasing - 1,500 1,800 2,200 Recreation 30,000 - 5,000 5,000 Total 55,500 8,500 18,300 22,700 HEALTH CARE 16,800 50,000 70,000 75,000 TOTAL 389,500 240,500 318,600 375,500 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. III 6-7 • Additional retail space that can be supported in downtown Monticello at the present time is estimated at 240,500 square feet of GLA, increasing to over 375,000 square feet in 2020. Supportable GLA is larger than downtown Monticello can accommodate based on physical planning. This is not a problem since it is unlikely that all the store types contained in this table would choose to locate in downtown Monticello; however, it does demonstrate the range of store types that can be considered. Shopping goods stores are found in larger concentrations and often involve comparison shopping. Shopping goods, including Kmart, are currently estimated to represent about 136,500 square feet of GLA. Supportable square footage of additional space is estimated at 123,000 square feet in 2010, 145,000 square feet in 2015, and 176,000 square feet in 2020. The largest single category is department stores where supportable square footage is about 65,000 square feet in 2010 increasing to 87,000 square feet in 2020. Additional supportable square footage is represented by apparel and accessories, furniture and home furnishings, electronics and appliance stores, and other shopping goods, which total an additional 50,000 square feet in 2010 increasing to an addition 81,000 square feet in 2020. Convenience goods represent merchandise categories that are typically purchased close to home. Existing convenience goods retailers are estimated to occupy about 120,700 square feet of GLA at the present time. This category includes supermarkets, other convenience goods stores, gasoline/convenience stores, and automotive parts dealers. Additional square footage supportable in this category is about 43,000 square feet at the present time increasing to 75,000 square feet in 2020. Included in the supportable space is a specialty grocery store of about • 20,000 square feet and a drug store. Downtown existing food service establishments, estimated at 60,000 square feet, could be augmented by additional full service and limited service establishments and snack and beverage places. In total, about 16,000 square feet could be supported at the present time and an additional 27,000 square feet in 2020. Downtown Monticello has a wide variety of services at the present time, which limits future opportunities. Existing services total about 55,500 square feet including the community center. Additional supportable services space is estimated at 8,500 square feet in 2010 increasing to 22,700 square feet in 2020. Monticello medical needs are served by New River Medical Center and Monticello Clinic. Market research indicates that Monticello could support additional medical practices and downtown would offer a convenient location. A detailed list of stores and services that are supportable in downtown Monticello are contained in Table 6-2. In this table, supportable GLA includes both existing stores and new stores, so that the space occupied by existing stores needs to be taken into consideration. Store categories with an existing store show the estimated functional square feet of space. All store categories listed in Table 6-2 can accommodate more GLA taking into consideration existing stores. As indicated earlier, it is unlikely that all the store types contained in this table would choose to locate in downtown Monticello; however, it does demonstrate the range of store types that can consider downtown for a store. • Table 6-2 also contains the range of store sizes in square feet of GLA from Dollars & Cents of Shopping Centers. The median store size is bracketed by high and low square feet. Low 6-3 represents the smallest store size that is likely to be economically viable. In most situations, • stores of less than 1,000 square feet are not feasible unless sales per square foot are well above average. Table 6-2 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SUPPORTABLE SPACE;2010,2015 AND 2020 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY (Gross Leasable Area) Estimated Store Size Merchandise Category Existing 2010 2015 2020 Low _ Median High SHOPPING GOODS General Merchandise Department Stores 0 65,000 75,000 87,000 89,641 148,796 243,167 Dollar stores 8,000 8,000 8,000 2,726 8,000 13,788 Subtotal 0 73,000 83,000 95,000 I Apparel&Accessories Clothing Stores Mens and boys 2,002 4,000 5,635 Womens clothing 7,500 10,000 12,000 2,074 4,200 8,740 Children's&infant 4,000 4,000 1,490 3,912 6,000 Family clothing 8,000 10,000 12,000 2,374 8,000 28,228 Clothing accessories stores 1,000 1,000 1,000 918 1,400 2,001 Shoe Stores Family shoe stores 4,000 4,000 8,000 2,021 3,388 10,234 Athletic footwear 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,535 3,284 11,314 Subtotal 0 23,500 32,000 40,000 Furniture&Home Furnishings Furniture 8,000 12,000 16,000 3,108 7,927 36,712 Floor covering; 8,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 1,229 3,593 7,819 III/Window treatment stores 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,489 4,905 9,934 All other home furnishings stores 7,000 7,000 9,000 Subtotal 9,000 24,000 30,000 38,000 Electronics&Appliances Stores Household appliance stores 5,000 7,000 8,000 2,349 4,000 7,563 Radio,tv&electronics stores 3,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 1,208 3,406 10,451 Computers,software,music,&other electronics 1,000 3,000 3,000 4,000 997 3,388 25,600 Subtotal 4,000 33,000 35,000 37,000 Other S hopping Goods Sporting goods 2,238 7,500 44,116 General Line Sporting Gds. 2,500 8,000 8,000 12,000 3,765 5,850 28,128 Specialty Line Sporting Gds. 2,500 10,000 10,000 12,000 1,097 2,449 4,356 Musical Instrument&Supplies 3,000 3,000 4,000 2,432 7,324 26,094 Jewelry stores 5,000 7,500 9,000 10,000 790 1,450 3,410 Hobby,toy&game 5,000 5,000 7,500 1,604 4,050 25,861 Gift,novelty&souvenirs 4,500 9,000 9,000 12,000 2,369 4,422 7,015 Sewing,needlework&piece goods 5,000 5,000 7,500 2,678 12,202 19,299 Pet stores 3,000 3,000 3,000 1,847 3,200 12,398 Optical goods stores 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 885 1,561 4,068 Cosmetics,beauty supplies&perfume 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,102 1,953 6,235 Subtotal 18,500 56,500 58,000 74,000 111 • 6-4 1111 Table 6-2(continued) DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SUPPORTABLE SPACE;2010,2015 AND 2020 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY (Gross Leasable Area) Estimated Store Size Merchandise Category Existing 2010 2015 2020 Low Median Hifi CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores Grocery stores Supermarkets 67,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 31,245 52,419 69,462 Convenience food 1,500 1,500 2,000 2,500 1,349 2,085 5,323 Specialty food stores 2,500 4,000 5,000 6,000 1,188 2,400 6,000 Subtotal 71,000 105,500 127,000 148,500 Other Convenience Goods Drug&proprietary stores 14,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 8,280 11,700 23,714 Hardware 10,000 10,000 10,000 12,500 5,638 13,831 27,743 Liquor 5,500 5,500 6,500 7,500 1,305 2,856 7,210 Florist 2,000 2,000 4,000 766 1,600 5,396 Food/health supplement stores 1,200 1,200 1,500 1,500 1,200 1,234 1,968 Subtotal 30,700 48,700 50,000 55,500 Food Service Full-service restaurants 31,500 55,000 65,000 75,000 2,000 4,500 9,775 Limited service restaurants 27,000 35,000 40,000 50,000 1,335 3,000 3,400 Snack&beverag places 850 1,500 2,495 Ice Cream&Soft Serve 1,200 1,400 1,600 902 1,148 1,570 Doughnut Shops/Bagel 2,500 3,000 3,500 744 1,200 2,153 Coffee Shops 1,500 2,800 3,200 4,000 881 1,500 2,000 Other Snack Shops 1,500 1,500 2,000 850 1,578 2,495 IIISubtotal Gasoline60,000 98,000 114,100 136,100 Sys Stations/Cony. Gas/Convenience food stores 6.000 32,000 36,000 42,000 1,500 2,933 6,121 Subtotal 6,000 32,000 36,000 42,000 OTHER RETAIL STORES Motor Vehicles&Parts Dealers Auto parts&accessories stores 13,000 8,500 10,000 12,000 2,232 6,500 13,000 Tire dealers 6,500 7,500 9,000 3,514 6,944 12,014 Subtotal 13,000 15,000 17,500 21,000 Source:McComb Group,Ltd. ID 6-5 Table 6-2(continued) • DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SUPPORTABLE SPACE;2010,2015 AND 2020 BY SERVICES CATEGORY (Gross Leasable Area) Estimatd Store Size Category Existing 2010 2015 2020 Low Median High Personal Care Services Beauty Shops/Barber 10,000 12,000 14,000 17,000 900 1,400 3,480 Nail Salons 2,100 1,500 1,800 2,200 773 1,200 1,807 Diet&Weight Reducing Services 1,500 1,223 1,856 3,130 Other Personal Care Services 700 1,500 2,000 2,500 703 1,488 4,128 Subtotal 12,800 15,000 17,800 23,200 Other Personal Services Child Day Care Services 5,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 3,059 5,050 7,495 Photographic Studios 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 990 1,866 2,550 Veteranarian Services 2,100 4,500 4,500 4,500 1,346 2,122 2,701 Pet Care 1,200 1,200 2,400 1,200 Subtotal 9,100 32,700 37,700 43,900 Rental and Leasing Formalwear and Costume Rental 350 350 400 763 1,046 1,773 Home Health Equipment Rental 1,200 1,500 1,800 1,200 1,600 3,480 Subtotal 0 1,550 1,850 2,200 Recreation Physical Fitness Facilites 30,000 30,000 35,000 45,000 1,433 6,448 32,170 Subtotal 30,000 30,000 35,000 45,000 Health Care Offices of Physicians(except mental health specialists) 3,200 55,000 65,000 75,000 969 1,652 4,008 Offices of Physicians,Mental Health Specialists 1,500 1,800 2,200 969 1,800 4,008 Offices of Dentists 5,100 8,000 10,000 12,000 1,090 1,700 3,970 Offices of Chiropractors 6,500 8,000 10,500 13,000 1,090 1,600 3,970 • Offices of Optometrists 1,500 2,000 2,500 1,074 1,620 4,347 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners(except physicians) 2,000 2,000 4,000 1,090 1,800 3,970 Physical&Occupational Therapists 4,000 5,000 5,000 1,090 1,600 3,970 Offices of Podiatrists 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,090 1,800 3,970 Offices of All Other M isc.Health Practitioners 2,000 2,000 2,500 1,090 1,800 3,970 Outpatient Care Centers 10,000 12,500 15,000 Subtotal 16,800 94,000 112,800 133,200 Source:McComb Group,Ltd. III 6-6 • Appendices DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO MARKET ANALYSIS AND RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL • Prepared for City of Monticello August 2011 C 000 M COI-1B GROUPLtd. um0N(�0 ri r, r: r� R it TA r. c: c3 Ni S • Appendices DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO MARKET ANALYSIS AND RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL Prepared for City of Monticello Prepared by McComb Group, Ltd. August 2011 • ©Copyright 2011 McComb Group, Ltd. • Appendix A MONTICELLO RETAIL AREAS TENANT MIX Downtown A-1 East of Downtown A-2 South of I-94 A-3 41 • Table A-I MONTICELLO-DOWNTOWN • RETAIL TENANT MIX CONVENIENCE GOODS SHOPPING GOODS Food Stores General Merchandise Supermarket Discount Department Store Cub Foods Big Kmart Specialty Food Stores Home Furnishings Convenience Market Floor Coverings Chapitos Latino Supermarket&Deli Monticello Carpets Other Convenience Goods Curtains and Drapes Drugstore/Pharmacy Kustom Blinds&Draperies Walgreens Beds/Mattresses Hardware Sweet Dreams Sleep Centers Grady's Ace Hardware Home Appliance/Music Liquor/Wine Appliances Hi-Way Liquors Monticello Vacuum Center Audio/Video FOOD SERVICE Electronic store w/Stargate,Satellite Dish Network,DirectTV Full Service Electronics-General Restaurant With Liquor Radio Shack Beef O'Brady's Computer/Software Guadalajara Mexican Restaurant Computer Brainz IT Solutions Rancho Grande Authentic Mexican Food Other Shopping Goods The Station Bar&Grill Sporting Goods-General Restaurant Without Liquor Soccer Store Cornerstone Café Bike Shop Monticello Corner Café Broadway Cycle(coming soon) • Perkins Jewelry Limited Service Classique Jewelry Chicken/Turkey Fast Food Cards and Gifts KFC Hallmark Gold Crown Hamburgers Eyeglasses-Optician Burger King Eye Clinic Mexican Fast Food Monticello Optical Center Taco Bell Select Eye Care Pizza Uptown Eye Care-Dr.Elaine Happ and Dr.Mary Gregory $5 Pizza Antiques Domino's Pizza Antique store Papa Murphy's Antiques Pizza Factory Pre-Owned Pizza Man All 4 Kids Sandwich Shop Drawers of Davlee Quizno's Sub Finders Keepers Gift&Consignments Snacks and Beverage Places Flea Market Coffee/Tea Second Chance Thrift Store Caribou Coffee Used Furniture and More Drinking Places Collectibles Cocktain Lounge/Bar Manny's Comics&Cards Liquors/Bar BUILDING MATERIALS/GARDEN CONVENIENCE/GAS Other Home Improvement Convenience/Gasoline DJ's Fireplace Holiday Kwik Stop Service Station Red's Service Table A-1(continued) • MONTICELLO-DOWNTOWN RETAIL TENANT MIX MOTOR VEHICLES AND PARTS SERVICES(continued) Auto Parts Automotive Services Auto Value Parts Store Auto Repair Service NAPA Auto Parts Fred's Auto Repair Skool Customs SERVICES Auto Glass Shop Personal Care RAS Glass Men's Barber Other Services Bob's Barber Shop Learning Center/College Walnut Street Barbers Swan River Montissory Charter School Unisex Hair Music Studio/Dance Great Clips Barbara Lee's Studio of Dance Women's Hair Salon Lodging Going in Style Americlnn Motel Jade Patrick Salon Fraternal Mild to Wild Salon&Spa VFW Club Platinum Look Salon Armed Forces Recruiting Nail Salon National Guard Recruiting Office Brand New Nails&Alterations Other Service PS Nails Computer Repair Tanning Salon Wreckless Driving Academy Fit To Be Me Financial Sunlife Tanning Bank/Savings&Loan . Dry Cleaning/Laundry Dry Cleaner First Minnesota Bank US Bank Cleaners Wells Fargo Bank Laundry Finance Company&Mortgage Maytag Laundry GSF Mortgage Personal Services Investment Advice Film Processing Ameriprise Financial(2) Photo One Edward Jones Investments(2) Photocopy/Fast Print Prime America Financial Services Monticello Printing Insurance Photographer DW Carlson Agency David's Photography,Inc. Farmers Insurance Travel Agent Foster Carlson&White Agency Bursch Travel/American Express Travel Service State Farm Insurance—Dan Olson Agent Travel Leaders TNT Insurance Massage Real Estate Body Rhythms Assist 2 Sell Healing Ground Bullseye Properties Real Estate Office Marina's Massage&Permanent Cosmetics Preferred Title Other Services Wright Sherburne Realty Crisis Pregnancy Center Tax Preparation Monticello Hearing Center H&R Block Funeral Liberty Tax Services Peterson Grimso Funeral Chapel Hill's Tax Service Recreation/Entertainment Health Club Health It Up(coming soon) Table A-1(continued) MONTICELLO-DOWNTOWN RETAIL TENANT MIX • SERVICES(continued) SERVICES(continued) Offices(Other Than Financial) Community Legal Post Office Agosto Law Office Post Office Conroy Law Office U.S.Post Office Metcaf Larson&Muth Law Office City Office Smith Paulson O'Donnell City Hall Accounting Monticello Help Center Lillehaug,CPA Motor Vehicle Department Schlenner Wenner&Co. House of Worship Employment Agency Alive Action Plus Temporary Services on Broadway Social Services Other Office Families United Bauer Construction Library Central Minnesota Custom Homes Public Library Century Distributing Community Center Cleary Building Corp. Monticello Community Center Dairy Today Chamber of Commerce Earth Right Chamber of Commerce FiberNet Monticello Lanner Custom Homes VACANT Monticello Times&Shopper Twenty-Four Preferred Exteriors of Minnesota Taylor Land Surveyors,Inc. TDS Telcom • Tollefson Counseling Services Medical Physicians Office Foot Clinic Mid Minnesota Neurology Clinic Dental Lakeland Family Dental Monticello Family Dentistry Buffalo Dental Center Chiropractor Chiropractor Monticello Chiropractic&Therapy Studer Chiropractic Whole Health Family Chiropractic Beide Chiropractor • Table A-2 • MONTICELLO-EAST OF DOWNTOWN RETAIL TENANT MIX CONVENIENCE GOODS BUILDING MATERIALS/GARDEN Specialty Food Stores Home Improvements Meat,Poultry and Fish Home Depot Von Hanson's Meats Other Convenience Goods SERVICES Health Food/Nutrition/Diet Personal Care GNC Unisex Hair Fantastic Sam's FOOD SERVICE Women's Hair Salon Full Service Exhilaration Salon&Spa Aveda Restaurant With Liquor Automotive Services Hawk's Sports Bar&Grill Auto Repair Service Limited Service Dennis'Automobile Repair Shop Hamburgers Car Wash McDonalds Care Free Car Wash Pizza Financial Little Caesar's Bank/Savings&Loan Snacks and Beverage Places Liberty Savings Bank&Insurance Coffee/Tea Riverwood Bank Caribou Coffee Insurance American Family Insurance • CONVENIENCE/GAS Medical Convenience/Gasoline Physicians Office Cruiser's New River Medical Center O'Ryan's Marathon Monticello Clinic SHOPPING GOODS VACANT General Merchandise Four Superstore SuperTarget Home Appliance/Music Telephone Store/Telecom Store Verizon Wireless Other Shopping Goods Sporting Goods-General AST Sports Office Supplies Office Max Pet Shop PetSmart 4110 Table A-3 MONTICELLO-SOUTH OF I-94 RETAIL TENANT MIX • FOOD SERVICE BUILDING MATERIALS/GARDEN Full Service Paint and Wallpaper Restaurant With Liquor Hirshfield's Paint Applebee's Neighborhood Grill&Bar Specialty Hardware Bluestone Grill Fastenol Buffalo Wild Wings Other Home Improvement Chatter's Restaurant&Bar The Plumbery Showroom Limited Service Chinese Fast Food MOTOR VEHICLES AND PARTS Chin Yuen Automobile Showroom China Buffet Honda Dealership Hamburgers Gould Chevrolet Culver's Metro West Auto Dealership Pontiac GMC McDonalds Auto Parts Ice Cream Parlor O'Reilly Auto Parts Dairy Queen Grill&Chill Tire Dealers Mexican Fast Food Goodyear Tire Taco John's Royal Tire Pizza Used Car Dealers Primo Pizza West Metro Used Car Lot Sandwich Shop Recreational Vehicles&Boats Subway Moon Motor Sports Steak/Roast Beef Arby's SERVICES Personal Care CONVENIENCE/GAS Unisex Hair Convenience/Gasoline Great Clips 411 Holiday Women's Hair Salon Kwik Trip Salon 25 SuperAmerica Salon Tuscan Nail Salon SHOPPING GOODS Fancy Nails General Merchandise Tanning Salon Superstore Totally Tan Walmart Supercenter Tattoo Parlor Home Furnishings Tattoo store Floor Coverings Personal Services AE Michaels Flooring Showroom Rental Shop Home Appliance/Music General Rental Center Telephone Store/Telecom Store Daycare/Nursery Sprint Authorized Retailer Playhouse Child Care Center Verizon Wireless Rental/Leasing Other Shopping Goods Video Rental Jewelry Movie Gallery Loch Jewelers Recreation/Entertainment Tobacco Cinema-General Smoke Shop Monticello 15 Theatre Other Retail Health Club Monticello Bait&Tackle Anytime Fitness Gold's Gym Bowling Alley River City Extreme Table A-3(continued) • MONTICELLO-SOUTH OF I-94 RETAIL TENANT MIX SERVICES(continued) SERVICES(continued) Automotive Services Offices(Other Than Financial) Auto Repair Service Legal Monticello Automotive Zachman Merrill PA Attorneys at Law Body Shop Veterinary Auto Body Repair Monticello-Big Lake Pet Hospital Gould Brothers Body Shop Other Office Steeles Collision LCMB Brokerage Inc. Quick Lube Medical Jiffy Lube Dental Other Services MDS Children's Dentistry,Oral&Facial Surgery,Orthodontics Martial Arts South Side Dental Center DoJo Karate . Chiropractor Lodging Monticello Physical Therapy Back To Health Best Western Chelsea Inn&Suites Other Days Inn Car/Truck Rental Super 8 Motel Enterprise Armed Forces Recruiting Air Force Career Center VACANT Other Service Nine Olson&Sons Electric Financial Bank/Savings&Loan Premier Banks Pawn Shop • Monticello Pawn&Gun Finance Company&Mortgage Marketplace Home Mortgage Investment Advice Thrivent Financial Insurance Monticello Agency Real Estate Edina Realty Prairie's Edge Real Estate Tri County Abstract&Guarantee Title Tax Preparation Tax Service S Appendix B • DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Table B-1 Monticello Downtown and Secondary Trade Areas and Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA; Population and Households: 1990 and 2000 Census; 2010 and 2015 Estimated Table B-2 Monticello Downtown and Secondary Trade Areas and Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA; Average and Median Household Incomes: 1990 and 2000 Census; 2010 and 2015 Estimated Table B-3 Monticello Downtown and Secondary Trade Areas and Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA; Household Income: 1990 and 2000 Census; 2010 and 2015 Estimated Table B-4 Monticello Downtown and Secondary Trade Areas and Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA; Households, Families and Household Size: 1990 and 2000 Census; 2010 and 2015 Estimated Table B-5 Monticello Downtown and Secondary Trade Areas and Minneapolis-St. Paul • MSA; Educational Attainment: 1990 and 2000 Census; 2010 and 2015 Estimated Table B-6 Monticello Downtown and Secondary Trade Areas and Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA; Gender and Marital Status: 1990 and 2000 Census; 2010 and 2015 Estimated Table B-7 Monticello Downtown and Secondary Trade Areas and Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA; Age Distribution: 1990 and 2000 Census; 2010 and 2015 Estimated Table B-8 Monticello Downtown and Secondary Trade Areas and Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA; Ethnicity: 1990 and 2000 Census; 2010 and 2015 Estimated • sTable B-1 MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARY TRADE AREAS AND MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL MSA POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS: 1990 AND 2000 CENSUS;2010 AND 2015 ESTIMATED Population Households Rate of Rate of Trade Area/Year Number Change Number Change DOWNTOWN TRADE AREA 1990 43,171 N/A 14,307 N/A 2000 65,264 4.22 % 22,368 4.57 % 2010E 93,500 3.66 32,931 3.94 2015 E 104,277 2.21 37,258 2.50 SECONDARY TRADE AREA 1990 19,416 N/A 6,505 N/A 2000 26,233 3.05 % 9,114 3.43 % 2010E 33,690 2.53 11,871 2.68 2015E 34,634 0.55 11,866 (0.01) MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL MSA 1990 2,542,631 N/A 961,627 N/A 2000 2,968,806 1.56 % 1,136,615 1.69 % 2010E 3,302,532 1.07 1,265,491 1.08 III2015 E 3,465,615 0.97 1,294,127 0.45 N/A: Not Available. E: Estimated. Source: U.S.Census,Scan/US and McComb Group,Ltd. 11111 Table B-2 411 MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARY TRADE AREAS AND MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL MSA AVERAGE AND MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES 1990 AND 2000 CENSUS;2010 AND 2015 ESTIMATED Downtown Secondary Minneapolis- Trade Trade St.Paul Income Type/Year Area Area MSA Average Household Income 1990 $ 39,037 $ 38,087 $ 43,703 2000 64,631 67,377 67,713 2010 E 80,066 83,046 86,856 2015 E 84,957 88,495 93,497 Median Household Income 1990 $ 34,861 $ 33,951 $ 37,631 2000 56,060 55,547 54,734 2010E 69,448 68,680 65,421 2015 E 74,290 73,295 69,896 E: Estimated. Source: U.S.Census,Scan/US and McComb Group,Ltd. • Table B-3 • MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARY TRADE AREAS AND MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL MSA HOUSEHOLD INCOME: 1990 AND 2000 CENSUS; 2010 AND 2015 ESTIMATED 1990 2000 2010E 2015 E Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent DOWNTOWN TRADE AREA Households 14,307 N/A 22,368 N/A 32,931 N/A 37,258 N/A Average Size 2.99 N/A 2.89 N/A 2.82 N/A 2.93 N/A Household Income Median $ 34,861 N/A $ 56,060 N/A $ 69,448 N/A $ 74,290 N/A Average $ 39,037 N/A $ 64,631 N/A $ 80,066 N/A $ 84,957 N/A Households Above$50,000 3,487 24.6 % 12,829 57.5 % 22,903 69.6 % 27,156 72.9 % Households Above$75,000 873 6.2 6,222 27.9 14,864 45.2 18,771 50.4 Income Distribution Lessthan$15,000 2,208 15.6 % 1,437 6.4 % 1,553 4.7 % 1,574 4.2 $15,000-$24,999 2,219 15.7 1,662 7.4 1,665 5.1 1,692 4.5 $25,000-$34,999 2,648 18.7 2,388 10.7 2,430 7.4 2,434 6.5 $35,000-$49,999 3,598 25.4 4,013 18.0 4,349 13.2 4,401 11.8 $50,000-$74,999 2,614 18.5 6,607 29.6 8,039 24.4 8,386 22.5 $75,000-$99,999 552 3.9 3,636 16.3 6,733 20.5 8,118 21.8 $100,000-$149,999 222 1.6 2,037 9.1 6,290 19.1 8,351 22.4 $150,000+ 99 0.7 549 2.5 1,841 5.6 2,301 6.2 SECONDARY TRADE AREA Households 6,505 N/A 9,114 N/A 11,871 N/A 11,866 N/A Average Size 2.96 N/A 2.85 N/A 2.81 N/A 2.89 N/A Household Income Median $ 33,951 N/A $ 55,547 N/A $ 68,680 N/A $ 73,295 N/A Average $ 38,087 N/A $ 67,377 N/A $ 83,046 N/A $ 88,495 N/A Households Above$50,000 1,479 23.2 % 5,208 57.3 % 8,268 69.9 % 8,654 73.2 % Households Above$75,000 398 6.2 2,509 27.6 5,349 45.2 5,914 50.0 • Income Distribution Less than$15,000 1,082 17.0 % 693 7.6 % 690 5.8 % 636 5.4 % $15,000-$24,999 1,071 16.8 727 8.0 621 5.3 550 4.6 $25,000-$34,999 1,191 18.7 817 9.0 725 6.1 641 5.4 $35,000-$49,999 1,555 24.4 1,646 18.1 1,529 12.9 1,348 11.4 $50,000-$74,999 1,081 16.9 2,699 29.7 2,919 24.7 2,740 23.2 $75,000-$99,999 282 4.4 1,520 16.7 2,520 21.3 2,659 22.5 $100,000-$149,999 84 1.3 734 8.1 2,105 17.8 2,425 20.5 $150,000+ 33 0.5 255 2.8 724 6.1 830 7.0 MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL MSA Households 961,627 N/A 1,136,615 N/A 1,265,491 N/A 1,294,127 N/A Average Size 2.59 N/A 2.56 N/A 2.56 N/A 2.62 N/A Household Income Median $ 37,631 N/A $ 54,734 N/A $ 65,421 N/A $ 69,896 N/A Average $ 43,703 N/A $ 67,713 N/A $ 86,856 N/A $ 93,497 N/A Households Above$50,000 296,835 30.9 % 623,000 54.8 % 799,649 63.2 % 848,353 65.6 % Households Above$75,000 107,842 11.2 357,670 31.5 548,648 43.4 605,975 46.8 Income Distribution Less than$15,000 158,760 16.5 % 104,519 9.2 % 108,610 8.6 % 108,837 8.4 % $15,000-$24,999 145,590 15.2 104,638 9.2 91,791 7.3 87,497 6.8 $25,000-$34,999 151,645 15.8 125,123 11.0 102,729 8.1 94,583 7.3 $35,000-$49,999 206,924 21.6 179,335 15.8 162,712 12.9 154,857 12.0 $50,000-$74,999 188,993 19.7 265,330 23.3 251,001 19.8 242,378 18.7 $75,000-$99,999 59,873 6.2 165,629 14.6 198,538 15.7 207,168 16.0 $100,000-$149,999 30,705 3.2 124,954 11.0 212,552 16.8 240,128 18.6 $150,000+ 17,264 1.8 67,087 5.9 137,558 10.9 158,679 12.3 N/A:Not Available or Not Applicable. E:Estimated. Source:U.S.Census,Scan/US and McComb Group,Ltd. Table B-4 • MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARY TRADE AREAS AND MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL MSA HOUSEHOLDS,FAMILIES AND HOUSEHOLD SIZE;1990 AND 2000 CENSUS;2010 AND 2015 ESTIMATED 1990 2000 2010E 2015 E Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent DOWNTOWN TRADE AREA Households 14,307 22,368 32,931 37,258 Families 11,355 17,325 24,813 27,726 As Percent of Households 79.4 % 77.5 % 75.3 % 74.4 % Household Size 1 Person N/A N/A % 3,811 17.1 % 5,946 18.1 % 6,922 18.6 % 2 Persons N/A N/A 7,124 31.9 10,717 32.6 10,825 29.0 3-4 Persons N/A N/A 8,450 37.8 11,976 36.4 13,883 37.3 5+Persons N/A N/A 2,959 13.2 4,270 13.0 5,639 15.1 Average Household Size 2.99 2.89 2.82 2.93 SECONDARY TRADE AREA Households 6,505 9,114 11,871 11,866 Families 5,257 7,153 8,958 8,784 As Percent of Households 80.8 % 78.5 % 75.5 % 74.0 % Household Size 1 Person N/A N/A % 1,528 16.8 % 2,183 18.4 % 2,316 19.5 2 Persons N/A N/A 3,198 35.1 4,018 33.8 3,615 30.5 3-4 Persons N/A N/A 3,217 35.3 4,090 34.5 4,163 35.1 5+Persons N/A N/A 1,160 12.7 1,564 13.2 1,749 14.7 Average Household Size 2.96 2.85 2.81 2.89 III MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL MSA Households 961,627 1,136,615 1,265,491 1,294,127 Families 649,907 744,303 813,402 822,812 As Percent of Households 67.6 % 65.5 % 64.3 % 63.6 Household Size 1 Person N/A N/A % 303,050 26.7 % 363,378 28.7 % 385,640 29.8 2 Persons N/A N/A 370,926 32.6 383,645 30.3 352,477 27.2 3-4 Persons N/A N/A 348,717 30.7 385,127 30.4 401,722 31.0 5+Persons N/A N/A 113,922 10.0 133,341 10.5 154,288 11.9 Average Household Size • 2.59 2.56 2.56 2.62 N/A: Not Available or Not Applicable. E: Estimated. Source:U.S.Census,Scan/US and McComb Group,Ltd. ID Table B-5 • MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARY TRADE AREAS AND MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL MSA EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT: 1990 AND 2000 CENSUS;2010 AND 2015 ESTIMATED 1990 2000 2010E 2015 E Attainment Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent DOWNTOWN TRADE AREA No College 10,815 52.6 % 13,457 38.7 % 18,654 34.2 % 19,642 32.5 % Some College/2 yr.Degree 6,439 31.3 14,075 40.5 21,641 39.7 23,856 39.5 College Graduate 2,499 12.2 5,508 15.8 11,086 20.4 13,340 22.1 Graduate School 790 3.8 1,738 5.0 3,089 5.7 3,627 6.0 SECONDARY TRADE AREA No College 5,329 56.5 % 6,134 43.0 % 7,814 38.3 % 7,772 36.5 % Some College/2 yr.Degree 2,800 29.7 5,479 38.4 7,900 38.7 8,283 38.9 College Graduate 985 10.4 1,986 13.9 3,579 17.5 4,035 19.0 Graduate School 320 3.4 676 4.7 1,125 5.5 1,196 5.6 MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL MSA No College 494,213 35.2 % 482,956 28.0 % 534,038 26.2 % 546,018 25.2 % Some College/2 yr.Degree 475,234 33.9 606,761 35.2 675,032 33.1 696,082 32.1 College Graduate 309,463 22.1 440,355 25.6 560,783 27.5 614,610 28.4 Graduate School 123,146 8.8 192,417 11.2 270,749 13.3 308,645 14.3 N/A: Not Available or Not Applicable. E:Estimated. Source:U.S.Census,Scan/US and McComb Group,Ltd. • III Table B-6 • MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARY TRADE AREAS AND MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL MSA GENDER AND MARITAL STATUS:1990 AND 2000 CENSUS; 2010 AND 2015 ESTIMATED 1990 2000 2010E 2015 E Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent DOWNTOWN TRADE AREA Gender Male 21,611 50.1 % 32,804 50.3 % 47,179 50.5 % 52,717 50.6 % Female 21,559 49.9 32,463 49.7 46,320 49.5 51,561 49.4 Marital Status Single 10,524 34.3 % 669 3.8 % 893 3.6 % 1,027 3.7 % Single With Children N/A N/A 2,037 11.6 3,490 14.1 4,229 15.3 Married 20,148 65.7 14,852 84.6 20,418 82.3 22,470 81.0 SECONDARY TRADE AREA Gender Male 9,900 51.0 % 13,516 51.5 % 17,354 51.5 % 17,844 51.5 % Female 9,516 49.0 12,717 48.5 16,336 48.5 16,790 48.5 Marital Status Single 4,478 31.7 % 251 3.6 % 286 3.2 % 276 3.1 % Single With Children N/A N/A 573 8.2 879 9.8 963 11.0 Married 9,641 68.3 6,202 88.3 7,795 87.0 7,549 85.9 MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL MSA Gender Male 1,243,912 48.9 % 1,466,277 49.4 % 1,640,881 49.7 % 1,724,794 49.8 % III Female 1,298,719 51.1 1,502,529 50.6 1,661,651 50.3 1,740,821 50.2 Marital Status Single 880,727 44.8 % 49,124 6.6 % 54,692 6.7 % 55,764 6.8 % Single With Children N/A N/A 102,044 13.7 124,860 15.4 133,077 16.2 Married 1,085,734 55.2 593,135 79.7 633,850 77.9 633,971 77.0 N/A: Not Available or Not Applicable. E: Estimated. Source: U.S.Census,Scan/US and McComb Group,Ltd. 16. • Table B-7 MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARY TRADE AREAS AND MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL MSA AGE DISTRIBUTION: 1990 AND 2000 CENSUS;2010 AND 2015 ESTIMATED 1990 2000 2010E 2015 E Age Distribution Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent DOWNTOWN TRADE AREA Under 5 4,161 9.6 % 6,009 9.2 % 9,016 9.6 % 9,856 9.5% 5-9 4,401 10.2 5,940 9.1 7,800 8.3 8,871 8.5 10-14 3,906 9.0 6,049 9.3 7,332 7.8 8,060 7.7 15-19 3,130 7.2 4,985 7.6 6,468 6.9 7,520 7.2 20-24 2,667 6.2 3,367 5.2 5,447 5.8 6,910 6.6 25-34 8,252 19.1 10,707 16.4 13,972 14.9 13,206 12.7 35-44 6,665 15.4 12,112 18.6 14,085 15.1 14,036 13.5 45-54 3,982 9.2 7,587 11.6 13,220 14.1 14,509 13.9 55-64 2,481 5.7 4,111 6.3 8,475 9.1 11,097 10.6 65-74 1,861 4.3 2,323 3.6 4,723 5.1 6,413 6.1 75+ 1,676 3.9 2,041 3.1 2,950 3.2 3,798 3.6 25-64 21,379 49.5 % 34,516 52.9 % 49,751 53.2 % 52,848 50.7% 65 and Over 3,537 8.2 4,364 6.7 7,673 8.2 10,211 9.8 SECONDARY TRADE AREA Under 5 1,608 8.3 % 2,028 7.7 % 2,700 8.0 % 2,836 8.2% 5-9 1,871 9.6 2,332 8.9 2,664 7.9 2,803 8.1 10-14 1,767 9.1 2,401 9.2 2,592 7.7 2,549 7.4 15-19 1,425 7.3 2,091 8.0 2,365 7.0 2,421 7.0 20-24 952 4.9 1,065 4.1 1,525 4.5 1,685 4.9 • 25-34 3,237 16.7 3,482 13.3 4,053 12.0 3,810 11.0 35-44 3,124 16.1 5,133 19.6 5,286 15.7 4,793 13.8 45 54 2,037 10.5 3,564 13.6 5,506 16.4 5,344 15.4 55-64 1,421 7.3 2,133 8.1 3,862 11.5 4,539 13.1 65-74 1,199 6.2 1,175 4.5 2,102 6.2 2,641 7.6 75+ 781 4.0 796 3.0 1,016 3.0 1,194 3.4 25-64 9,819 50.6 % 14,312 54.6 % 18,706 55.6 % 18,486 53.4% 65 and Over 1,979 10.2 1,971 7.5 3,118 9.3 3,835 11.1 MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL MSA Under 5 206,374 8.1 % 212,810 7.2 % 246,278 7.5 % 267,740 7.7% 5-9 197,835 7.8 225,355 7.6 224,744 6.8 245,635 7.1 10-14 171,935 6.8 225,652 7.6 216,023 6.5 225,974 6.5 15-19 162,011 6.4 209,863 7.1 216,523 6.6 217,235 6.3 20-24 193,055 7.6 193,790 6.5 213,967 6.5 217,012 6.3 25-34 511,549 20.1 457,105 15.4 477,084 14.4 449,885 13.0 35-44 415,664 16.3 528,024 17.8 460,322 13.9 468,964 13.5 45-54 253,035 10.0 405,724 13.7 500,413 15.2 479,512 13.8 55-64 180,490 7.1 225,540 7.6 380,864 11.5 449,369 13.0 65-74 139,086 5.5 145,808 4.9 202,665 6.1 268,995 7.8 75+ 111,458 4.4 139,135 4.7 163,649 5.0 175,294 5.1 25-64 1,360,738 53.5 % 1,616,393 54.4 % 1,818,683 55.1 % 1,847,730 53.3% 65 and Over 250,544 9.9 284,943 9.6 366,314 11.1 444,289 12.8 E: Estimated. Source:U.S.Census,Scan/US and McComb Group,Ltd. III Table B-8 III MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN AND SECONDARY TRADE AREAS AND MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL MSA ETHNICITY: 1990 AND 2000 CENSUS; 2010 AND 2015 ESTIMATED 1990 2000 2010E 2015 E Ethnicity Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent DOWNTOWN TRADE AREA Caucasian 42,748 99.0% 63,914 97.9% 88,992 95.2% 99,016 95.0% African-American 43 0.1 134 0.2 1,018 1.1 1,387 1.3 Native American 133 0.3 193 0.3 368 0.4 452 0.4 Asian/Pacific Islander 188 0.4 275 0.4 1,133 1.2 1,220 1.2 Other 58 0.1 747 1.1 1,989 2.1 2,203 2.1 Hispanic(any race) 191 0.4% 726 1.1 % 2,119 2.3 % 2,709 2.6% SECONDARY TRADE AREA Caucasian 19,238 99.1 % 25,766 98.2 % 32,376 96.1 % 33,290 96.1 % African-American 31 0.2 74 0.3 373 1.1 446 1.3 Native American 68 0.3 83 0.3 132 0.4 146 0.4 Asian/Pacific Islander 63 0.3 72 0.3 263 0.8 272 0.8 Other 17 0.1 239 0.9 546 1.6 481 1.4 Hispanic(any race) 50 0.3 % 238 0.9% 570 1.7% 647 1.9% MINNEAPOLIS-ST.PAUL MSA Caucasian 2,347,622 92.3 % 2,556,851 86.1 % 2,757,948 83.5 % 2,868,321 82.8% African-American 90,071 3.5 157,963 5.3 221,450 6.7 244,745 7.1 Native American 24,267 1.0 21,590 0.7 27,918 0.8 29,791 0.9 Asian/Pacific Islander 65,618 2.6 124,025 4.2 174,656 5.3 198,521 5.7 III Other 15,053 0.6 108,377 3.7 120,560 3.7 124,237 3.6 Hispanic(any race) 37,942 1.5 % 99,121 3.3 % 166,016 5.0% 195,788 5.6% E: Estimated. Source: U.S.Census,Scan/US and McComb Group,Ltd. II • Appendix C RETAIL AND SERVICES PURCHASING POWER Downtown Monticello Trade Area Retail C-1 Downtown Monticello Trade Area Services C-2 • • Table C-1 MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN TRADE AREA III RETAIL PURCHASING POWER,2010 TO 2030 (In Thousands of Dollars) Merchandise Category 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 General Merchandise $ 161,534 $ 192,080 $ 225,635 S 262,472 $ 303,838 Department stores(Incl.leased depts.) 82,229 97,779 114,860 133,612 154,670 Discount stores 61,981 73,702 86,577 100,712 116,584 Department Stores 20,248 24,077 28,283 32,900 38,086 Other general merchandise stores 79,305 94,301 110,775 128,860 149,168 Warehouse Clubs&Supercenters 69,631 82,797 97,262 113,141 130,972 Variety stores 2,925 3,478 4,085 4,752 5,501 Miscellaneous general mdse. 6,749 8,026 9,428 10,967 12,695 Apparel and accessories $ 47,923 $ 56,985 $ 66,941 $ 77,870 $ 90,143 Furniture&home furnishings 33,071 39,326 46,196 53,737 62,207 Electronics&appliance 34,984 41,599 48,867 56,845 65,804 Other shopping goods 64,707 76,942 90,385 105,141 121,713 Total Shopping Goods $ 342,219 $ 406,932 $ 478,024 $ 556,065 $ 643,705 Food Service&Drinking $ 128,799 $ 153,156 $ 179,910 $ 209,284 $ 242,267 Convenience Goods $ 194,830 $ 231,673 $ 272,145 $ 316,574 $ 366,470 Food stores 115,863 137,773 161,842 188,263 217,935 Drug&proprietary stores 48,483 57,651 67,722 78,778 91,194 Hardware stores 7,424 8,828 10,370 12,063 13,965 Beer,wine&liquor stores 19,123 22,739 26,712 31,073 35,970 Florists 2,812 3,344 3,928 4,569 5,290 Health supplement stores 1,125 1,338 1,571 1,828 2,116 • Gasoline Service Stations&Cony. $ 141,624 $ 168,404 $ 197,824 $ 230,120 $ 266,389 Other Stores $ 339,606 $ 403,819 $ 474,370 $ 551,812 $ 638,781 Building materials&supply stores 105,065 124,931 146,758 170,717 197,623 Lawn&garden equipment 13,049 15,516 18,227 21,202 24,544 Used merchandise stores 2,700 3,210 3,771 4,387 5,078 Motor vehicles&parts dealers 218,792 260,162 305,614 355,506 411,536 Total $ 1,147,078 $ 1,363,984 $ 1,602,273 $ 1,863,855 $ 2,157,612 NA: Not Available. Source: McComb Group,Ltd. Table C-1 (continued) • MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN TRADE AREA RETAIL PURCHASING POWER,2010 TO 2030 (In Thousands of Dollars) Merchandise Category 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Shopping Goods General Merchandise Department stores(Incl.leased depts.) $ 82,229 $ 97,779 $ 114,860 $ 133,612 $ 154,670 Discount stores 61,981 73,702 86,577 100,712 116,584 Department Stores 20,248 24,077 28,283 32,900 38,086 Other general merchandise stores 79,305 94,301 110,775 128,860 149,168 Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters 69,631 82,797 97,262 113,141 130,972 Variety stores 2,925 3,478 4,085 4,752 5,501 Miscellaneous general mdse. 6,749 8,026 9,428 10,967 12,695 Subtotal $ 161,534 $ 192,080 $ 225,635 $ 262,472 $ 303,838 Apparel and accessories $ 47,923 $ 56,985 $ 66,941 $ 77,870 $ 90,143 Furniture&home furnishings 33,071 39,326 46,196 53,737 62,207 Electronics&appliance 34,984 41,599 48,867 56,845 65,804 Other shopping goods 64,707 76,942 90,385 105,141 121,713 Total Shopping Goods $ 342,219 $ 406,932 $ 478,024 $ 556,065 $ 643,705 Food Service&Drinking Places Food Service $ 122,275 $ 145,398 $ 170,797 $ 198,683 $ 229,995 Drinking Places 6,524 7,758 9,113 10,601 12,272 • Convenience Goods Food stores $ 115,863 $ 137,773 $ 161,842 $ 188,263 $ 217,935 Drug&proprietary stores 48,483 57,651 67,722 78,778 91,194 Liquor stores 19,123 22,739 26,712 31,073 35,970 Hardware 7,424 8,828 10,370 12,063 13,965 Florists 2,812 3,344 3,928 4,569 5,290 Health supplement stores 1,125 1,338 1,571 10,967 12,695 Subtotal $ 193,705 $ 230,335 $ 270,574 $ 314,746 $ 364,354 TOTAL $ 664,723 $ 790,423 $ 928,508 $ 1,080,095 $ 1,250,326 4110 Table C-1 (continued) MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN TRADE AREA III RETAIL PURCHASING POWER,2010 TO 2030 (In Thousands of Dollars) Merchandise Category 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores $ 115,863 $ 137,773 $ 161,842 $ 188,263 $ 217,935 Grocery stores 111,364 132,422 155,557 180,952 209,471 Supermarkets 109,114 129,747 152,414 177,296 205,239 Convenience Stores 2,250 2,675 3,143 3,656 4,232 Specialty food stores 3,937 4,682 5,499 6,397 7,406 Meat Markets 1,462 1,739 2,043 2,376 2,751 Fish&Seafood Markets 450 535 629 731 846 Fruit&Vegetable Markets 787 936 1,100 1,279 1,481 Other Specialty Food Stores 1,237 1,471 1,728 2,011 2,327 Baked Goods 337 401 471 548 635 Confectionery and Nut Stores 337 401 471 548 635 All Other Specialty Food Stores 562 669 786 914 1,058 Other Convenience Goods $ 78,967 $ 93,900 $ 110,303 $ 128,311 $ 148,535 Drug 48,483 57,651 67,722 78,778 91,194 Hardware 7,424 8,828 10,370 12,063 13,965 Liquor 19,123 22,739 26,712 31,073 35,970 Florist 2,812 3,344 3,928 4,569 5,290 Food/health supplement stores 1,125 1,338 1,571 1,828 2,116 III Total Convenience Goods $ 194,830 $ 231,673 $ 272,145 $ 316,574 $ 366,470 Food Service&Drinking Places $ 128,799 $ 153,156 $ 179,910 $ 209,284 $ 242,267 Food Service 131,274 156,100 183,367 213,306 246,922 Full-service restaurants 53,207 63,268 74,321 86,455 100,081 Limited service restaurants 40,496 48,154 56,566 65,801 76,171 Cafeterias 1,687 2,006 2,357 2,742 3,174 Snack&beverage places 8,999 10,702 12,570 14,623 16,927 Ice Cream&Soft Serve 1,125 1,338 1,571 1,828 2,116 Frozen Yogurt 112 134 157 183 212 Doughnut Shops 1,575 1,873 2,200 2,559 2,962 Bagel Shops 450 535 629 731 846 Coffee Shops 3,825 4,548 5,342 6,215 7,194 Cookie Shops 112 134 157 183 212 Other Snack Shops 1,800 2,140 2,514 2,924 3,385 Specialized food places 17,886 21,268 24,983 29,062 33,642 Drinking Places $ 6,524 $ 7,758 $ 9,113 $ 10,601 $ 12,272 Gasoline Sys Stations/Cony. $ 141,624 $ 168,404 $ 197,824 $ 230,120 $ 266,389 Gas/Convenience food stores 127,338 151,416 177,869 206,907 239,517 Other Gas Stations&Truck Stops 14,286 16,988 19,955 23,213 26,872 III Table C-1 (continued) • MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN TRADE AREA RETAIL PURCHASING POWER,2010 TO 2030 (In Thousands of Dollars) Merchandise Category 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 SHOPPING GOODS General Merchandise $ 161,534 $ 192,080 $ 225,635 $ 262,472 $ 303,838 Department stores(Incl.leased depts.) 82,229 97,779 114,860 133,612 154,670 Discount stores 61,981 73,702 86,577 100,712 116,584 Conventional 20,248 24,077 28,283 32,900 38,086 Other general merchandise stores 79,305 94,301 110,775 128,860 149,168 Warehouse clubs and Supercenters 69,631 82,797 97,262 113,141 130,972 Variety stores 2,925 3,478 4,085 4,752 5,501 Miscellaneous general mdse. 6,749 8,026 9,428 10,967 12,695 Apparel&Accessories $ 47,923 $ 56,985 S 66,941 $ 77,870 $ 90,143 Clothing Stores 40,721 48,421 56,880 66,166 76,595 Mens and boys 2,025 2,408 2,828 3,290 3,809 Womens clothing 8,999 10,701 12,570 14,622 16,927 Children's&infant 4,162 4,949 5,814 6,763 7,829 Family clothing 20,923 24,879 29,226 33,997 39,355 Clothing accessories stores 1,237 1,471 1,728 2,011 2,327 Other clothing stores 3,375 4,013 4,714 5,483 6,348 Shoe Stores 7,202 8,564 10,061 11,704 13,548 Men's 244 290 341 397 459 Women's 434 516 607 706 817 Children's&infant 112 134 157 183 212 Family shoe stores 4,500 5,350 6,285 7,311 8,463 Athletic footwear 1,912 2,274 2,671 3,107 3,597 Furniture&Home Furnishings $ 33,071 $ 39,326 $ 46,196 $ 53,737 $ 62,207 0 Furniture 17,773 21,134 24,826 28,879 33,431 Home furnishings stores 15,298 18,192 21,370 24,858 28,776 Floor coverings 6,749 8,026 9,428 10,967 12,695 Window treatment stores 675 803 943 1,097 1,270 All other home furnishings stores 7,874 9,363 10,999 12,795 14,811 Electronics&Appliances Stores $ 34,984 $ 41,599 $ 48,867 $ 56,845 S 65,804 Appliance,tv and other electronics 28,235 33,573 39,439 45,878 53,109 Household appliance stores 5,512 6,554 7,699 8,956 10,368 Radio,tv&electronics stores 22,723 27,019 31,740 36,922 42,741 Computers,Software,Music,&other electronics 6,749 8,026 9,428 10,967 12,695 Other Shopping Goods S 63,582 S 75,604 $ 88,814 $ 103,313 S 119,597 Sporting goods 14,848 17,656 20,741 24,127 27,930 General Line Sporting Gds. 6,074 7,223 8,485 9,870 11,426 Specialty Line Sporting Gds. 8,774 10,433 12,256 14,257 16,504 Book stores&newsdealers 4,162 4,949 5,813 6,763 7,829 Stationery Stores and Office Supply 5,512 6,554 7,699 8,956 10,368 Musical Instrument&Supplies 2,475 2,943 3,457 4,021 4,655 Jewelry stores 8,437 10,032 11,785 13,708 15,869 Hobby,toy&game 4,050 4,815 5,657 6,580 7,617 Camera&photographic supply 1,687 2,006 2,357 2,742 3,174 Gift,novelty&souvenirs 4,612 5,484 6,442 7,494 8,675 Luggage&leather goods 562 669 786 914 1,058 Sewing,needlework&piece goods 2,137 2,541 2,985 3,473 4,020 Pet stores 4,050 4,815 5,657 6,580 7,617 Art dealers 675 803 943 1,097 1,270 Optical goods stores 3,375 4,013 4,714 5,483 6,348 Pre-Recorded Tapes,Compact Discs 642 764 897 1,044 1,208 Cosmetics,beauty supplies&perfume 2,758 3,280 3,853 4,482 5,188 All other health&personal care 3,600 4,280 5,028 5,849 6,771 Total Shopping Goods $ 341,094 $ 405,594 $ 476,453 $ 554,237 $ 641,589 III Table C-1 (continued) MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN TRADE AREA III RETAIL PURCHASING POWER,2010 TO 2030 (In Thousands of Dollars) Merchandise Category 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 OTHER RETAIL STORES Building Materials&Garden Supplies $ 118,114 $ 140,447 $ 164,985 $ 191,919 $ 222,167 Building materials&supplies stores 105,065 124,931 146,758 170,717 197,623 Home centers 30,822 36,650 43,053 50,082 57,975 Paint,glass&wallpaper 4,162 4,949 5,814 6,763 7,829 Other building materials dealers 70,081 83,332 97,891 113,872 131,819 Lawn&garden equipment 13,049 15,516 18,227 21,202 24,544 Outdoor power equipment 2,475 2,943 3,457 4,021 4,655 Retail nurseries,lawn&garden 10,574 12,573 14,770 17,181 19,889 Used Merchandise Stores $ 2,700 $ 3,210 $ 3,771 $ 4,387 $ 5,078 Motor Vehicles&Parts Dealers $ 218,792 $ 260,162 $ 305,614 $ 355,506 $ 411,536 Automotive dealers 180,995 215,220 252,819 294,092 340,444 New and used car dealers 167,946 199,704 234,592 272,890 315,900 Used car dealers 13,049 15,516 18,227 21,202 24,544 Misc.auto dealers 20,811 24,745 29,069 33,814 39,143 Boat dealers 6,637 7,892 9,271 10,784 12,484 Recreational vehicle dealers 4,500 5,350 6,285 7,311 8,463 Motorcycle dealers 7,312 8,694 10,213 11,881 13,753 Automotive dealers,nec 2,362 2,809 3,300 3,838 4,443 Auto parts,accessories&tires 16,986 20,197 23,726 27,600 31,949 III Auto parts&accessories stores 9,674 11,503 13,513 15,719 18,196 Tire dealers 7,312 8,694 10,213 11,881 13,753 Total Other Retail Stores $ 339,606 $ 403,819 S 474,370 S 551,812 $ 638,781 0 Table C-2 • MONTICELLO DOWNTOWN TRADE AREA SERVICES PURCHASING POWER,2010 TO 2030 (In Thousands of Dollars) Services Category 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 PERSONAL SERVICES $ 64,035 $ 78,048 $ 93,973 $ 112,047 $ 132,943 Personal Care Services 13,257 16,157 19,454 23,196 27,522 Hair,Nail&Skin Care Services 11,134 13,570 16,339 19,482 23,115 Barber Shops 62 76 92 109 130 Beauty Shops 10,301 12,556 15,118 18,025 21,387 Nail Salons 749 913 1,099 1,311 1,555 Other Personal Care Services 2,144 2,613 3,146 3,751 4,450 Diet&Weight Reducing Services 666 812 977 1,165 1,383 Other Personal Care Services 1,478 1,801 2,168 2,585 3,068 Drycleaning&Laundry Services $ 6,784 $ 8,269 $ 9,956 $ 11,871 $ 14,085 Coin-Operated Laundries&Drycleaners 687 837 1,008 1,202 1,426 Drycleaning&Laundry Services(except coin-op.) 2,206 2,689 3,237 3,860 4,580 Other Personal Services $ 43,994 $ 53,622 $ 64,563 $ 76,980 $ 91,336 Child Day Care Services 9,948 12,124 14,598 17,406 20,652 Funeral Homes&Funeral Services 2,664 3,247 3,909 4,661 5,530 Photographic Services 21,061 25,669 30,907 36,851 43,724 Photographic Studios 1,998 2,435 2,932 3,496 4,148 Veteranarian Services 7,471 9,106 10,964 13,073 15,511 Pet Care 853 1,040 1,252 1,493 1,771 RENTAL AND LEASING $ 2,955 $ 3,602 $ 4,336 $ 5,171 $ 6,135 • Formalwear&Costume Rental 395 482 580 692 821 Video Tape and Disk Rental 2,560 3,120 3,756 4,479 5,314 Home Health Equipment Rental 936 1,141 1,374 1,639 1,944 RECREATION $ 17,960 $ 21,890 $ 26,356 $ 31,426 $ 37,286 Bowling centers 1,915 2,334 2,810 3,350 3,975 Physical fitness facilites 9,136 11,135 13,407 15,986 18,967 Golf courses and country clubs 6,909 8,421 10,139 12,090 14,344 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES $ 159,099 $ 193,915 $ 233,483 $ 278,389 $ 330,305 Offices of Real Estate Agents&Brokers 25,244 30,768 37,046 44,171 52,408 Insurance Agencies 48,947 59,658 71,831 85,647 101,619 Offices of Lawyers 80,663 98,315 118,375 141,142 167,464 Tax Preparation Services 1,602 1,953 2,352 2,804 3,327 Interior Design 2,643 3,221 3,879 4,625 5,487 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. Table C-2(continued) MONTICELLO TRADE AREA III SERVICES PURCHASING POWER,2010 TO 2030 (In Thousands of Dollars) Services Category 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 REPAIR SERVICES $ 31,653 $ 38,580 $ 46,452 $ 55,386 $ 65,715 General Automotive Repair 14,963 18,237 21,959 26,182 31,065 Automotive Exhaust System Repair 208 254 305 364 432 Automotive Transmission Repair 791 964 1,161 1,384 1,642 Brake,Front Fnd&Wheel Alignment 187 228 275 328 389 Electrical Repair Shops,Motor Vehicle 83 101 122 146 173 Paint or Body Repair Shops 8,949 10,907 13,132 15,658 18,578 Automotive Glass Replacement 1,769 2,156 2,596 3,095 3,672 Automotive Oil Change&Lubrication Shops 1,540 1,877 2,260 2,695 3,197 Carwashes 1,915 2,334 2,810 3,350 3,975 Personal&Household GoodsRepair&Maint. $ 2,164 $ 2,638 $ 3,176 $ 3,787 $ 4,493 Home&Garden Equipment&Appliance Repair&Maint. 770 939 1,130 1,347 1,599 Home&Garden Equipment Repair&Maint. 208 254 305 364 432 Appliance Repair&Maint. 541 659 794 947 1,123 Reupholstery&Furniture Repair 437 533 641 765 907 Footwear&Leather Goods Repair 83 101 122 146 173 Watch,Clock&Jewelry Repair 104 127 153 182 216 Garment Repair&Alteration Services 271 330 397 473 562 III Source: McComb Group,Ltd. Table C-2(continued) • MONTICELLO TRADE AREA SERVICES PURCHASING POWER,2010 TO 2030 (In Thousands of Dollars) Services Category 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 HEALTH CARE $ 156,893 $ 191,227 $ 230,245 S 274,528 $ 325,725 Offices of Physicians 89,965 109,653 132,027 157,420 186,776 Offices of Physicians(except mental health specialists) 89,133 108,638 130,805 155,963 185,048 Offices of Physicians,mental health specialists 812 989 1,191 1,420 1,685 Offices of Dentists 39,790 48,498 58,394 69,624 82,608 Offices of Other Health Practitioners 19,229 23,437 28,219 33,647 39,922 Offices of Chiropractors 5,744 7,001 8,429 10,050 11,925 Offices of Optometrists 2,622 3,196 3,848 4,588 5,444 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners(except physicians) 2,955 3,602 4,337 5,171 6,135 Offices of Physical,Occup,&Speech Therapists&Audiologists 5,265 6,417 7,727 • 9,213 10,931 Speech Therapist&Audiologists 312 380 458 546 648 Physical&Occupational Therapists 4,953 6,037 7,269 8,667 10,283 Offices of All Other Health Practitioners 2,643 3,221 3,879 4,625 5,487 Offices of Podiatrists 479 583 702 838 994 Offices of All Other Misc.Health Practitioners 2,164 2,638 3,176 3,787 4,493 Outpatient Care Centers S 55,669 S 67,851 S 81,696 $ 97,409 $ 115,574 Outpatient Mental Health&Substance Abuse Centers 3,975 4,845 5,833 6,955 8,252 Other Outpatient Care Centers 50,903 62,043 74,702 89,070 105,680 Kidney Dialysis Centers 4,016 4,895 5,894 7,028 ' 8,339 All Other Outpatient Care Centers 7,679 9,360 11,269 13,437 15,943 Home Health Care Services 17,023 20,749 24,982 29,787 35,342 Subtotal-Health Care $ 212,562 $ 259,078 $ 311,941 $ 371,937 $ 441,299 • Source: McComb Group,Ltd. • • Appendix D RETAIL AND SERVICES PURCHASING POWER, MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL Monticello Trade Area Retail D-1 Monticello Trade Area Services D-2 • • Table D-1 MONTICELLO • RETAIL PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2010 • BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Merchandise Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales SHOPPING GOODS General Merchandise Department stores(Incl.leased depts.) Discount stores $ 61,981 75.0 % $46,486 65 % $25,031 $ 71,517 Department Stores 20,248 45.0 9,112 65 4,906 14,018 Other general merchandise stores Warehouse Club&Supercenters $ 69,631 90.0 % $62,668 65 % $33,744 $ 96,412 Variety stores 2,925 25.0 731 85 129 860 Miscellaneous general mdse. 6,749 25.0 1,687 85 298 1,985 Apparel&Accessories Clothing Stores Mens and boys $ 2,025 20.0 % $ 405 85 % $ 71 $ 476 Womens clothing 8,999 20.0 1,800 85 318 2,118 Children's&infant 4,162 20.0 832 85 147 979 Family clothing 20,923 20.0 4,185 85 739 4,924 Clothing accessories stores 1,237 20.0 247 85 44 291 Other clothing stores 3,375 20.0 675 85 119 794 Shoe Stores Men's $ 244 20.0 % $ 49 85 % $ 9 $ 58 Women's 434 20.0 87 85 15 102 Children's&infant 112 20.0 22 85 4 26 • Family shoe stores 4,500 20.0 900 85 159 1,059 Athletic footwear 1,912 20.0 382 85 67 449 Furniture&Home Furnishings Furniture $ 17,773 25.0 % $ 4,443 85 % $ 784 $ 5,227 Floor coverings 6,749 25.0 1,687 85 298 1,985 Window treatment stores 675 25.0 169 85 30 199 All other home furnishings stores 7,874 25.0 1,969 85 347 2,316 Electronics&Appliances Stores Household appliance stores $ 5,512 25.0 % $ 1,378 85 % $ 243 $ 1,621 Radio,tv&electronics stores 22,723 25.0 5,681 85 1,003 6,684 Computers,Software,Music,&other electronics 6,749 25.0 1,687 85 298 1,985 Other Shopping Goods Sporting goods $ 14,848 25.0 % $ 3,712 85 % $ 655 $ 4,367 General Line Sporting Gds. 6,074 25.0 1,519 85 268 1,787 Specialty Line Sporting Gds. 8,774 25.0 2,194 85 387 2,581 Book stores&newsdealers 4,162 25.0 1,041 85 184 1,225 Stationery Stores and Office Supply 5,512 25.0 1,378 85 243 1,621 Musical Instrument&Supplies 2,475 25.0 619 85 109 728 Jewelry stores 8,437 25.0 2,109 85 372 2,481 Hobby,toy&game 4,050 25.0 1,013 85 179 1,192 Camera&photographic supply 1,687 25.0 422 85 74 496 Gift,novelty&souvenirs 4,612 25.0 1,153 85 203 1,356 Luggage&leather goods 562 25.0 141 85 25 166 Sewing,needlework&piece goods 2,137 25.0 534 85 94 628 Pet stores 4,050 25.0 1,013 85 179 1,192 Art dealers 675 25.0 169 85 30 199 Optical goods stores 3,375 25.0 844 85 149 993 Pre-Recorded Tapes,Compact Discs 642 25.0 161 85 28 189 Cosmetics,beauty supplies&perfume 2,758 25.0 690 85 122 812 IllAll other health&personal care 4,725 25.0 1,181 85 208 1,389 Table D-1 (continued) MONTICELLO III RETAIL PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2010 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Merchandise Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores Grocery stores $ 111,364 40.0 % $44,546 85 % $ 7,861 $ 52,407 Supermarkets 109,114 40.0 43,646 85 7,702 51,348 Convenience food 2,250 20.0 450 85 79 529 Specialty food stores 3,937 20.0 787 85 139 926 Meat Markets 1,462 20.0 292 85 52 344 Fish&Seafood Markets 450 20.0 90 85 16 106 Fruit&Vegetable Markets 787 20.0 1 5 7 85 28 185 Other Specialty Food Stores 1,237 20.0 247 85 44 291 Baked Goods 337 20.0 67 85 12 79 Confectionery and Nut Stores 337 20.0 67 85 12 79 All Other Specialty Food Stores 562 20.0 112 85 20 132 Other Convenience Goods Drug&proprietary stores $ 48,483 25.0 % $12,121 90 % $ 1,347 $ 13,468 Hardware 7,424 20.0 1,485 90 165 1,650 Liquor 19,123 20.0 3,825 90 425 4,250 Florist 2,812 20.0 562 90 62 624 Food/health supplement stores 1,125 25.0 281 90 31 312 Food Service&Drinking Places Food Service Full-service restaurants $ 53,207 25.0 % $13,302 65 % $ 7,163 $ 20,465III Limited service restaurants 40,496 25.0 10,124 70 4,339 14,463 Cafeterias 1,687 0.0 0 85 0 0 Snack&beverage places 8,999 25.0 2,250 85 397 2,647 Ice Cream&Soft Serve 1,125 25.0 281 85 50 331 Frozen Yogurt 112 25.0 28 85 5 33 Doughnut Shops 1,575 25.0 394 85 70 464 Bagel Shops 450 25.0 113 85 20 133 Coffee Shops 3,825 25.0 956 85 169 1,125 Cookie Shops 112 25.0 28 85 5 33 Other Snack Shops 1,800 25.0 450 85 79 529 Specialized food places 17,886 25.0 4,472 85 789 5,261 Drinking Places $ 6,524 00.0 % $ - 75 % $ - $ - Gasoline Sys Stations/Cony. Gas/Convenience food stores $ 127,338 25.0 % $31,835 70 % $13,644 $ 45,479 Other Gas Stations&Truck Stops 14,286 25.0 3,572 70 1,531 5,103 OTHER RETAIL STORES Building Materials&Garden Supplies Building materials&supplies stores Home centers $ 30,822 25.0 % $ 7,706 65 % $ 4,149 $ 11,855 Paint,glass&wallpaper 4,162 35.0 1,457 90 162 1,619 Other building materials dealers 70,081 25.0 17,520 85 3,092 20,612 Lawn&garden equipment Outdoor power equipment $ 2,475 35.0 % $ 866 85 % $ 153 $ 1,019 Retail nurseries,lawn&garden 10,574 35.0 3,701 85 653 4,354 Motor Vehicles&Parts Dealers Auto parts,accessories&tires Auto parts&accessories stores $ 9,674 15.0 % $ 1,451 85 % $ 256 $ 1,707 Tire dealers 7,312 15.0 1,097 85 194 1,291III Source: McComb Group,Ltd. Table D-1 (continued) • MONTICELLO RETAIL PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2015 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Merchandise Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales SHOPPING GOODS General Merchandise Department stores(Incl.leased depts.) Discount stores $ 73,702 75.0 % $ 55,277 65 % $29,765 $ 85,042 Department Stores 24,077 45.0 10,835 65 5,834 16,669 Other general merchandise stores Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters $ 82,797 90.0 % $ 74,517 65 % $40,125 $114,642 Variety stores 3,478 25.0 870 85 154 1,024 Miscellaneous general mdse. 8,026 25.0 2,007 85 354 2,361 Apparel&Accessories Clothing Stores Mens and boys $ 2,408 20.0 % $ 482 85 % $ 85 $ 567 Womens clothing 10,701 20.0 2,140 85 378 2,518 Children's&infant 4,949 20.0 990 85 175 1,165 Family clothing 24,879 20.0 4,976 85 878 5,854 Clothing accessories stores 1,471 20.0 294 85 52 346 Other clothing stores 4,013 20.0 803 85 142 945 Shoe Stores Men's $ 290 20.0 % $ 58 85 % $ 10 $ 68 Women's 516 20.0 103 85 18 121 • Children's&infant 134 20.0 27 85 5 32 Family shoe stores 5,350 20.0 1,070 85 189 1,259 Athletic footwear 2,274 20.0 455 85 80 535 Furniture&Home Furnishings Furniture $ 21,134 25.0 % $ 5,284 85 % $ 932 $ 6,216 Floor coverings 8,026 25.0 2,007 85 354 2,361 Window treatment stores 803 25.0 201 85 35 236 All other home furnishings stores 9,363 25.0 2,341 85 413 2,754 Electronics&Appliances Stores Household appliance stores $ 6,554 25.0 % $ 1,639 85 % $ 289 $ 1,928 Radio,tv&electronics stores 27,019 25.0 6,755 85 1,192 7,947 Computers,Software,Music,&other electronics 8,026 25.0 2,007 85 354 2,361 Other Shopping Goods Sporting goods $ 17,656 25.0 % $ 4,414 85 % $ 779 $ 5,193 General Line Sporting Gds. 7,223 25.0 1,806 85 319 2,125 Specialty Line Sporting Gds. 10,433 25.0 2,608 85 460 3,068 Book stores&newsdealers 4,949 25.0 1,237 85 218 1,455 Stationery Stores and Office Supply 6,554 25.0 1,639 85 289 1,928 Musical Instrument&Supplies 2,943 25.0 736 85 130 866 Jewelry stores 10,032 25.0 2,508 85 443 2,951 Hobby,toy&game 4,815 25.0 1,204 85 212 1,416 Camera&photographic supply 2,006 25.0 502 85 89 591 Gift,novelty&souvenirs 5,484 25.0 1,371 85 242 1,613 Luggage&leather goods 669 25.0 167 85 29 196 Sewing,needlework&piece goods 2,541 25.0 635 85 112 747 Pet stores 4,815 25.0 1,204 85 212 1,416 Art dealers 803 25.0 201 85 35 236 Optical goods stores 4,013 25.0 1,003 85 177 1,180 Pre-Recorded Tapes,Compact Discs 764 25.0 191 85 34 225 SCosmetics,beauty supplies&perfume 3,280 25.0 820 85 145 965 All other health&personal care 5,618 25.0 1,405 85 248 1,653 Table D-1 (continued) MONTICELLO III RETAIL PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2015 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Merchandise Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores Grocery stores $ 132,422 40.0 % $ 52,969 85 % $ 9,347 $ 62,316 Supermarkets 129,747 40.0 51,899 85 9,159 61,058 Convenience food 2,675 20.0 535 85 94 629 Specialty food stores 4,682 20.0 936 85 165 1,101 Meat Markets 1,739 20.0 348 85 61 409 Fish&Seafood Markets 535 20.0 107 85 19 126 Fruit&Vegetable Markets 936 20.0 187 85 33 220 Other Specialty Food Stores 1,471 20.0 294 85 52 346 Baked Goods 401 20.0 80 85 14 94 Confectionery and Nut Stores 401 20.0 80 85 14 94 All Other Specialty Food Stores 669 20.0 134 85 24 158 Other Convenience Goods Drug&proprietary stores $ 57,651 25.0 % 14,413 90 % $ 1,601 $ 16,014 Hardware 8,828 20.0 1,766 90 196 1,962 Liquor 22,739 20.0 4,548 90 505 5,053 Florist 3,344 20.0 669 90 74 743 Food/health supplement stores 1,338 25.0 335 90 37 372 Food Service&Drinking Places Food Service III Full-service restaurants $ 63,268 25.0 % $ 15,817 65 % $ 8,517 $ 24,334 Limited service restaurants 48,154 25.0 12,039 70 5,160 17,199 Cafeterias 2,006 0.0 0 85 0 0 Snack&beverage places 10,702 25.0 2,676 85 472 3,148 Ice Cream&Soft Serve 1,338 25.0 335 85 59 394 Frozen Yogurt 134 25.0 34 85 6 40 Doughnut Shops 1,873 25.0 468 85 83 551 Bagel Shops 535 25.0 134 85 24 158 Coffee Shops 4,548 25.0 1,137 85 201 1,338 Cookie Shops 134 25.0 34 85 6 40 Other Snack Shops 2,140 25.0 535 85 94 629 Specialized food places 21,268 25.0 5,317 85 938 6,255 Drinking Places $ 7,758 00.0 % $ - 75 % $ - $ - Gasoline Svs Stations/Cony. Gas/Convenience food stores $ 151,416 25.0 % $ 37,854 70 % $16,223 $ 54,077 Other Gas Stations&Truck Stops 16,988 25.0 4,247 70 1,820 6,067 OTHER RETAIL STORES Building Materials&Garden Supplies Building materials&supplies stores Home centers $ 36,650 25.0 % $ 9,163 65 % $ 4,934 $ 14,097 Paint,glass&wallpaper 4,949 35.0 1,732 90 192 1,924 Other building materials dealers 83,332 25.0 20,833 85 3,676 24,509 Lawn&garden equipment Outdoor power equipment 2,943 35.0 1,030 85 182 1,212 Retail nurseries,lawn&garden 12,573 35.0 4,401 85 777 5,178 Motor Vehicles&Parts Dealers Auto parts,accessories&tires Auto parts&accessories stores $ 11,503 15.0 % $ 1,725 85 % $ 304 $ 2,029 III Tire dealers 8,694 15.0 1,304 85 230 1,534 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. . Table D-1 (continued) IIIMONTICELLO RETAIL PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2020 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Merchandise Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales SHOPPING GOODS General Merchandise Department stores(Incl.leased depts.) Discount stores $ 86,577 75.0 % $64,933 65 % $34,964 $ 99,897 Department Stores 28,283 45.0 12,727 65 6,853 19,580 Other general merchandise stores Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters 97,262 90.0 87,536 65 47,135 134,671 Variety stores 4,085 25.0 1,021 85 180 1,201 Miscellaneous general mdse. 9,428 25.0 2,357 85 416 2,773 Apparel&Accessories Clothing Stores Mens and boys $ 2,828 20.0 % $ 566 85 % $ 100 $ 666 Womens clothing 12,570 20.0 2,514 85 444 2,958 Children's&infant 5,814 20.0 1,163 85 205 1,368 Family clothing 29,226 20.0 5,845 85 1,031 6,876 Clothing accessories stores 1,728 20.0 346 85 61 407 Other clothing stores 4,714 20.0 943 85 166 1,109 Shoe Stores Men's $ 341 20.0 % $ 68 85 % $ 12 $ 80 Women's 607 20.0 121 85 21 142 Children's&infant 157 20.0 31 85 5 36 • Family shoe stores 6,285 20.0 1,257 85 222 1,479 Athletic footwear 2,671 20.0 534 85 94 628 Furniture&Home Furnishings Furniture $ 24,826 25.0 % $ 6,207 85 % $ 1,095 $ 7,302 Floor coverings 9,428 25.0 2,357 85 416 2,773 Window treatment stores 943 25.0 236 85 42 278 All other home furnishings stores 10,999 25.0 2,750 85 485 3,235 Electronics&Appliances Stores Household appliance stores $ 7,699 25.0 % $ 1,925 85 % $ 340 $ 2,265 Radio,tv&electronics stores 31,740 25.0 7,935 85 1,400 9,335 Computers,Software,Music,&other electronics 9,428 25.0 2,357 85 416 2,773 Other Shopping Goods Sporting goods $ 20,741 25.0 % $ 5,185 85 % $ 915 $ 6,100 General Line Sporting Gds. 8,485 25.0 2,121 85 374 2,495 Specialty Line Sporting Gds. 12,256 25.0 3,064 85 541 3,605 Book stores&newsdealers 5,813 25.0 1,453 85 256 1,709 Stationery Stores and Office Supply 7,699 25.0 1,925 85 340 2,265 Musical Instrument&Supplies 3,457 25.0 864 85 152 1,016 Jewelry stores 11,785 25.0 2,946 85 520 3,466 Hobby,toy&game 5,657 25.0 1,414 85 250 1,664 Camera&photographic supply 2,357 25.0 589 85 104 693 Gift,novelty&souvenirs 6,442 25.0 1,611 85 284 1,895 Luggage&leather goods 786 25.0 197 85 35 232 Sewing,needlework&piece goods 2,985 25.0 746 85 132 878 Pet stores 5,657 25.0 1,414 85 250 1,664 Art dealers 943 25.0 236 85 42 278 Optical goods stores 4,714 25.0 1,179 85 208 1,387 Pre-Recorded Tapes,Compact Discs 897 25.0 224 85 40 264 Cosmetics,beauty supplies&perfume 3,853 25.0 963 85 170 1,133 IIIAll other health&personal care 6,599 25.0 1,650 85 291 1,941 Table D-1 (continued) MONTICELLO III RETAIL PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2020 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Merchandise Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores Grocery stores $ 155,557 40.0 % $62,223 85 % $10,981 $ 73,204 Supermarkets 152,414 40.0 60,966 85 10,759 71,725 Convenience food 3,143 20.0 629 85 111 740 Specialty food stores 5,499 20.0 1,100 85 194 1,294 Meat Markets 2,043 20.0 409 85 72 481 • Fish&Seafood Markets 629 20.0 126 85 22 148 Fruit&Vegetable Markets 1,100 20.0 220 85 39 259 Other Specialty Food Stores 1,728 20.0 346 85 61 407 Baked Goods 471 20.0 94 85 17 111 Confectionery and Nut Stores 471 20.0 94 85 17 111 All Other Specialty Food Stores 786 20.0 157 85 28 185 Other Convenience Goods Drug&proprietary stores $ 67,722 25.0 % $16,931 90 % $ 1,881 $ 18,812 Hardware 10,370 20.0 2,074 90 230 2,304 Liquor 26,712 20.0 5,342 90 594 5,936 Florist 3,928 20.0 786 90 87 873 Food/health supplement stores 1,571 25.0 393 90 44 437 Food Service&Drinking Places Food Service • Full-service restaurants $ 74,321 25.0 % $18,580 65 % $10,005 S 28,585 Limited service restaurants 56,566 25.0 14,142 70 6,061 20,203 Cafeterias 2,357 0.0 0 85 0 0 Snack&beverage places 12,570 25.0 3,143 85 555 3,698 Ice Cream&Soft Serve 1,571 25.0 393 85 69 462 Frozen Yogurt 157 25.0 39 85 7 46 Doughnut Shops 2,200 25.0 550 85 97 647 Bagel Shops 629 25.0 157 85 28 185 Coffee Shops 5,342 25.0 1,336 85 236 1,572 Cookie Shops 157 25.0 39 85 7 46 Other Snack Shops 2,514 25.0 629 85 111 740 Specialized food places 24,983 25.0 6,246 85 1,102 7,348 Drinking Places $ 9,113 00.0 % $ - 75 % $ - $ - Gasoline Svs Stations/Conv. Gas/Convenience food stores $ 177,869 25.0 % $44,467 70 % $19,057 S 63,524 Other Gas Stations&Truck Stops 19,955 25.0 4,989 70 2,138 7,127 OTHER RETAIL STORES Building Materials&Garden Supplies Building materials&supplies stores Home centers $ 43,053 25.0 % $10,763 65 % $ 5,795 $ 16,558 Paint,glass&wallpaper 5,814 35.0 2,035 90 226 2,261 Other building materials dealers 97,891 25.0 24,473 85 4,319 28,792 Lawn&garden equipment Outdoor power equipment $ 3,457 35.0 % $ 1,210 85 % $ 214 $ 1,424 Retail nurseries,lawn&garden 14,770 35.0 5,170 85 912 6,082 Motor Vehicles&Parts Dealers Auto parts,accessories&tires Auto parts&accessories stores $ 13,513 15.0 % $ 2,027 85 % $ 358 $ 2,385 Tire dealers 10,213 15.0 1,532 85 270 1,802110 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. Table D-1 (continued) • MONTICELLO • RETAIL PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2025 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Merchandise Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales SHOPPING GOODS General Merchandise Department stores(Incl.leased depts.) Discount stores $ 100,712 75.0 % $ 75,534 65 % $40,672 $116,206 Department Stores 32,900 45.0 14,805 65 7,972 22,777 Other general merchandise stores Warehouse Clubs $ 113,141 90.0 % $101,827 65 % $54,830 $156,657 Variety stores 4,752 25.0 1,188 85 210 1,398 Miscellaneous general mdse. 10,967 25.0 2,742 85 484 3,226 Apparel&Accessories Clothing Stores Mens and boys $ 3,290 20.0 % $ 658 85 % $ 116 $ 774 Womens clothing 14,622 20.0 2,924 85 516 3,440 Children's&infant 6,763 20.0 1,353 85 239 1,592 Family clothing 33,997 20.0 6,799 85 1,200 7,999 Clothing accessories stores 2,011 20.0 402 85 71 473 Other clothing stores 5,483 20.0 1,097 85 194 1,291 Shoe Stores Men's $ 397 20.0 % $ 79 85 % $ 14 $ 93 Women's 706 20.0 141 85 25 166 Children's&infant 183 20.0 37 85 7 44 • Family shoe stores 7,311 20.0 1,462 85 258 1,720 Athletic footwear 3,107 20.0 621 85 110 731 Furniture&Home Furnishings Fumiture $ 28,879 25.0 % $ 7,220 85 % $ 1,274 $ 8,494 Floor coverings 10,967 25.0 2,742 85 484 3,226 Window treatment stores 1,097 25.0 274 85 48 322 All other home furnishings stores 12,795 25.0 3,199 85 565 3,764 Electronics&Appliances Stores Household appliance stores $ 8,956 25.0 % $ 2,239 85 % $ 395 $ 2,634 Radio,tv&electronics stores 36,922 25.0 9,231 85 1,629 10,860 Computers,Software,Music,&other electronics 10,967 25.0 2,742 85 484 3,226 Other Shopping Goods Sporting goods $ 24,127 25.0 % $ 6,032 85 % $ 1,064 $ 7,096 General Line Sporting Gds. 9,870 25.0 2,468 85 436 2,904 Specialty Line Sporting Gds. 14,257 25.0 3,564 85 629 4,193 Book stores&newsdealers 6,763 25.0 1,691 85 298 1,989 Stationery Stores and Office Supply 8,956 25.0 2,239 85 395 2,634 Musical Instrument&Supplies 4,021 25.0 1,005 85 177 1,182 Jewelry stores 13,708 25.0 3,427 85 605 4,032 Hobby,toy&game 6,580 25.0 1,645 85 290 1,935 Camera&photographic supply 2,742 25.0 686 85 121 807 Gift,novelty&souvenirs 7,494 25.0 1,874 85 331 2,205 Luggage&leather goods 914 25.0 229 85 40 269 Sewing,needlework&piece goods 3,473 25.0 868 85 153 1,021 Pet stores 6,580 25.0 1,645 85 290 1,935 Art dealers 1,097 25.0 274 85 48 322 Optical goods stores 5,483 25.0 1,371 85 242 1,613 Pre-Recorded Tapes,Compact Discs 1,044 25.0 261 85 46 307 Cosmetics,beauty supplies&perfume 4,482 25.0 1,121 85 198 1,319 IIIAll other health&personal care 7,677 25.0 1,919 85 339 2,258 Table D-1 (continued) MONTICELLO • RETAIL PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2025 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Merchandise Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores Grocery stores $ 180,952 40.0 % $ 72,381 85 % $12,773 $ 85,154 Supermarkets 177,296 40.0 70,918 85 12,515 83,433 Convenience food 3,656 20.0 731 85 129 860 Specialty food stores 6,397 20.0 1,279 85 226 1,505 Meat Markets 2,376 20.0 475 85 84 559 Fish&Seafood Markets 731 20.0 146 85 26 172 Fruit&Vegetable Markets 1,279 20.0 256 85 45 301 Other Specialty Food Stores 2,011 20.0 402 85 71 473 Baked Goods 548 20.0 110 85 19 129 Confectionery and Nut Stores 548 20.0 110 85 19 129 All Other Specialty Food Store< 914 20.0 183 85 32 215 Other Convenience Goods Drug&proprietary stores $ 78,778 25.0 % $ 19,695 90 % $ 2,188 $ 21,883 Hardware 12,063 20.0 2,413 90 268 2,681 Liquor 31,073 20.0 6,215 90 691 6,906 Florist 4,569 20.0 914 90 102 1,016 Food/health supplement stores 1,828 25.0 457 90 51 508 Food Service&Drinking Places Food Service Full-service restaurants $ 86,455 25.0 % $ 21,614 65 % $11,638 S 33,2521111 Limited service restaurants 65,801 25.0 16,450 70 7,050 23,500 Cafeterias 2,742 0.0 0 85 0 0 Snack&beverage places 14,623 25.0 3,656 85 645 4,301 Ice Cream&Soft Serve 1,828 20.0 366 85 65 431 Frozen Yogurt 183 20.0 37 85 7 44 Doughnut Shops 2,559 20.0 512 85 90 602 Bagel Shops 731 20.0 146 85 26 172 Coffee Shops 6,215 20.0 1,243 85 219 1,462 Cookie Shops 183 20.0 37 85 7 44 Other Snack Shops 2,924 20.0 585 85 103 688 Specialized food places 29,062 20.0 5,812 85 1,026 6,838 Drinking Places $ 10,601 00.0 % $ - 75 % $ - S - Gasoline Sys Stations/Cony. Gas/Convenience food stores $ 206,907 25.0 % $ 51,727 70 % $22,169 S 73,896 Other Gas Stations&Truck Stops 23,213 25.0 5,803 70 2,487 8,290 OTHER RETAIL STORES Building Materials&Garden Supplies Building materials&supplies stores Home centers $ 50,082 25.0 % $ 12,521 65 % $ 6,742 $ 19,263 Paint,glass&wallpaper 6,763 35.0 2,367 90 263 2,630 Other building materials dealers 113,872 25.0 28,468 85 5,024 33,492 Lawn&garden equipment Outdoor power equipment S 4,021 35.0 % $ 1,407 85 % $ 248 $ 1,655 Retail nurseries,lawn&garden 17,181 35.0 6,013 85 1,061 7,074 Motor Vehicles&Parts Dealers Auto parts,accessories&tires Auto parts&accessories stores $ 15,719 15.0 % $ 2,358 85 % $ 416 $ 2,774 Tire dealers 11,881 15.0 1,782 85 314 2,096ID Source: McComb Group,Ltd. Table D-1 (continued) • MONTICELLO RETAIL PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2030 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Merchandise Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales SHOPPING GOODS General Merchandise Department stores(Incl.leased depts.) Discount stores $ 116,584 75.0 % $87,438 65 % $47,082 $134,520 Department Stores 38,086 45.0 17,139 65 9,229 26,368 Other general merchandise stores Warehouse Clubs 130,972 90.0 117,875 65 63,471 181,346 Variety stores 5,501 25.0 1,375 85 243 1,618 Miscellaneous general mdse. 12,695 25.0 3,174 85 560 3,734 Apparel&Accessories Clothing Stores Mens and boys $ 3,809 20.0 % $ 762 85 % $ 134 $ 896 Womens clothing 16,927 20.0 3,385 85 597 3,982 Children's&infant 7,829 20.0 1,566 85 276 1,842 Family clothing 39,355 20.0 7,871 85 1,389 9,260 Clothing accessories stores 2,327 20.0 465 85 82 547 Other clothing stores 6,348 20.0 1,270 85 224 1,494 Shoe Stores Men's $ 459 20.0 % $ 92 85 % $ 16 $ 108 Women's 817 20.0 163 85 29 192 Children's&infant 212 20.0 42 85 7 49 • Family shoe stores 8,463 20.0 1,693 85 299 1,992 Athletic footwear 3,597 20.0 719 85 127 846 Furniture&Home Furnishings Furniture $ 33,431 25.0 % $ 8,358 85 % $ 1,475 $ 9,833 Floor coverings 12,695 25.0 3,174 85 560 3,734 Window treatment stores 1,270 25.0 318 85 56 374 All other home furnishings stores 14,811 25.0 3,703 85 653 4,356 Electronics&Appliances Stores Household appliance stores $ 10,368 25.0 % $ 2,592 85 % $ 457 $ 3,049 Radio,tv&electronics stores 42,741 25.0 10,685 85 1,886 12,571 Computers,Software,Music,&other electronics 12,695 25.0 3,174 85 560 3,734 Other Shopping Goods Sporting goods $ 27,930 25.0 % $ 6,983 85 % $ 1,232 $ 8,215 General Line Sporting Gds. 11,426 25.0 2,857 85 504 3,361 Specialty Line Sporting Gds. 16,504 25.0 4,126 85 728 4,854 Book stores&newsdealers 7,829 25.0 1,957 85 345 2,302 Stationery Stores and Office Supply 10,368 25.0 2,592 85 457 3,049 Musical Instrument&Supplies 4,655 25.0 1,164 85 205 1,369 Jewelry stores 15,869 25.0 3,967 85 700 4,667 Hobby,toy&game 7,617 25.0 1,904 85 336 2,240 Camera&photographic supply 3,174 25.0 794 85 140 934 Gift,novelty&souvenirs 8,675 25.0 2,169 85 383 2,552 Luggage&leather goods 1,058 25.0 265 85 47 312 Sewing,needlework&piece goods 4,020 25.0 1,005 85 177 1,182 Pet stores 7,617 25.0 1,904 85 336 2,240 Art dealers 1,270 25.0 318 85 56 374 Optical goods stores 6,348 25.0 1,587 85 280 1,867 Pre-Recorded Tapes,Compact Discs 1,208 25.0 302 85 53 355 Cosmetics,beauty supplies&perfume 5,188 25.0 1,297 85 229 1,526 IIAll other health&personal care . 8,887 25.0 2,222 85 392 2,614 __ Table D-1 (continued) MONTICELLO III RETAIL PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2030 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Merchandise Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores Grocery stores $ 209,471 40.0 % $83,788 85 % $14,786 $ 98,574 Supermarkets 205,239 40.0 82,096 85 14,488 96,584 Convenience food 4,232 20.0 846 85 149 995 Specialty food stores 7,406 20.0 1,481 85 261 1,742 Meat Markets 2,751 20.0 550 85 97 647 Fish&Seafood Markets 846 20.0 169 85 30 199 Fruit&Vegetable Markets 1,481 20.0 296 85 52 348 Other Specialty Food Stores 2,327 20.0 465 85 82 547 Baked Goods 635 20.0 127 85 22 149 Confectionery and Nut Stores 635 20.0 127 85 22 149 All Other Specialty Food Stores 1,058 20.0 212 85 37 249 Other Convenience Goods Drug&proprietary stores $ 91,194 25.0 % $22,799 90 % $ 2,533 $ 25,332 Hardware 13,965 20.0 2,793 90 310 3,103 Liquor 35,970 20.0 7,194 90 799 7,993 Florist 5,290 20.0 1,058 90 118 1,176 Food/health supplement stores 2,116 25.0 529 90 59 588 Food Service&Drinking Places Food Service III Full-service restaurants $ 100,081 25.0 % $25,020 65 % $13,472 $ 38,492 Limited service restaurants 76,171 25.0 19,043 70 8,161 27,204 Cafeterias 3,174 0.0 0 85 0 0 Snack&beverage places 16,927 25.0 4,232 85 747 4,979 Ice Cream&Soft Serve 2,116 25.0 529 85 93 622 Frozen Yogurt 212 25.0 53 85 9 62 Doughnut Shops 2,962 25.0 741 85 131 872 Bagel Shops 846 25.0 212 85 37 249 Coffee Shops 7,194 25.0 1,799 85 317 2,116 Cookie Shops 212 25.0 53 85 9 62 Other Snack Shops 3,385 25.0 846 85 149 995 Specialized food places 33,642 25.0 8,411 85 1,484 9,895 Drinking Places $ 12,272 0.0 % $ - 75 % $ - $ - Gasoline Sys Stations/Cony. Gas/Convenience food stores $ 239,517 25.0 % $59,879 70 % $25,662 $ 85,541 Other Gas Stations&Truck Stops 26,872 25.0 6,718 70 2,879 9,597 OTHER RETAIL STORES Building Materials&Garden Supplies Building materials&supplies stores Home centers $ 57,975 25.0 % $14,494 65 % $ 7,804 $ 22,298 Paint,glass&wallpaper 7,829 35.0 2,740 90 304 3,044 Other building materials dealers 131,819 25.0 32,955 85 5,816 38,771 Lawn&garden equipment Outdoor power equipment $ 4,655 35.0 % $ 1,629 85 % $ 287 $ 1,916 Retail nurseries,lawn&garden 19,889 35.0 6,961 85 1,228 8,189 Motor Vehicles&Parts Dealers Auto parts,accessories&tires Auto parts&accessories stores $ 18,196 15.0 % $ 2,729 85 % $ 482 $ 3,211 III Tire dealers 13,753 15.0 2,063 85 364 2,427 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. Table D-2 • MONTICELLO SERVICES PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2010 BY SERVICES CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales Personal Care Services Barber Shops $ 62 45.0 % $ 28 85 % $ 5 $ 33 Beauty Shops 10,301 45.0 4,635 85 818 5,453 Nail Salons 749 45.0 337 85 59 396 Diet&Weight Reducing Services 666 45.0 300 85 53 353 Other Personal Care Services 1,478 45.0 665 85 I l7 782 Drycleaning and Laundry Services Coin-Operated Laundries&Drycleaners $ 687 20.0 % $ 137 85 % $ 24 $ 161 Drycleaning&Laundry Services(except coin-op.) 2,206 20.0 441 85 78 519 Other Personal Services Child Day Care Services $ 9,948 55.0 % $ 5,471 85 % $ 965 $ 6,436 Funeral Homes&Funeral Services 2,664 55.0 1,465 85 259 1,724 Photographic Services 21,061 55.0 11,584 85 2,044 13,628 Photographic Studios 1,998 55.0 1,099 85 194 1,293 Veteranarian Services 7,471 55.0 4,109 85 725 4,834 Pet Care 853 55.0 469 85 83 552 Rental and Leasing Formal wear and Costume Rental $ 395 45.0 % $ 178 85 % $ 31 $ 209 Video Tape and Disc Rental 2,560 45.0 1,152 85 203 1,355 Home Health Equipment Rental 936 46.0 431 85 76 507 • Recreation Bowling Centers $ 1,915 45.0 % $ 862 85 % $ 152 $ 1,014 Physical Fitness Facilites 9,136 45.0 4,111 85 725 4,836 Golf Courses and Country Clubs 6,909 45.0 3,109 85 549 3,658 Professional Services Offices of Real Estate Agents&Brokers $ 25,244 25.0 % $ 6,311 85 % $ 1,114 $ 7,425 Insurance Agencies 48,947 25.0 12,237 85 2,159 14,396 Offices of Lawyers 80,663 25.0 20,166 85 3,559 23,725 Tax Preparation Services 1,602 25.0 401 85 71 472 ' Interior Design 2,643 25.0 661 85 117 778 Household Goods Repair Home&Garden Equipment&Appliance Repair&Maint. $ 770 50.0 % $ 385 85 % $ 68 $ 453 Reupholstery&Furniture Repair 437 50.0 219 85 39 258 Footwear and Leather Goods Repair 83 50.0 42 85 7 49 Watch,Clock and Jewelry Repair 104 50.0 52 85 9 61 Garment Repair and Alteration Services 271 50.0 136 85 24 160 Computer&Office Machine Repair 2,997 50.0 1,499 85 265 1,764 Automotive Repair and Maintenance General Automotive Repair $ 14,963 50.0 % $ 7,482 85 % $ 1,320 $ 8,802 Automotive Exhaust System Repair 208 50.0 104 85 18 122 Automotive Transmission Repair 791 50.0 396 85 70 466 Brake,Front End&Wheel Alignment 187 50.0 94 85 17 111 Electrical Repair Shops,Motor Vehicle 83 50.0 42 85 7 49 Paint or Body Repair Shops 8,949 50.0 4,475 85 790 5,265 Automotive Glass Replacement 1,769 50.0 885 85 156 1,041 Automotive Oil Change&Lubrication Shops 1,540 50.0 770 85 136 906 Carwashes 1,915 50.0 958 85 169 1,127 • Table D-2(continued) MONTICELLO III SERVICES PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2010 BY SERVICES CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales Health Care Offices of Physicians Offices of Physicians(except mental health specialists) $ 89,133 45.0 % $ 40,110 85 % $ 7,078 $ 47,188 Offices of Physicians,Mental Health Specialists 812 45.0 365 85 64 429 Offices of Dentists 39,790 45.0 17,906 85 3,160 21,066 Offices of Other Health Practitioners Offices of Chiropractors 5,744 45.0 2,585 85 456 3,041 Offices of Optometrists 2,622 45.0 1,180 85 208 1,388 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners(except physicians) 2,955 45.0 1,330 85 235 1,565 Offices of Physical,Occup,&Speech Therapists&Audiologists Speech Therapist&Audiologists 312 45.0 140 85 25 165 Physical&Occupational Therapists 4,953 45.0 2,229 85 393 2,622 Offices of All Other Health Practitioners Offices of Podiatrists 479 45.0 216 85 38 254 Offices of All Other Misc.Health Practitioners 2,164 45.0 974 85 172 1,146 Outpatient Care Centers Outpatient Mental Health&Substance Abuse Centers $ 3,975 45.0 % $ 1,789 85 % $ 316 $ 2,105 Other Outpatient Care Centers Kidney Dialysis Centers 4,016 45.0 1,807 85 319 2,126 All Other Outpatient Care Centers 7,679 45.0 3,456 85 610 4,066 Home Health Care Services 17,023 45.0 7,660 85 1,352 9,012 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. 11111 III Table D-2(continued) 0MONTICELLO SERVICES PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2015 BY SERVICES CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales Personal Care Services Barber Shops $ 76 45.0 % $ 34 85 % $ 6 $ 40 Beauty Shops 12,556 45.0 5,650 85 997 6,647 Nail Salons 913 45.0 411 85 73 484 Diet&Weight Reducing Services 812 45.0 365 85 64 429 Other Personal Care Services 1,801 45.0 810 85 143 953 Drycleaning and Laundry Services Coin-Operated Laundries&Drycleaners $ 837 20.0 % $ 167 85 % $ 29 $ 196 Drycleaning&Laundry Services(except coin-op.) 2,689 20.0 538 85 95 633 Other Personal Services Child Day Care Services $ 12,124 55.0 % $ 6,668 85 % $ 1,177 $ 7,845 Funeral Homes&Funeral Services 3,247 55.0 1,786 85 315 2,101 Photographic Services 25,669 55.0 14,118 85 2,491 16,609 Photographic Studios 2,435 55.0 1,339 85 236 1,575 Veteranarian Services 9,106 55.0 5,008 85 884 5,892 Pet Care 1,040 55.0 572 85 101 673 Rental and Leasing Fonnalwear and Costume Rental $ 482 45.0 % 217 85 % $ 38 $ 255 Video Tape and Disc Rental 3,120 45.0 1,404 85 248 1,652 Home Health Equipment Rental 1,141 45.0 513 85 91 604 • Recreation Bowling Centers $ 2,334 45.0 % $ 1,050 85 % $ 185 $ 1,235 Physical Fitness Facilites 11,135 45.0 5,011 85 884 5,895 Golf Courses and Country Clubs 8,421 45.0 3,789 85 669 4,458 Professional Services Offices of Real Estate Agents&Brokers $ 30,768 25.0 % $ 7,692 85 % $ 1,357 $ 9,049 Insurance Agencies 59,658 25.0 14,915 85 2,632 17,547 Offices of Lawyers 98,315 25.0 24,579 85 4,337 28,916 Tax Preparation Services 1,953 25.0 488 85 86 574 Interior Design 3,221 25.0 805 85 142 947 Household Goods Repair Home&Garden Equipment&Appliance Repair&Maint. $ 939 50.0 % $ 470 85 % $ 83 $ 553 Reupholstery&Furniture Repair 533 50.0 267 85 47 314 Footwear and Leather Goods Repair 101 50.0 51 85 9 60 Watch,Clock and Jewelry Repair 127 50.0 64 85 11 75 Garment Repair and Alteration Services 330 50.0 165 85 29 194 Computer&Office Machine Repair 3,653 50.0 1,827 85 322 2,149 Automotive Repair and Maintenance General Automotive Repair $ 18,237 50.0 % $ 9,119 85 % $ 1,609 $ 10,728 Automotive Exhaust System Repair 254 50.0 127 85 22 149 Automotive Transmission Repair 964 50.0 482 85 85 567 Brake,Front End&Wheel Alignment 228 50.0 114 85 20 134 Electrical Repair Shops,Motor Vehicle 101 50.0 51 85 9 60 Paint or Body Repair Shops 10,907 50.0 5,454 85 962 6,416 Automotive Glass Replacement 2,156 50.0 1,078 85 190 1,268 Automotive Oil Change&Lubrication Shops 1,877 50.0 939 85 166 1,105 Carwashes 2,334 50.0 1,167 85 206 1,373 III Table D-2(continued) MONTICELLO III SERVICES PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2015 BY SERVICES CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales Health Care Offices of Physicians Offices of Physicians(except mental health specialists) $ 108,638 45.0 % $ 48,887 85 % $ 8,627 $ 57,514 Offices of Physicians,Mental Health Specialists 989 45.0 445 85 79 524 Offices of Dentists 48,498 45.0 21,824 85 3,851 25,675 Offices of Other Health Practitioners Offices of Chiropractors 7,001 45.0 3,150 85 556 3,706 Offices of Optometrists 3,196 45.0 1,438 85 254 1,692 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners(except physicians) 3,602 45.0 1,621 85 286 1,907 Offices of Physical,Occup,&Speech Therapists&Audiologists Speech Therapist&Audiologists 380 45.0 171 85 30 201 Physical&Occupational Therapists 6,037 45.0 2,717 85 479 3,196 Offices of All Other Health Practitioners Offices of Podiatrists 583 45.0 262 85 46 308 Offices of All Other Misc.Health Practitioners 2,638 45.0 1,187 85 209 1,396 Outpatient Care Centers Outpatient Mental Health&Substance Abuse Centers $ 4,845 45.0 % $ 2,180 85 % $ 385 $ 2,565 Other Outpatient Care Centers Kidney Dialysis Centers 4,895 45.0 2,203 85 389 2,592 All Other Outpatient Care Centers 9,360 45.0 4,212 85 743 4,955 Home Health Care Services 20,749 45.0 9,337 85 1,648 10,985 Source:McComb Group,Ltd. III S Table D-2(continued) • MONTICELLO SERVICES PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2020 BY SERVICES CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales Personal Care Services Barber Shops $ 92 45.0 % $ 41 85 % $ 7 $ 48 Beauty Shops 15,118 45.0 6,803 85 1,201 8,004 Nail Salons 1,099 45.0 495 85 87 582 Diet&Weight Reducing Services 977 45.0 440 85 78 518 Other Personal Care Services 2,168 45.0 976 85 172 1,148 Drycleaning and Laundry Services Coin-Operated Laundries&Drycleaners $ 1,008 20.0 % $ 202 85 % $ 36 $ 238 Drycleaning&Laundry Services(except coin-op.) 3,237 20.0 647 85 114 761 Other Personal Services Child Day Care Services $ 14,598 55.0 % $ 8,029 85 % $ 1,417 $ 9,446 Funeral Homes&Funeral Services 3,909 55.0 2,150 85 379 2,529 Photographic Services 30,907 55.0 16,999 85 3,000 19,999 Photographic Studios 2,932 55.0 1,613 85 285 1,898 Veteranarian Services 10,964 55.0 6,030 85 1,064 7,094 Pet Care 1,252 55.0 689 85 122 811 Rental and Leasing Fonnalwear and Costume Rental $ 580 45.0 % $ 261 85 % $ 46 $ 307 Video Tape and Disc Rental 3,756 45.0 1,690 85 298 1,988 Home Health Equipment Rental 1,374 45.0 618 85 109 727 • Recreation Bowling Centers $ 2,810 45.0 % $ 1,265 85 % $ 223 $ 1,488 Physical Fitness Facilites 13,407 45.0 6,033 85 1,065 7,098 Golf Courses and Country Clubs 10,139 45.0 4,563 85 805 5,368 Professional Services Offices of Real Estate Agents&Brokers $ 37,046 25.0 % $ 9,262 85 % $ 1,634 $ 10,896 Insurance Agencies 71,831 25.0 17,958 85 3,169 21,127 Offices of Lawyers 118,375 25.0 29,594 85 5,222 34,816 Tax Preparation Services 2,352 25.0 588 85 104 692 Interior Design 3,879 25.0 970 85 171 1,141 Household Goods Repair Home&Garden Equipment&Appliance Repair&Maint. $ 1,130 50.0 % $ 565 85 % $ 100 $ 665 Reupholstery&Furniture Repair 641 50.0 321 85 57 378 Footwear and Leather Goods Repair 122 50.0 61 85 11 72 Watch,Clock and Jewelry Repair 153 50.0 77 85 14 91 Garment Repair and Alteration Services 397 50.0 199 85 35 234 Computer&Office Machine Repair 4,398 50.0 2,199 85 388 2,587 Automotive Repair and Maintenance General Automotive Repair $ 21,959 50.0 % $ 10,980 85 % $ 1,938 $ 12,918 Automotive Exhaust System Repair 305 50.0 153 85 27 180 Automotive Transmission Repair 1,161 50.0 581 85 103 684 Brake,Front End&Wheel Alignment 275 50.0 138 85 24 162 Electrical Repair Shops,Motor Vehicle 122 50.0 61 85 11 72 Paint or Body Repair Shops 13,132 50.0 6,566 85 1,159 7,725 Automotive Glass Replacement 2,596 50.0 1,298 85 229 1,527 Automotive Oil Change&Lubrication Shops 2,260 50.0 1,130 85 199 1,329 Carwashes 2,810 50.0 1,405 85 248 1,653 Table D-2(continued) MONTICELLO • SERVICES PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2020 BY SERVICES CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales Health Care Offices of Physicians Offices of Physicians(except mental health specialists) $ 130,805 45.0 % $ 58,862 85 % $10,387 $ 69,249 Offices of Physicians,Mental Health Specialists 1,191 45.0 536 85 95 631 Offices of Dentists 58,394 45.0 26,277 85 4,637 30,914 Offices of Other Health Practitioners Offices of Chiropractors 8,429 45.0 3,793 85 669 4,462 Offices of Optometrists 3,848 45.0 1,732 85 306 2,038 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners(except physicians) 4,337 45.0 1,952 85 344 2,296 Offices of Physical,Occup,&Speech Therapists&Audiologists Speech Therapist&Audiologists 458 45.0 206 85 36 242 Physical&Occupational Therapists 7,269 45.0 3,271 85 577 3,848 Offices of All Other Health Practitioners Offices of Podiatrists 702 45.0 316 85 56 372 Offices of All Other Misc.Health Practitioners 3,176 45.0 1,429 85 252 1,681 Outpatient Care Centers Outpatient Mental Health&Substance Abuse Centers $ 5,833 45.0 % $ 2,625 85 % $ 463 $ 3,088 Other Outpatient Care Centers Kidney Dialysis Centers 5,894 45.0 2,652 85 468 3,120 All Other Outpatient Care Centers 11,269 45.0 5,071 85 895 5,966 Home Health Care Services 24,982 45.0 11,242 85 1,984 13,226 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. • Table D-2(continued) MONTICELLO SERVICES PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2025 BY SERVICES CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales Personal Care Services Barber Shops $ 109 45.0 % $ 49 85 % $ 9 $ 58 Beauty Shops 18,025 45.0 8,111 85 1,431 9,542 Nail Salons 1,311 45.0 590 85 104 694 Diet&Weight Reducing Services 1,165 45.0 524 85 92 616 Other Personal Care Services 2,585 45.0 1,163 85 205 1,368 Drycleaning and Laundry Services Coin-Operated Laundries&Drycleaners $ 1,202 20.0 % $ 240 85 % $ 42 $ 282 Drycleaning&Laundry Services(except coin-op.) 3,860 20.0 772 85 136 908 Other Personal Services Child Day Care Services $ 17,406 55.0 % $ 9,573 85 % $ 1,689 $ 11,262 Funeral Homes&Funeral Services 4,661 55.0 2,564 85 452 3,016 Photographic Services 36,851 55.0 20,268 85 3,577 23,845 Photographic Studios 3,496 55.0 1,923 85 339 2,262 Veteranarian Services 13,073 55.0 7,190 85 1,269 8,459 Pet Care 1,493 55.0 821 85 145 966 Rental and Leasing Formalwear and Costume Rental $ 692 45.0 % $ 311 85 % $ 55 $ 366 Video Tape and Disc Rental 4,479 45.0 2,016 85 356 2,372 Home Health Equipment Rental 1,639 45.0 738 85 130 868 • Recreation Bowling Centers $ 3,350 45.0 % $ 1,508 85 % $ 266 $ 1,774 Physical Fitness Facilites 15,986 45.0 7,194 85 1,270 8,464 Golf Courses and Country Clubs 12,090 45.0 5,441 85 960 6,401 Professional Services Offices of Real Estate Agents&Brokers $ 44,171 25.0 % $ 11,043 85 % $ 1,949 $ 12,992 Insurance Agencies 85,647 25.0 21,412 85 3,779 25,191 Offices of Lawyers 141,142 25.0 35,286 85 6,227 41,513 Tax Preparation Services 2,804 25.0 701 85 124 825 Interior Design 4,625 25.0 1,156 85 204 1,360 Household Goods Repair Home&Garden Equipment&Appliance Repair&Maint. $ 1,347 50.0 % $ 674 85 % $ 119 $ 793 Reupholstery&Furniture Repair 765 50.0 383 85 68 451 Footwear and Leather Goods Repair 146 50.0 73 85 13 86 Watch,Clock and Jewelry Repair 182 50.0 91 85 16 107 Garment Repair and Alteration Services 473 50.0 237 85 42 279 Computer&Office Machine Repair 5,244 50.0 2,622 85 463 3,085 Automotive Repair and Maintenance General Automotive Repair $ 26,182 50.0 % $ 13,091 85 % $ 2,310 $ 15,401 Automotive Exhaust System Repair 364 50.0 182 85 32 214 Automotive Transmission Repair 1,384 50.0 692 85 122 814 Brake,Front End&Wheel Alignment 328 50.0 164 85 29 193 Electrical Repair Shops,Motor Vehicle 146 50.0 73 85 13 86 Paint or Body Repair Shops 15,658 50.0 7,829 85 1,382 9,211 Automotive Glass Replacement 3,095 50.0 1,548 85 273 1,821 Automotive Oil Change&Lubrication Shops 2,695 50.0 1,348 85 238 1,586 Carwashes 3,350 50.0 1,675 85 296 1,971 0 Table D-2(continued) MONTICELLO . SERVICES PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2025 BY SERVICES CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales Health Care Offices of Physicians Offices of Physicians(except mental health specialists) $ 155,963 45.0 % $ 70,183 85 % $12,385 $ 82,568 Offices of Physicians,Mental Health Specialists 1,420 45.0 639 85 113 752 Offices of Dentists 69,624 45.0 31,331 85 5,529 36,860 Offices of Other Health Practitioners Offices of Chiropractors 10,050 45.0 4,523 85 798 5,321 Offices of Optometrists 4,588 45.0 2,065 85 364 2,429 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners(except physicians) 5,171 45.0 2,327 85 411 2,738 Offices of Physical,Occup,&Speech Therapists&Audiologists Speech Therapist&Audiologists 546 45.0 246 85 43 289 Physical&Occupational Therapists 8,667 45.0 3,900 85 688 4,588 Offices of All Other Health Practitioners Offices of Podiatrists 838 45.0 377 85 67 444 Offices of All Other Misc.Health Practitioners 3,787 45.0 1,704 85 301 2,005 Outpatient Care Centers Outpatient Mental Health&Substance Abuse Centers $ 6,955 45.0 % $ 3,130 85 % $ 552 $ 3,682 Other Outpatient Care Centers Kidney Dialysis Centers 7,028 45.0 3,163 85 558 3,721 All Other Outpatient Care Centers 13,437 45.0 6,047 85 1,067 7,114 Home Health Care Services 29,787 45.0 13,404 85 2,365 15,769 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. III 110 Table D-2(continued) 0 MONTICELLO SERVICES PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2030 BY SERVICES CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales Personal Care Services Barber Shops $ 130 45.0 % $ 59 85 % $ 10 $ 69 Beauty Shops 21,387 45.0 9,624 85 1,698 11,322 Nail Salons 1,555 45.0 700 85 124 824 Diet&Weight Reducing Services 1,383 45.0 622 85 110 732 Other Personal Care Services 3,068 45.0 1,381 85 244 1,625 Drycleaning&Laundry Services Coin-Operated Laundries&Drycleaners $ 1,426 20.0 % $ 285 85 % $ 50 $ 335 Drycleaning&Laundry Services(except coin-op.) 4,580 20.0 916 85 162 1,078 Other Personal Services Child Day Care Services $ 20,652 55.0 % $ 11,359 85 % $ 2,005 $ 13,364 Funeral Homes&Funeral Services 5,530 55.0 3,042 85 537 3,579 Photographic Services 43,724 55.0 24,048 85 4,244 28,292 Photographic Studios 4,148 55.0 2,281 85 403 2,684 Veteranarian Services 15,511 55.0 8,531 85 1,505 10,036 Pet Care 1,771 55.0 974 85 172 1,146 Rental and Leasing Fonnalwear and Costume Rental $ 821 45.0 % $ 369 85 % $ 65 $ 434 Video Tape and Disc Rental 5,314 45.0 2,391 85 422 2,813 Home Health Equipment Rental 1,944 45.0 875 85 154 1,029 • Recreation Bowling Centers $ 3,975 45.0 % $ 1,789 85 % $ 316 $ 2,105 Physical Fitness Facilites 18,967 45.0 8,535 85 1,506 10,041 Golf Courses and Country Clubs 14,344 45.0 6,455 85 1,139 7,594 Professional Services Offices of Real Estate Agents&Brokers $ 52,408 25.0 % $ 13,102 85 % $ 2,312 $ 15,414 Insurance Agencies 101,619 25.0 25,405 85 4,483 29,888 Offices of Lawyers 167,464 25.0 41,866 85 7,388 49,254 Tax Preparation Services 3,327 25.0 832 85 147 979 Interior Design 5,487 25.0 1,372 85 242 1,614 Household Goods Repair Home&Garden Equipment&Appliance Repair&Maint. $ 1,599 50.0 % $ 800 85 % $ 141 $ 941 Reupholstery&Furniture Repair 907 50.0 454 85 80 534 Footwear and Leather Goods Repair 173 50.0 87 85 15 102 Watch,Clock and Jewelry Repair 216 50.0 108 85 19 127 Garment Repair and Alteration Services 562 50.0 281 85 50 331 Computer&Office Machine Repair 6,222 50.0 3,111 85 549 3,660 Automotive Repair and Maintenance General Automotive Repair $ 31,065 50.0 % $ 15,533 85 % $ 2,741 $ 18,274 Automotive Exhaust System Repair 432 50.0 216 85 38 254 Automotive Transmission Repair 1,642 50.0 821 85 145 966 Brake,Front End&Wheel Alignment 389 50.0 195 85 34 229 Electrical Repair Shops,Motor Vehicle 173 50.0 87 85 15 102 Paint or Body Repair Shops 18,578 50.0 9,289 85 1,639 10,928 Automotive Glass Replacement 3,672 50.0 1,836 85 324 2,160 Automotive Oil Change&Lubrication Shops 3,197 50.0 1,599 85 282 1,881 Carwashes 3,975 50.0 1,988 85 351 2,339 11110 Table D-2(continued) MONTICELLO • SERVICES PURCHASING POWER,MARKET SHARE AND SALES POTENTIAL,2030 BY SERVICES CATEGORY (In Thousands of Dollars) Resident Estimated Trade Trade Estimated Purchasing Market Area Area Other Total Category Power Share Sales Percent Shoppers Sales Health Care Offices of Physicians Offices of Physicians(except mental health specialists) $ 185,048 45.0 % $ 83,272 85 % $14,695 $ 97,967 Offices of Physicians,Mental Health Specialists 1,685 45.0 758 85 134 892 Offices of Dentists 82,608 45.0 37,174 85 6,560 43,734 Offices of Other Health Practitioners Offices of Chiropractors 11,925 45.0 5,366 85 947 6,313 Offices of Optometrists 5,444 45.0 2,450 85 432 2,882 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners(except physicians) 6,135 45.0 2,761 85 487 3,248 Offices of Physical,Occup,&Speech Therapists&Audiologists Speech Therapist&Audiologists 648 45.0 292 85 52 344 Physical&Occupational Therapists 10,283 45.0 4,627 85 817 5,444 Offices of All Other Health Practitioners Offices of Podiatrists 994 45.0 447 85 79 526 Offices of All Other Misc.Health Practitioners 4,493 45.0 2,022 85 357 2,379 Outpatient Care Centers Outpatient Mental Health&Substance Abuse Centers $ 8,252 45.0 % $ 3,713 85 % $ 655 $ 4,368 Other Outpatient Care Centers Kidney Dialysis Centers 8,339 45.0 3,753 85 662 4,415 All Other Outpatient Care Centers 15,943 45.0 7,174 85 1,266 8,440 Home Health Care Services 35,342 45.0 15,904 85 2,807 18,711 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. • III • Appendix E RETAIL AND SERVICES SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SPACE Monticello Trade Area Retail E-1 Monticello Trade Area Services E-2 • • Table E-1 MONTICELLO III RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SPACE,2010 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High SHOPPING GOODS General Merchandise Department stores Discount stores $ 71,517,000 $ 275 260,062 57,720 94,788 141,986 Department Stores 14,018,000 225 62,302 89,641 148,796 243,167 Other general merchandise stores Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters $ 96,412,000 $ 450 214,249 90,134 151,980 217,447 Variety stores 860,000 220 3,909 2,726 8,000 13,788 Miscellaneous general mdse. 1,985,000 250 7,940 3,200 8,400 11,212 Apparel&Accessories Clothing Stores Mens and boys $ 476,000 $ 220 2,164 2,002 4,000 5,635 Womens clothing 2,118,000 200 10,590 2,074 4,200 8,740 Children's&infant 979,000 240 4,079 1,490 3,912 6,000 Family clothing 4,924,000 260 18,938 2,374 8,000 28,228 Clothing accessories stores 291,000 290 1,003 918 1,400 2,001 Other clothing stores 794,000 265 2,996 1,060 2,300 8,234 Shoe Stores Men's $ 58,000 $ 290 200 903 1,640 2,186 Women's 102,000 270 378 1,309 2,384 3,158 Children's&infant 26,000 290 90 1,490 3,912 6,000 Family shoe stores 1,059,000 175 6,051 2,021 3,388 10,234 Athletic footwear 449,000 175 2,566 1,535 3,284 11,314 Furniture&Home Furnishings • Furniture $ 5,227,000 $ 260 20,104 3,108 7,927 36,712 Floor coverings 1,985,000 225 8,822 1,229 3,593 7,819 Window treatment stores 199,000 210 948 1,489 4,905 9,934 All other home furnishings stores 2,316,000 175 13,234 2,868 3,570 6,500 Electronics&Appliances Stores Household appliance stores $ 1,621,000 $ 275 5,895 2,349 4,000 7,563 Radio,tv&electronics stores 6,684,000 300 22,280 1,208 3,406 10,451 Computers,Software,Music,&other electronics 1,985,000 580 3,422 997 3,388 25,600 Other Shopping Goods Sporting goods $ 4,367,000 $ 200 21,835 2,238 7,500 44,116 General Line Sporting Gds. 1,787,000 200 8,935 3,765 5,850 28,128 Specialty Line Sporting Gds. 2,581,000 225 11,471 1,097 2,449 4,356 Book stores&newsdealers 1,225,000 160 7,656 2,428 4,542 29,974 Stationery Stores and Office Supply 1,621,000 375 4,323 585 1,033 2,247 Musical Instrument&Supplies 728,000 240 3,033 2,432 7,324 26,094 Jewelry stores 2,481,000 325 7,634 790 1,450 3,410 Hobby,toy&game 1,192,000 175 6,811 1,604 4,050 25,861 Camera&photographic supply 496,000 275 1,804 816 2,200 5,965 Gift,novelty&souvenirs 1,356,000 150 9,040 2,369 4,422 7,015 Luggage&leather goods 166,000 200 830 1,193 2,300 3,102 Sewing,needlework&piece goods 628,000 100 6,280 2,678 12,202 19,299 Pet stores 1,192,000 200 5,960 1,847 3,200 12,398 Art dealers 199,000 225 884 675 1,434 2,401 Optical goods stores 993,000 290 3,424 885 1,561 4,068 Pre-Recorded Tapes,Compact Discs 189,000 230 822 1,308 3,426 12,753 Cosmetics,beauty supplies&perfume 812,000 320 2,538 1,102 1,953 6,235 All other health&personal care 1,389,000 275 5,051 697 1,786 3,084 III Table E-1 (continued) • MONTICELLO RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SPACE,2010 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores Grocery stores $ 52,407,000 $ 500 104,814 31,676 52,500 65,888 Supermarkets 51,348,000 500 102,696 31,245 52,419 69,462 Convenience food 529,000 300 1,763 1,349 2,085 5,323 Specialty food stores 926,000 200 4,630 1,188 2,400 6,000 Meat Markets 344,000 225 1,529 1,130 2,215 18,080 Fish&Seafood Markets 106,000 250 424 1,188 2,398 6,000 Fruit&Vegetable Markets 185,000 200 925 1,036 1,400 2,516 Other Specialty Food Stores 291,000 225 1,293 1,112 2,291 9,888 Baked Goods 79,000 250 316 1,191 1,834 3,285 Confectionery and Nut Stores 79,000 320 247 702 1,240 2,047 All Other Specialty Food Stores 132,000 200 660 1,069 2,200 8,007 Other Convenience Goods Drug&proprietary stores $ 13,468,000 $ 460 29,278 8,280 11,700 23,714 Hardware 1,650,000 185 8,919 5,638 13,831 27,743 Liquor 4,250,000 375 11,333 1,305 2,856 7,210 Florist 624,000 190 3,284 766 1,600 5,396 Food/health supplement stores 312,000 250 1,248 1,200 1,234 1,968 Food Service&Drinking Places Food Service Full-service restaurants $ 20,465,000 $ 360 56,847 2,000 4,500 9,775 Limited service restaurants 14,463,000 400 36,158 1,335 3,000 3,400 1110 Cafeterias 0 235 0 517 1,073 10,049 Snack&beverage places 2,647,000 300 8,823 850 1,500 2,495 Ice Cream&Soft Serve 331,000 325 1,018 902 1,148 1,570 Frozen Yogurt 33,000 200 165 1,031 1,282 1,700 Doughnut Shops 464,000 220 2,109 744 1,200 2,153 Bagel Shops 133,000 275 484 2,000 2,388 3,400 Coffee Shops 1,125,000 400 2,813 881 1,500 2,000 Cookie Shops 33,000 400 83 220 602 797 Other Snack Shops 529,000 360 1,469 850 1,578 2,495 Specialized food places 5,261,000 400 13,153 N/A Drinking Places $ - $ 250 0 2,243 Gasoline Sys Stations/Cony. Gas/Convenience food stores $ 45,479,000 $1,400 32,485 1,500 2,933 6,121 Other Gas Stations&Truck Stops 5,103,000 1,000 5,103 2,000 OTHER RETAIL STORES Building Materials&Garden Supplies Building materials&supplies stores Home centers $ 11,855,000 $ 350 33,871 8,981 95,173 135,833 Paint,glass&wallpaper 1,619,000 225 7,196 2,348 3,533 5,028 Other building materials dealers 20,612,000 225 91,609 N/A N/A N/A Lawn&garden equipment Outdoor power equipment $ 1,019,000 $ 100 10,190 N/A N/A N/A Retail nurseries,lawn&garden 4,354,000 100 43,540 N/A 15,000 N/A Motor Vehicles&Parts Dealers Auto parts,accessories&tires Auto parts&accessories stores $ 1,707,000 $ 200 8,535 2,232 6,500 13,000 Tire dealers 1,291,000 200 6,455 3,514 6,944 12,014 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. 0 Table E-1 (continued) MONTICELLO • RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SPACE,2015 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High SHOPPING GOODS General Merchandise Department stores Discount stores $ 85,042,000 $ 275 309,244 57,720 94,788 141,986 Department Stores 16,669,000 225 74,084 89,641 148,796 243,167 Other general merchandise stores Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters $114,642,000 $ 450 254,760 90,134 151,980 217,447 Variety stores 1,024,000 220 4,655 2,726 8,000 13,788 Miscellaneous general mdse. 2,361,000 250 9,444 3,200 8,400 11,212 Apparel&Accessories Clothing Stores Mens and boys $ 567,000 $ 220 2,577 2,002 4,000 5,635 Womens clothing 2,518,000 200 12,590 2,074 4,200 8,740 Children's&infant 1,165,000 240 4,854 1,490 3,912 6,000 Family clothing 5,854,000 260 22,515 2,374 8,000 28,228 Clothing accessories stores 346,000 290 1,193 918 1,400 2,001 Other clothing stores 945,000 265 3,566 1,060 2,300 8,234 Shoe Stores Men's $ 68,000 $ 290 234 903 1,640 2,186 Women's 121,000 270 448 1,309 2,384 3,158 Children's&infant 32,000 290 110 1,490 3,912 6,000 Family shoe stores 1,259,000 175 7,194 2,021 3,388 10,234 Athletic footwear 535,000 175 3,057 1,535 3,284 11,314 Furniture&Home Furnishings • Furniture $ 6,216,000 $ 260 23,908 3,108 7,927 36,712 Floor coverings 2,361,000 225 10,493 1,229 3,593 7,819 Window treatment stores 236,000 210 1,124 1,489 4,905 9,934 All other home furnishings stores 2,754,000 175 15,737 2,868 3,570 6,500 Electronics&Appliances Stores Household appliance stores $ 1,928,000 $ 275 7,011 2,349 4,000 7,563 Radio,tv&electronics stores 7,947,000 300 26,490 1,208 3,406 10,451 Computers,Software,Music,&other electronics 2,361,000 580 4,071 997 3,388 25,600 Other Shopping Goods Sporting goods $ 5,193,000 $ 200 25,965 2,238 7,500 44,116 General Line Sporting Gds. 2,125,000 200 10,625 3,765 5,850 28,128 Specialty Line Sporting Gds. 3,068,000 225 13,636 1,097 2,449 4,356 Book stores&newsdealers 1,455,000 160 9,094 2,428 4,542 29,974 Stationery Stores and Office Supply 1,928,000 375 5,141 585 1,033 2,247 Musical Instrument&Supplies 866,000 240 3,608 2,432 7,324 26,094 Jewelry stores 2,951,000 325 9,080 790 1,450 3,410 Hobby,toy&game 1,416,000 175 8,091 1,604 4,050 25,861 Camera&photographic supply 591,000 275 2,149 816 2,200 5,965 Gift,novelty&souvenirs 1,613,000 150 10,753 2,369 4,422 7,015 Luggage&leather goods 196,000 200 980 1,193 2,300 3,102 Sewing,needlework&piece goods 747,000 100 7,470 2,678 12,202 19,299 Pet stores 1,416,000 200 7,080 1,847 3,200 12,398 Art dealers 236,000 225 1,049 675 1,434 2,401 Optical goods stores 1,180,000 290 4,069 885 1,561 4,068 Pre-Recorded Tapes,Compact Discs 225,000 230 978 1,308 3,426 12,753 Cosmetics,beauty supplies&perfume 965,000 320 3,016 1,102 1,953 6,235 All other health&personal care 1,653,000 275 6,011 697 1,786 3,084 0 Table E-1 (continued) • MONTICELLO RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SPACE,2015 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores Grocery stores $ 62,316,000 $ 500 124,632 31,676 52,500 65,888 Supermarkets 61,058,000 500 122,116 31,245 52,419 69,462 Convenience food 629,000 300 2,097 1,349 2,085 5,323 Specialty food stores 1,101,000 200 5,505 1,188 2,400 6,000 Meat Markets 409,000 225 1,818 1,130 2,215 18,080 Fish&Seafood Markets 126,000 250 504 1,188 2,398 6,000 Fruit&Vegetable Markets 220,000 200 1,100 1,036 1,400 2,516 Other Specialty Food Stores 346,000 225 1,538 1,112 2,291 9,888 Baked Goods 94,000 250 376 1,191 1,834 3,285 Confectionery and Nut Stores 94,000 320 294 702 1,240 2,047 All Other Specialty Food Stores 158,000 200 790 1,069 2,200 8,007 Other Convenience Goods Drug&proprietary stores $ 16,014,000 $ 460 34,813 8,280 11,700 23,714 Hardware 1,962,000 185 10,605 5,638 13,831 27,743 Liquor 5,053,000 375 13,475 1,305 2,856 7,210 Florist 743,000 190 3,911 766 1,600 5,396 Food/health supplement stores 372,000 250 1,488 1,200 1,234 1,968 Food Service&Drinking Places Food Service Full-service restaurants $ 24,334,000 $ 360 67,594 2,000 4,500 9,775 Limited service restaurants 17,199,000 400 42,998 1,335 3,000 3,400 III Cafeterias 0 235 0 517 1,073 10,049 Snack&beverage places 3,148,000 300 10,493 850 1,500 2,495 Ice Cream&Soft Serve 394,000 325 1,212 902 1,148 1,570 Frozen Yogurt 40,000 200 200 1,031 1,282 1,700 Doughnut Shops 551,000 220 2,505 744 1,200 2,153 Bagel Shops 158,000 275 575 2,000 2,388 3,400 Coffee Shops 1,338,000 400 3,345 881 1,500 2,000 Cookie Shops 40,000 400 100 220 602 797 Other Snack Shops 629,000 360 1,747 850 1,578 2,495 Specialized food places 6,255,000 400 15,638 N/A Drinking Places $ - $ 250 0 2,243 Gasoline Svs Stations/Cony. Gas/Convenience food stores $ 54,077,000 $ 1,400 38,626 1,500 2,933 6,121 Other Gas Stations&Truck Stops 6,067,000 1,000 6,067 2,000 OTHER RETAIL STORES Building Materials&Garden Supplies Building materials&supplies stores Home centers $ 14,097,000 $ 350 40,277 8,981 95,173 135,833 Paint,glass&wallpaper 1,924,000 225 8,551 2,348 3,533 5,028 Other building materials dealers 24,509,000 225 108,929 N/A N/A N/A Lawn&garden equipment Outdoor power equipment 1,212,000 100 12,120 N/A N/A N/A Retail nurseries,lawn&garden 5,178,000 100 51,780 N/A 15,000 N/A Motor Vehicles&Parts Dealers Auto parts,accessories&tires Auto parts&accessories stores $ 2,029,000 $ 200 10,145 2,232 6,500 13,000 Tire dealers 1,534,000 200 7,670 3,514 6,944 12,014 Source:McComb Group,Ltd. III Table E-1 (continued) MONTICELLO • RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SPACE,2020 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High SHOPPING GOODS General Merchandise Department stores Discount stores $ 99,897,000 $ 275 363,262 57,720 94,788 141,986 Department Stores 19,580,000 225 87,022 89,641 148,796 243,167 Other general merchandise stores Warehouse Clubs and Supercenters $134,671,000 $ 450 299,269 90,134 151,980 217,447 Variety stores 1,201,000 220 5,459 2,726 8,000 13,788 Miscellaneous general mdse. 2,773,000 250 11,092 3,200 8,400 11,212 Apparel&Accessories Clothing Stores Mens and boys $ 666,000 $ 220 3,027 2,002 4,000 5,635 Womens clothing 2,958,000 200 14,790 2,074 4,200 8,740 Children's&infant 1,368,000 240 5,700 1,490 3,912 6,000 Family clothing 6,876,000 260 26,446 2,374 8,000 28,228 Clothing accessories stores 407,000 290 1,403 918 1,400 2,001 Other clothing stores 1,109,000 265 4,185 1,060 2,300 8,234 Shoe Stores Men's $ 80,000 $ 290 276 903 1,640 2,186 Women's 142,000 270 526 1,309 2,384 3,158 Children's&infant 36,000 290 124 1,490 3,912 6,000 Family shoe stores 1,479,000 175 8,451 2,021 3,388 10,234 Athletic footwear 628,000 175 3,589 1,535 3,284 11,314 Furniture&Home Furnishings III Furniture $ 7,302,000 $ 260 28,085 3,108 7,927 36,712 Floor coverings 2,773,000 225 12,324 1,229 3,593 7,819 Window treatment stores 278,000 210 1,324 1,489 4,905 9,934 All other home furnishings stores 3,235,000 175 18,486 2,868 3,570 6,500 Electronics&Appliances Stores Household appliance stores $ 2,265,000 $ 275 8,236 2,349 4,000 7,563 Radio,tv&electronics stores 9,335,000 300 31,117 1,208 3,406 10,451 Computers,Software,Music,&other electronics 2,773,000 580 4,781 997 3,388 25,600 Other Shopping Goods Sporting goods $ 6,100,000 $ 200 30,500 2,238 7,500 44,116 General Line Sporting Gds. 2,495,000 200 12,475 3,765 5,850 28,128 Specialty Line Sporting Gds. 3,605,000 225 16,022 1,097 2,449 4,356 Book stores&newsdealers 1,709,000 160 10,681 2,428 4,542 29,974 Stationery Stores and Office Supply 2,265,000 375 6,040 585 1,033 2,247 Musical Instrument&Supplies 1,016,000 240 4,233 2,432 7,324 26,094 Jewelry stores 3,466,000 325 10,665 790 1,450 3,410 Hobby,toy&game 1,664,000 175 9,509 1,604 4,050 25,861 Camera&photographic supply 693,000 275 2,520 816 2,200 5,965 Gift,novelty&souvenirs 1,895,000 150 12,633 2,369 4,422 7,015 Luggage&leather goods 232,000 200 1,160 1,193 2,300 3,102 Sewing,needlework&piece goods 878,000 100 8,780 2,678 12,202 19,299 Pet stores 1,664,000 200 8,320 1,847 3,200 12,398 Art dealers 278,000 225 1,236 675 1,434 2,401 Optical goods stores 1,387,000 290 4,783 885 1,561 4,068 Pre-Recorded Tapes,Compact Discs 264,000 230 1,148 1,308 3,426 12,753 Cosmetics,beauty supplies&perfume 1,133,000 320 3,541 1,102 1,953 6,235 All other health&personal care 1,941,000 275 7,058 697 1,786 3,084 Table E-1(continued) • MONTICELLO RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SPACE,2020 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores Grocery stores $ 73,204,000 $ 500 146,408 31,676 52,500 65,888 Supermarkets 71,725,000 500 143,450 31,245 52,419 69,462 Convenience food 740,000 300 2,467 1,349 2,085 5,323 Specialty food stores 1,294,000 200 6,470 1,188 2,400 6,000 Meat Markets 481,000 225 2,138 1,130 2,215 18,080 Fish&Seafood Markets 148,000 250 592 1,188 2,398 6,000 Fruit&Vegetable Markets 259,000 200 1,295 1,036 1,400 2,516 Other Specialty Food Stores 407,000 225 1,809 1,112 2,291 9,888 Baked Goods 111,000 250 444 1,191 1,834 3,285 Confectionery and Nut Stores 111,000 320 347 702 1,240 2,047 All Other Specialty Food Stores 185,000 200 925 1,069 2,200 8,007 Other Convenience Goods Drug&proprietary stores $ 18,812,000 $ 460 40,896 8,280 11,700 23,714 Hardware 2,304,000 185 12,454 5,638 13,831 27,743 Liquor 5,936,000 375 15,829 1,305 2,856 7,210 Florist 873,000 190 4,595 766 1,600 5,396 Food/health supplement stores 437,000 250 1,748 1,200 1,234 1,968 Food Service&Drinking Places Food Service Full-service restaurants $ 28,585,000 $ 360 79,403 2,000 4,500 9,775 0 Limited service restaurants 20,203,000 400 50,508 1,335 3,000 3,400 Cafeterias 0 235 0 517 1,073 10,049 Snack&beverage places 3,698,000 300 12,327 850 1,500 2,495 Ice Cream&Soft Serve 462,000 325 1,422 902 1,148 1,570 Frozen Yogurt 46,000 200 230 1,031 1,282 1,700 Doughnut Shops 647,000 220 2,941 744 1,200 2,153 Bagel Shops 185,000 275 673 2,000 2,388 3,400 Coffee Shops 1,572,000 400 3,930 881 1,500 2,000 Cookie Shops 46,000 400 115 220 602 797 Other Snack Shops 740,000 360 2,056 850 1,578 2,495 Specialized food places 7,348,000 400 18,370 N/A Drinking Places $ - $ 250 0 2,243 Gasoline Sys Stations/Cony. Gas/Conveniencefoodstores $ 63,524,000 $ 1,400 45,374 1,500 2,933 6,121 Other Gas Stations&Truck Stops 7,127,000 1,000 7,127 2,000 OTHER RETAIL STORES Building Materials&Garden Supplies Building materials&supplies stores Home centers $ 16,558,000 $ 350 47,309 8,981 95,173 135,833 Paint,glass&wallpaper 2,261,000 225 10,049 2,348 3,533 5,028 Other building materials dealers 28,792,000 225 127,964 N/A N/A N/A Lawn&garden equipment Outdoor power equipment $ 1,424,000 $ 100 14,240 N/A N/A N/A Retail nurseries,lawn&garden 6,082,000 100 60,820 N/A 15,000 N/A Motor Vehicles&Parts Dealers Auto parts,accessories&tires Auto parts&accessories stores $ 2,385,000 $ 200 11,925 2,232 6,500 13,000 Tire dealers $ 1,802,000 200 9,010 3,514 6,944 12,014 IIISource: McComb Group.Ltd. Table E-1 (continued) MONTICELLO III RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SPACE,2025 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High SHOPPING GOODS General Merchandise Department stores Discount stores $116,206,000 $ 275 422,567 57,720 94,788 141,986 Conventional 22,777,000 225 101,231 89,641 148,796 243,167 Other general merchandise stores Warehouse Clubs $156,657,000 $ 450 348,127 90,134 151,980 217,447 Variety stores 1,398,000 220 6,355 2,726 8,000 13,788 Miscellaneous general mdse. 3,226,000 250 12,904 3,200 8,400 11,212 Apparel&Accessories Clothing Stores Mens and boys $ 774,000 $ 220 3,518 2,002 4,000 5,635 Womens clothing 3,440,000 200 17,200 2,074 4,200 8,740 Children's&infant 1,592,000 240 6,633 1,490 3,912 6,000 Family clothing 7,999,000 260 30,765 2,374 8,000 28,228 Clothing accessories stores 473,000 290 1,631 918 1,400 2,001 Other clothing stores 1,291,000 265 4,872 1,060 2,300 8,234 Shoe Stores Men's $ 93,000 $ 290 321 903 1,640 2,186 Women's 166,000 270 615 1,309 2,384 3,158 Children's&infant 44,000 290 152 1,490 3,912 6,000 Family shoe stores 1,720,000 175 9,829 2,021 3,388 10,234 Athletic footwear 731,000 175 4,177 1,535 3,284 11,314 • Furniture&Home Furnishings Furniture $ 8,494,000 $ 260 32,669 3,108 7,927 36,712 Floor coverings 3,226,000 225 14,338 1,229 3,593 7,819 Window treatment stores 322,000 210 1,533 1,489 4,905 9,934 All other home furnishings stores 3,764,000 175 21,509 2,868 3,570 6,500 Electronics&Appliances Stores Household appliance stores $ 2,634,000 $ 275 9,578 2,349 4,000 7,563 Radio,tv&electronics stores 10,860,000 300 36,200 1,208 3,406 10,451 Computers,Software,Music,&other electronics 3,226,000 580 5,562 997 3,388 25,600 Other Shopping Goods Sporting goods $ 7,096,000 $ 200 35,480 2,238 7,500 44,116 General Line Sporting Gds. 2,904,000 200 14,520 3,765 5,850 28,128 Specialty Line Sporting Gds. 4,193,000 225 18,636 1,097 2,449 4,356 Book stores&newsdealers 1,989,000 160 12,431 2,428 4,542 29,974 Stationery Stores and Office Supply 2,634,000 375 7,024 585 1,033 2,247 Musical Instrument&Supplies 1,182,000 240 4,925 2,432 7,324 26,094 Jewelry stores 4,032,000 325 12,406 790 1,450 3,410 Hobby,toy&game 1,935,000 175 11,057 1,604 4,050 25,861 Camera&photographic supply 807,000 275 2,935 816 2,200 5,965 Gift,novelty&souvenirs 2,205,000 150 14,700 2,369 4,422 7,015 Luggage&leather goods 269,000 200 1,345 1,193 2,300 3,102 Sewing,needlework&piece goods 1,021,000 100 10,210 2,678 12,202 19,299 Pet stores 1,935,000 200 9,675 1,847 3,200 12,398 Art dealers 322,000 225 1,431 675 1,434 2,401 Optical goods stores 1,613,000 290 5,562 885 1,561 4,068 Pre-Recorded Tapes,Compact Discs 307,000 230 1,335 1,308 3,426 12,753 Cosmetics,beauty supplies&perfume 1,319,000 320 4,122 1,102 1,953 6,235 All other health&personal care 2,258,000 275 8,211 697 1,786 3,084 Table E-1 (continued) • MONTICELLO RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SPACE,2025 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores Grocery stores $ 85,154,000 $ 500 170,308 31,676 52,500 65,888 Supermarkets 83,433,000 500 166,866 31,245 52,419 69,462 Convenience food 860,000 300 2,867 1,349 2,085 5,323 Specialty food stores 1,505,000 200 7,525 1,188 2,400 6,000 Meat Markets 559,000 225 2,484 1,130 2,215 18,080 Fish&Seafood Markets 172,000 250 688 1,188 2,398 6,000 Fruit&Vegetable Markets 301,000 200 1,505 1,036 1,400 2,516 Other Specialty Food Stores 473,000 225 2,102 1,112 2,291 9,888 Baked Goods 129,000 250 516 1,191 1,834 3,285 Confectionery and Nut Stores 129,000 320 403 702 1,240 2,047 All Other Specialty Food Stores 215,000 200 1,075 1,069 2,200 8,007 Other Convenience Goods Drug&proprietary stores $ 21,883,000 $ 460 47,572 8,280 11,700 23,714 Hardware 2,681,000 185 14,492 5,638 13,831 27,743 Liquor 6,906,000 375 18,416 1,305 2,856 7,210 Florist 1,016,000 190 5,347 766 1,600 5,396 Food/health supplement stores 508,000 250 2,032 1,200 1,234 1,968 Food Service&Drinking Places Food Service Full-service restaurants $ 33,252,000 $ 360 92,367 2,000 4,500 9,775 • Limited service restaurants Cafeterias 23,500,000 400 58,750 1,335 3,000 3,400 0 235 0 517 1,073 10,049 Snack&beverage places 4,301,000 300 14,337 850 1,500 2,495 Ice Cream&Soft Serve 431,000 325 1,326 902 1,148 1,570 Frozen Yogurt 44,000 200 220 1,031 1,282 1,700 Doughnut Shops 602,000 220 2,736 744 1,200 2,153 Bagel Shops 172,000 275 625 2,000 2,388 3,400 Coffee Shops 1,462,000 400 3,655 881 1,500 2,000 Cookie Shops 44,000 400 110 220 602 797 Other Snack Shops 688,000 360 1,911 850 1,578 2,495 Specialized food places 6,838,000 400 17,095 N/A Drinking Places $ - $ 250 0 2,243 Gasoline Sys Stations/Cony. Gas/Convenience food stores $ 73,896,000 $ 1,400 52,783 1,500 2,933 6,121 Other Gas Stations&Truck Stops 8,290,000 1,000 8,290 2,000 OTHER RETAIL STORES Building Materials&Garden Supplies Building materials&supplies stores Home centers $ 19,263,000 $ 350 55,037 8,981 95,173 135,833 Paint,glass&wallpaper 2,630,000 225 11,689 2,348 3,533 5,028 Other building materials dealers 33,492,000 225 148,853 N/A N/A N/A Lawn&garden equipment Outdoor power equipment $ 1,655,000 $ 100 16,550 N/A N/A N/A Retail nurseries,lawn&garden 7,074,000 100 70,740 N/A 15,000 N/A Motor Vehicles&Parts Dealers Auto parts,accessories&tires Auto parts&accessories stores $ 2,774,000 $ 200 13,870 2,232 6,500 13,000 Tire dealers 2,096,000 200 10,480 3,514 6,944 12,014 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. • Table E-I (continued) MONTICELLO III RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SPACE,2030 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High SHOPPING GOODS General Merchandise Department stores Discount stores $ 134,520,000 $ 275 489,164 57,720 94,788 141,986 Conventional 26,368,000 225 117,191 89,641 148,796 243,167 Other general merchandise stores Warehouse Clubs $ 181,346,000 $ 450 402,991 90,134 151,980 217,447 Variety stores 1,618,000 220 7,355 2,726 8,000 13,788 Miscellaneous general mdse. 3,734,000 250 14,936 3,200 8,400 11,212 Apparel&Accessories Clothing Stores Mens and boys $ 896,000 $ 220 4,073 2,002 4,000 5,635 Womens clothing 3,982,000 200 19,910 2,074 4,200 8,740 Children's&infant 1,842,000 240 7,675 1,490 3,912 6,000 Family clothing 9,260,000 260 35,615 2,374 8,000 28,228 Clothing accessories stores 547,000 290 1,886 918 1,400 2,001 Other clothing stores 1,494,000 265 5,638 I,060 2,300 8,234 Shoe Stores Men's $ 108,000 $ 290 372 903 1,640 2,186 Women's 192,000 270 711 1,309 2,384 3,158 Children's&infant 49,000 290 169 1,490 3,912 6,000 Family shoe stores 1,992,000 175 11,383 2,021 3,388 10,234 Athletic footwear 846,000 175 4,834 1,535 3,284 11,314 Furniture&Home Furnishings • Furniture $ 9,833,000 $ 260 37,819 3,108 7,927 36,712 Floor coverings 3,734,000 225 16,596 1,229 3,593 7,819 Window treatment stores 374,000 210 1,781 1,489 4,905 9,934 All other home furnishings stores 4,356,000 175 24,891 2,868 3,570 6,500 Electronics&Appliances Stores Household appliance stores $ 3,049,000 $ 275 11,087 2,349 4,000 7,563 Radio,tv&electronics stores 12,571,000 300 41,903 1,208 3,406 10,451 Computers,Software,Music,&other electronics 3,734,000 580 6,438 997 3,388 25,600 Other Shopping Goods Sporting goods $ 8,215,000 $ 200 41,075 2,238 7,500 44,116 General Line Sporting Gds. 3,361,000 200 16,805 3,765 5,850 28,128 Specialty Line Sporting Gds. 4,854,000 225 21,573 1,097 2,449 4,356 Book stores&newsdealers 2,302,000 160 14,388 2,428 4,542 29,974 Stationery Stores and Office Supply 3,049,000 375 8,131 585 1,033 2,247 Musical Instrument&Supplies 1,369,000 240 5,704 2,432 7,324 26,094 Jewelry stores 4,667,000 325 14,360 790 1,450 3,410 Hobby,toy&game 2,240,000 175 12,800 1,604 4,050 25,861 Camera&photographic supply 934,000 275 3,396 816 2,200 5,965 Gift,novelty&souvenirs 2,552,000 150 17,013 2,369 4,422 7,015 Luggage&leather goods 312,000 200 1,560 1,193 2,300 3,102 Sewing,needlework&piece goods 1,182,000 100 11,820 2,678 12,202 19,299 Pet stores 2,240,000 200 11,200 1,847 3,200 12,398 Art dealers 374,000 225 1,662 675 1,434 2,401 Optical goods stores 1,867,000 290 6,438 885 1,561 4,068 Pre-Recorded Tapes,Compact Discs 355,000 230 1,543 1,308 3,426 12,753 Cosmetics,beauty supplies&perfume 1,526,000 320 4,769 1,102 1,953 6,235 All other health&personal care 2,614,000 275 9,505 697 1,786 3,084 ID Table E-1 (continued) • MONTICELLO RETAIL SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SPACE,2030 BY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High CONVENIENCE GOODS Food Stores Grocery stores $ 98,574,000 $ 500 197,148 31,676 52,500 65,888 Supermarkets 96,584,000 500 193,168 31,245 52,419 69,462 Convenience food 995,000 300 3,317 1,349 2,085 5,323 Specialty food stores 1,742,000 200 8,710 1,188 2,400 6,000 Meat Markets 647,000 225 2,876 1,130 2,215 18,080 Fish&Seafood Markets 199,000 250 796 1,188 2,398 6,000 Fruit&Vegetable Markets 348,000 200 1,740 1,036 1,400 2,516 Other Specialty Food Stores 547,000 225 2,431 1,112 2,291 9,888 Baked Goods 149,000 250 596 1,191 1,834 3,285 Confectionery and Nut Stores 149,000 320 466 702 1,240 2,047 All Other Specialty Food Stores 249,000 200 1,245 1,069 2,200 8,007 Other Convenience Goods Drug&proprietary stores $ 25,332,000 $ 460 55,070 8,280 11,700 23,714 Hardware 3,103,000 185 16,773 5,638 13,831 27,743 Liquor 7,993,000 375 21,315 1,305 2,856 7,210 Florist 1,176,000 190 6,189 766 1,600 5,396 Food/health supplement stores 588,000 250 2,352 1,200 1,234 1,968 Food Service&Drinking Places Food Service Full-service restaurants $ 38,492,000 $ 360 106,922 2,000 4,500 9,775 • Limited service restaurants 27,204,000 400 68,010 1,335 3,000 3,400 Cafeterias 0 235 0 517 1,073 10,049 Snack&beverage places 4,979,000 300 16,597 850 1,500 2,495 Ice Cream&Soft Serve 622,000 325 1,914 902 1,148 1,570 Frozen Yogurt 62,000 200 310 • 1,031 1,282 1,700 Doughnut Shops 872,000 220 3,964 744 1,200 2,153 Bagel Shops 249,000 275 905 2,000 2,388 3,400 Coffee Shops 2,116,000 400 5,290 881 1,500 2,000 Cookie Shops 62,000 400 155 220 602 797 Other Snack Shops 995,000 360 2,764 850 1,578 2,495 Specialized food places 9,895,000 400 24,738 N/A Drinking Places $ - $ 250 0 2,243 Gasoline Sys Stations/Cony. Gas/Conveniencefoodstores $ 85,541,000 $ 1,400 61,101 1,500 2,933 6,121 Other Gas Stations&Truck Stops 9,597,000 1,000 9,597 2,000 OTHER RETAIL STORES Building Materials&Garden Supplies Building materials&supplies stores Home centers $ 22,298,000 $ 350 63,709 8,981 95,173 135,833 Paint,glass&wallpaper 3,044,000 225 13,529 2,348 3,533 5,028 Other building materials dealers 38,771,000 225 172,316 N/A N/A N/A Lawn&garden equipment Outdoor power equipment $ 1,916,000 $ 100 19,160 N/A N/A N/A Retail nurseries,lawn&garden 8,189,000 100 81,890 N/A 15,000 N/A Motor Vehicles&Parts Dealers Auto parts,accessories&tires Auto parts&accessories stores $ 3,211,000 $ 200 16,055 2,232 6,500 13,000 Tire dealers 2,427,000 200 12,135 3,514 6,944 12,014 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. III Table E-2 MONTICELLO SERVICES SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FEET,2010111 BY SERVICES CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High Personal Care Services Barber Shops $ 33,000 $200 165 455 788 1,422 Beauty Shops 5,453,000 190 28,700 900 1,400 3,480 Nail Salons 396,000 110 3,600 773 1,200 1,807 Diet&Weight Reducing Services 353,000 150 2,353 1,223 1,856 3,130 Other Personal Care Services 782,000 175 4,469 703 1,488 4,128 Drycleaning&Laundry Services Coin-Operated Laundries&Drycleaners $ 161,000 $ 60 2,683 1,222 2,024 3,734 Drycleaning&Laundry Services(except coin-op.) 519,000 150 3,460 1,038 1,608 2,731 Other Personal Services Child Day Care Services $ 6,436,000 $100 64,360 3,059 5,050 7,495 Funeral Homes&Funeral Services 1,724,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Photographic Services 13,628,000 275 49,556 990 1,866 2,550 Photographic Studios 1,293,000 275 4,702 990 1,866 2,550 Veteranarian Services 4,834,000 225 21,484 1,346 2,122 2,701 Pet Care 552,000 75 7,360 1,200 Rental and Leasing Formalwear and Costume Rental $ 209,000 $365 573 763 1,046 1,773 Video Tape and Disc Rental 1,355,000 200 6,775 3,740 5,836 7,341 Recreation Bowling Centers $ 1,014,000 $110 9,218 N/A N/A N/A Physical Fitness Facilites 4,836,000 80 60,450 1,433 6,448 32,170 Golf Courses and Country Clubs 3,658,000 N/A 0 11111 Professional Services Offices of Real Estate Agents&Brokers $ 7,425,000 $300 24,750 711 2,092 6,264 Household Goods Repair Home&Garden Equipment&Appliance Repair&Main $ 453,000 $175 2,589 Reupholstery&Furniture Repair 258,000 155 1,665 600 Footwear and Leather Goods Repair 49,000 155 316 405 648 742 Watch,Clock and Jewelry Repair 61,000 155 394 900 Garment Repair and Alteration Services 160,000 125 1,280 680 1,185 1,488 Automotive Repair and Maintenance General Automotive Repair $ 8,802,000 $200 44,010 2,400 6,200 10,624 Automotive Exhaust System Repair 122,000 200 610 Automotive Transmission Repair 466,000 200 2,330 Brake,Front End&Wheel Alignment 111,000 200 555 Electrical Repair Shops,Motor Vehicle 49,000 200 245 Paint or Body Repair Shops 5,265,000 200 26,325 Automotive Glass Replacement 1,041,000 200 5,205 Automotive Oil Change&Lubrication Shops 906,000 200 4,530 Carwashes 1,127,000 200 5,635 Table E-2(continued) • MONTICELLO SERVICES SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FEET,2010 BY SERVICES CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High Health Care Offices of Physicians Offices of Physicians(except mental health specialists) $47,188,000 $357 132,179 969 1,652 4,008 Offices of Physicians,Mental Health Specialists 429,000 357 1,202 969 1,800 4,008 Offices of Dentists 21,066,000 345 61,061 1,090 1,700 3,970 Offices of Other Health Practitioners Offices of Chiropractors 3,041,000 345 8,814 1,090 1,600 3,970 Offices of Optometrists 1,388,000 415 3,345 1,074 1,620 4,347 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners(except physicians) 1,565,000 345 4,536 1,090 1,800 3,970 Offices of Physical,Occup,&Speech Therapists&Audiologists Speech Therapist&Audiologists 165,000 345 478 1,090 1,600 3,970 Physical&Occupational Therapists 2,622,000 345 7,600 1,090 1,600 3,970 Offices of All Other Health Practitioners Offices of Podiatrists 254,000 357 711 1,090 1,800 3,970 Offices of All Other Misc.Health Practitioners 1,146,000 345 3,322 1,090 1,800 3,970 Outpatient Care Centers Outpatient Mental Health&Substance Abuse Centers $ 2,105,000 $250 8,420 Other Outpatient Care Centers Kidney Dialysis Centers 2,126,000 285 7,460 All Other Outpatient Care Centers 4,066,000 285 14,267 Home Health Care Services 9,012,000 285 31,621 • Source: McComb Group,Ltd. Table E-2(continued) MONTICELLO • SERVICES SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FEET,2015 BY SERVICES CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High Personal Care Services Barber Shops $ 40,000 $200 200 455 788 1,422 Beauty Shops 6,647,000 190 34,984 900 1,400 3,480 Nail Salons 484,000 110 4,400 773 1,200 1,807 Diet&Weight Reducing Services 429,000 150 2,860 1,223 1,856 3,130 Other Personal Care Services 953,000 175 5,446 703 1,488 4,128 Drycleaning&Laundry Services Coin-Operated Laundries&Drycleaners $ 196,000 $ 60 3,267 1,222 2,024 3,734 Drycleaning&Laundry Services(except coin-op.) 633,000 150 4,220 1,038 1,608 2,731 Other Personal Services Child Day Care Services $ 7,845,000 $100 78,450 3,059 5,050 7,495 Funeral Homes&Funeral Services 2,101,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Photographic Services 16,609,000 275 60,396 990 1,866 2,550 Photographic Studios 1,575,000 275 5,727 990 1,866 2,550 Veteranarian Services 5,892,000 225 26,187 1,346 2,122 2,701 Pet Care 673,000 75 8,973 1,200 Rental and Leasing Formalwear and Costume Rental $ 255,000 $365 699 763 1,046 1,773 Video Tape and Disc Rental 1,652,000 200 8,260 3,740 5,836 7,341 Recreation Bowling Centers $ 1,235,000 $110 11,227 N/A N/A N/A Physical Fitness Facilites 5,895,000 80 73,688 1,433 6,448 32,170 Golf Courses and Country Clubs 4,458,000 N/A 040 Professional Services Offices of Real Estate Agents&Brokers $ 9,049,000 $300 30,163 711 2,092 6,264 Household Goods Repair Home&Garden Equipment&Appliance Repair&Mai $ 553,000 $175 3,160 Reupholstery&Furniture Repair 314,000 155 2,026 600 Footwear and Leather Goods Repair 60,000 155 387 405 648 742 Watch,Clock and Jewelry Repair 75,000 155 484 900 Garment Repair and Alteration Services 194,000 175 1,109 680 1,185 1,488 Automotive Repair and Maintenance General Automotive Repair $10,728,000 $200 53,640 2,400 6,200 10,624 Automotive Exhaust System Repair 149,000 200 745 Automotive Transmission Repair 567,000 200 2,835 Brake,Front End&Wheel Alignment 134,000 200 670 Electrical Repair Shops,Motor Vehicle 60,000 200 300 Paint or Body Repair Shops 6,416,000 200 32,080 Automotive Glass Replacement 1,268,000 200 6,340 Automotive Oil Change&Lubrication Shops 1,105,000 200 5,525 Carwashes 1,373,000 200 6,865 Table E-2(continued) • MONTICELLO SERVICES SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FEET,2015 BY SERVICES CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High Health Care Offices of Physicians Offices of Physicians(except mental health specialists) $57,514,000 $357 161,104 969 1,652 4,008 Offices of Physicians,Mental Health Specialists 524,000 357 1,468 969 1,800 4,008 Offices of Dentists 25,675,000 345 74,420 1,090 1,700 3,970 Offices of Other Health Practitioners Offices of Chiropractors 3,706,000 345 10,742 1,090 1,600 3,970 Offices of Optometrists 1,692,000 415 4,077 1,074 1,620 4,347 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners(except physicians) 1,907,000 345 5,528 1,090 1,800 3,970 Offices of Physical,Occup,&Speech Therapists&Audiologists Speech Therapist&Audiologists 201,000 345 583 1,090 1,600 3,970 Physical&Occupational Therapists 3,196,000 345 9,264 1,090 1,600 3,970 Offices of All Other Health Practitioners Offices of Podiatrists 308,000 357 863 1,090 1,800 3,970 Offices of All Other Misc.Health Practitioners 1,396,000 345 4,046 1,090 1,800 3,970 Outpatient Care Centers Outpatient Mental Health&Substance Abuse Centers $ 2,565,000 $250 10,260 Other Outpatient Care Centers Kidney Dialysis Centers 2,592,000 285 9,095 All Other Outpatient Care Centers 4,955,000 285 17,386 Home Health Care Services 10,985,000 285 38,544 • Source: McComb Group,Ltd. III 1 Table E-2(continued) MONTICELLO SERVICES SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FEET,2020 410 BY SERVICES CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High Personal Care Services Barber Shops $ 48,000 $ 200 240 455 788 1,422 Beauty Shops 8,004,000 190 42,126 900 1,400 3,480 Nail Salons 582,000 110 5,291 773 1,200 1,807 Diet&Weight Reducing Services 518,000 150 3,453 1,223 1,856 3,130 Other Personal Care Services 1,148,000 175 6,560 703 1,488 4,128 Drycleaning&Laundry Services Coin-Operated Laundries&Drycleaners $ 238,000 $ 60 3,967 1,222 2,024 3,734 Drycleaning&Laundry Services(except coin-op.) 761,000 150 5,073 1,038 1,608 2,731 Other Personal Services Child Day Care Services $ 9,446,000 $ 100 94,460 3,059 5,050 7,495 Funeral Homes&Funeral Services 2,529,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Photographic Services 19,999,000 275 72,724 990 1,866 2,550 Photographic Studios 1,898,000 275 6,902 990 1,866 2,550 Veteranarian Services 7,094,000 225 31,529 1,346 2,122 2,701 Pet Care 811,000 75 10,813 1,200 Rental and Leasing Formalwear and Costume Rental $ 307,000 $ 365 841 763 1,046 1,773 Video Tape and Disc Rental 1,988,000 200 9,940 3,740 5,836 7,341 Recreation Bowling Centers $ 1,488,000 $ 110 13,527 N/A N/A N/A Physical Fitness Facilites 7,098,000 80 88,725 1,433 6,448 32,170 • Golf Courses and Country Clubs 5,368,000 N/A 0 Professional Services Offices of Real Estate Agents&Brokers $10,896,000 $ 300 36,320 711 2,092 6,264 Household Goods Repair Home&Garden Equipment&Appliance Repair&Mai $ 665,000 $ 175 3,800 Reupholstery&Furniture Repair 378,000 155 2,439 600 Footwear and Leather Goods Repair 72,000 155 465 405 648 742 Watch,Clock and Jewelry Repair 91,000 155 587 900 Garment Repair and Alteration Services 234,000 175 1,337 680 1,185 1,488 Automotive Repair and Maintenance General Automotive Repair $12,918,000 $ 200 64,590 2,400 6,200 10,624 Automotive Exhaust System Repair 180,000 200 900 Automotive Transmission Repair 684,000 200 3,420 Brake,Front End&Wheel Alignment 162,000 200 810 Electrical Repair Shops,Motor Vehicle 72,000 200 360 Paint or Body Repair Shops 7,725,000 200 38,625 Automotive Glass Replacement 1,527,000 200 7,635 Automotive Oil Change&Lubrication Shops 1,329,000 200 6,645 Carwashes 1,653,000 200 8,265 Table E-2(continued) • MONTICELLO SERVICES SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FEET,2020 BY SERVICES CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High Health Care Offices of Physicians Offices of Physicians(except mental health specialists) $69,249,000 $357 193,975 969 1,652 4,008 Offices of Physicians,Mental Health Specialists 631,000 357 1,768 969 1,800 4,008 Offices of Dentists 30,914,000 345 89,606 1,090 1,700 3,970 Offices of Other Health Practitioners Offices of Chiropractors 4,462,000 345 12,933 1,090 1,600 3,970 Offices of Optometrists 2,038,000 415 4,911 1,074 1,620 4,347 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners(except physicians) 2,296,000 345 6,655 1,090 1,800 3,970 Offices of Physical,Occup,&Speech Therapists&Audiologists Speech Therapist&Audiologists 242,000 345 701 1,090 1,600 3,970 Physical&Occupational Therapists 3,848,000 345 11,154 1,090 1,600 3,970 Offices of All Other Health Practitioners Offices of Podiatrists372,000 357 1,042 1,090 1,800 3,970 • Offices of All Other Misc.Health Practitioners 1,681,000 345 4,872 1,090 1,800 3,970 Outpatient Care Centers Outpatient Mental Health&Substance Abuse Centers $ 3,088,000 $250 12,352 Other Outpatient Care Centers Kidney Dialysis Centers 3,120,000 285 10,947 All Other Outpatient Care Centers 5,966,000 285 20,933 Home Health Care Services 13,226,000 285 46,407 5 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. 410 Table E-2(continued) MONTICELLO • SERVICES SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FEET,2025 BY SERVICES CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High Personal Care Services Barber Shops $ 58,000 $200 290 455 788 1,422 Beauty Shops 9,542,000 190 50,221 900 1,400 3,480 Nail Salons 694,000 110 6,309 773 1,200 1,807 Diet&Weight Reducing Services 616,000 150 4,107 1,223 1,856 3,130 Other Personal Care Services 1,368,000 175 7,817 703 1,488 4,128 Drycleaning&Laundry Services Coin-Operated Laundries&Drycleaners $ 282,000 $ 60 4,700 1,222 2,024 3,734 Drycleaning&Laundry Services(except coin-op.) 908,000 150 6,053 1,038 1,608 2,731 Other Personal Services Child Day Care Services $11,262,000 $100 112,620 3,059 5,050 7,495 Funeral Homes&Funeral Services 3,016,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Photographic Services 23,845,000 275 86,709 990 1,866 2,550 Photographic Studios 2,262,000 275 8,225 990 1,866 2,550 Veteranarian Services 8,459,000 225 37,596 1,346 2,122 2,701 Pet Care 966,000 75 12,880 1,200 Rental and Leasing Fonnalwear and Costume Rental $ 366,000 $365 1,003 763 1,046 1,773 Video Tape and Disc Rental 2,372,000 200 11,860 3,740 5,836 7,341 Recreation Bowling Centers $ 1,774,000 $110 16,127 N/A N/A N/A Physical Fitness Facilites 8,464,000 80 105,800 1,433 6,448 32,170 • Golf Courses and Country Clubs 6,401,000 N/A 0 Professional Services Offices of Real Estate Agents&Brokers $12,992,000 $300 43,307 711 2,092 6,264 Household Goods Repair Home&Garden Equipment&Appliance Repair&Mai $ 793,000 $175 4,531 Reupholstery&Furniture Repair 451,000 155 2,910 600 Footwear and Leather Goods Repair 86,000 155 555 405 648 742 Watch,Clock and Jewelry Repair 107,000 155 690 900 Garment Repair and Alteration Services 279,000 175 1,594 680 1,185 1,488 Automotive Repair and Maintenance General Automotive Repair $15,401,000 $200 77,005 2,400 6,200 10,624 Automotive Exhaust System Repair 214,000 200 1,070 Automotive Transmission Repair 814,000 200 4,070 Brake,Front End&Wheel Alignment 193,000 200 965 Electrical Repair Shops,Motor Vehicle 86,000 200 430 Paint or Body Repair Shops 9,211,000 200 46,055 Automotive Glass Replacement 1,821,000 200 9,105 Automotive Oil Change&Lubrication Shops 1,586,000 200 7,930 Carwashes 1,971,000 200 9,855 110 Table E-2(continued) 0 MONTICELLO SERVICES SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FEET,2025 BY SERVICES CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High Health Care Offices of Physicians Offices of Physicians(except mental health specialists) $82,568,000 $357 231,283 969 1,652 4,008 Offices of Physicians,Mental Health Specialists 752,000 357 2,106 969 1,800 4,008 Offices of Dentists 36,860,000 345 106,841 1,090 1,700 3,970 Offices of Other Health Practitioners Offices of Chiropractors 5,321,000 345 15,423 1,090 1,600 3,970 Offices of Optometrists 2,429,000 415 5,853 1,074 1,620 4,347 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners(except physicians) 2,738,000 345 7,936 1,090 1,800 3,970 Offices of Physical,Occup,&Speech Therapists&Audiologists Speech Therapist&Audiologists 289,000 345 838 1,090 1,600 3,970 Physical&Occupational Therapists 4,588,000 345 13,299 1,090 1,600 3,970 Offices of All Other Health Practitioners Offices of Podiatrists 444,000 357 1,244 1,090 1,800 3,970 Offices of All Other Misc.Health Practitioners 2,005,000 345 5,812 1,090 1,800 3,970 Outpatient Care Centers Outpatient Mental Health&Substance Abuse Centers $ 3,682,000 $250 14,728 Other Outpatient Care Centers Kidney Dialysis Centers 3,721,000 285 13,056 All Other Outpatient Care Centers 7,114,000 285 24,961 Home Health Care Services 15,769,000 285 55,330 410 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. 0 Table E-2(continued) MONTICELLO SERVICES SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FEET,2030 4111 BY SERVICES CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High Personal Care Services Barber Shops $ 69,000 $200 345 455 788 1,422 Beauty Shops 11,322,000 190 59,589 900 1,400 3,480 Nail Salons 824,000 110 7,491 773 1,200 1,807 Diet&Weight Reducing Services 732,000 150 4,880 1,223 1,856 3,130 Other Personal Care Services 1,625,000 175 9,286 703 1,488 4,128 Drycleaning&Laundry Services Coin-Operated Laundries&Drycleaners $ 335,000 $ 60 5,583 1,222 2,024 3,734 Drycleaning&Laundry Services(except coin-op.) 1,078,000 150 7,187 1,038 1,608 2,731 Other Personal Services Child Day Care Services $13,364,000 $100 133,640 3,059 5,050 7,495 Funeral Homes&Funeral Services 3,579,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Photographic Services 28,292,000 275 102,880 990 1,866 2,550 Photographic Studios 2,684,000 275 9,760 990 1,866 2,550 Veteranarian Services 10,036,000 225 44,604 1,346 2,122 2,701 Pet Care 1,146,000 75 15,280 1,200 Rental and Leasing Formalwear and Costume Rental $ 434,000 $365 1,189 763 1,046 1,773 Video Tape and Disc Rental 2,813,000 200 14,065 3,740 5,836 7,341 Recreation Bowling Centers $ 2,105,000 $110 19,136 N/A N/A N/A Physical Fitness Facilites 10,041,000 80 125,513 1,433 6,448 32,170 Golf Courses and Country Clubs 7,594,000 N/A 0II Professional Services Offices of Real Estate Agents&Brokers $15,414,000 $300 51,380 711 2,092 6,264 Household Goods Repair Home&Garden Equipment&Appliance Repair&Mai $ 941,000 $175 5,377 Reupholstery&Furniture Repair 534,000 155 3,445 600 Footwear and Leather Goods Repair 102,000 155 658 405 648 742 Watch,Clock and Jewelry Repair 127,000 155 819 900 Garment Repair and Alteration Services 331,000 175 1,891 680 1,185 1,488 Automotive Repair and Maintenance General Automotive Repair $18,274,000 $200 91,370 2,400 6,200 10,624 Automotive Exhaust System Repair 254,000 200 1,270 Automotive Transmission Repair 966,000 200 4,830 Brake,Front End&Wheel Alignment 229,000 200 1,145 Electrical Repair Shops,Motor Vehicle 102,000 200 510 Paint or Body Repair Shops 10,928,000 200 54,640 Automotive Glass Replacement 2,160,000 200 10,800 Automotive Oil Change&Lubrication Shops 1,881,000 200 9,405 Carwashes 2,339,000 200 11,695 Table E-2(continued) • MONTICELLO SERVICES SALES POTENTIAL AND SUPPORTABLE SQUARE FEET,2030 BY SERVICES CATEGORY Estimated Sales Sales Supportable Store Size Category Potential Per Sq.Ft. Square Feet Low Median High Health Care Offices of Physicians Offices of Physicians(except mental health specialists) $97,967,000 $357 274,417 969 1,652 4,008 Offices of Physicians,Mental Health Specialists 892,000 357 2,499 969 1,800 4,008 Offices of Dentists 43,734,000 345 126,765 1,090 1,700 3,970 Offices of Other Health Practitioners Offices of Chiropractors 6,313,000 345 18,299 1,090 1,600 3,970 Offices of Optometrists 2,882,000 415 6,945 1,074 1,620 4,347 Offices of Mental Health Practitioners(except physicians) 3,248,000 345 9,414 1,090 1,800 3,970 Offices of Physical,Occup,&Speech Therapists&Audiologists Speech Therapist&Audiologists 344,000 345 997 1,090 1,600 3,970 Physical&Occupational Therapists 5,444,000 345 15,780 1,090 1,600 3,970 Offices of All Other Health Practitioners Offices of Podiatrists 526,000 357 1,473 1,090 1,800 3,970 Offices of All Other Misc.Health Practitioners 2,379,000 345 6,896 1,090 1,800 3,970 Outpatient Care Centers Outpatient Mental Health&Substance Abuse Centers $ 4,368,000 $250 17,472 Other Outpatient Care Centers Kidney Dialysis Centers 4,415,000 285 15,491 All Other Outpatient Care Centers 8,440,000 285 29,614 Home Health Care Services 18,711,000 285 65,653 1111 Source: McComb Group,Ltd. 1110 • DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO OFFICE MARKET AND MULTI-FAMILY • Prepared for City of Monticello October 2011 MCCOMB GROL1'L td. ❑�ENE REAL EsTATU A NI) � R I[ T A I I. CONSULTANTS • DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO OFFICE MARKET AND MULTI-FAMILY S Prepared for City of Monticello Prepared by McComb Group, Ltd. October 2011 • ©Copyright 2011 McComb Group, Ltd. TABLE OF CONTENTS • Chapter Subject Page INTRODUCTION ii Report Purpose ii 1 MONTICELLO OFFICE MARKET 1-1 Office Development 1-2 Vacancy 1-3 Employment 1-4 Rental Rates 1-4 Summary 1-4 2 MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING 2-1 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page • 1-1 Monticello Office Buildings 1-2 1-2 Monticello Commercial Office Space 1-2 1-3 Monticello Office Market 1-3 1-4 Monticello Office Inclined Employment Categories 1-3 2-1 Downtown Monticello Apartments 2-2 LIST OF MAPS Map Title Page 1-1 Monticello Office and Medical Buildings 1-1 2-1 Downtown Monticello Rental Housing 2-1 i • INTRODUCTION This report was prepared for the City of Monticello by McComb Group, Ltd. and its subcontractor Economic Development Services, Inc. This report contains the downtown office market research and multi-family findings. Work tasks conducted during this engagement are summarized below. • Existing office buildings in downtown Monticello were identified and surveyed to determine rentable area, occupied space, vacant space, rental rates, operating expenses, and property taxes. Historic office absorption in downtown Monticello was determined by type of office space. • Brokers active in downtown Monticello were interviewed to determine their impressions on demand for retail and office space in downtown, the types of tenants seeking space, and the type of space they are looking for, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of downtown compared to other competitive office areas. • Office buildings that are competitive with downtown Monticello were identified and surveyed. Information gathered includes rentable area, net or gross rent, expenses, and property taxes. • Historic office absorption in downtown and other parts of Monticello was quantified and • downtown's market share determined. • Business and employment categories typically associated with commercial office space for the City of Monticello area were identified and evaluated to determine the historic growth of office-type employment categories. Monticello's share of office-type employment was correlated with historic office absorption. • Future demand in downtown Monticello for office space and square feet of annual absorption was estimated. • The appropriate role and location of housing in downtown Monticello was evaluated. Report Purpose This report was prepared in accordance with our contract dated September 10, 2010. This report was prepared with the understanding that the results of our work will be used by the client to determine market demand for additional development in downtown Monticello. Our report was prepared for that purpose and is subject to the following qualifications: • Our analysis did not ascertain the legal and regulatory requirements applicable to this project including zoning, other state, and local government regulations, permits, and licenses. No effort was made to determine the possible effect on the proposed project • ii of present or future federal, state, or local legislation, or any environmental or • ecological matters. • Our report and analysis was based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed from research of the market, knowledge of the industry and discussions with the client. Some assumptions inevitably will not materialize and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur; therefore, actual results achieved will vary from the analysis. • Our analysis did not evaluate management's effectiveness nor are we responsible for future marketing efforts and other management actions upon which actual results are dependent. Our report is intended solely for the purpose described above and should not be used for any other purpose without our prior written permission. Permission for other use of the report will be granted only upon meeting company standards for the proposed use. • • iii • Chapter 1 MONTICELLO OFFICE MARKET Monticello commercial office buildings are generally located in downtown or south of I-94. Office building names and locations are shown on Map 1-1; and date constructed, size, and vacancy are contained in Table 1-1. Map 1-1 MONTICELLO OFFICE AND MEDICAL BUILDINGS ss $y •Mee Buildings 0 01 02 0.3 0a /N'. Scan 0.38 rules - K"ay poo(Roadway W r tures Building St f 7� --- ]Broacway Partners] / > Cedarnew Office States] ]Walnut Ptazal--• '/l __I41EetoadY / • Caonral coup -... 441Praute Protesstenal Centre] ® • S Cedar Court Offices\ ]Law Office]• \Ryvs New_ew ,o Rorer Protessnal BurWrng] Central Mrnnescta Mental Health Center Nit Cy • a4 \ • ;r 12°6 Chelsea Road] 11 !Fallon Avenue Crace Bud:mg] \\ \� l Ountlas Rd W ]Premier Bark Euddngl o` • 1 _ ]Pralne Edge Professrneal Center] • --.- l Proressidnai Business Park] i -' ®Copyright 2011 McComb Group,Ltd. 10/25/11 Downtown contains over 70,000 square feet or about 60 percent of Monticello's total office space of 114,200 square feet. Most of the downtown office space was constructed prior to 1980. More recently, office development has shifted to locations south of 1-94. Office development between 1999 and 2009 totaled 50,381 square feet: 43,781 square feet south of I-94 and 6,600 square feet downtown. Office buildings in Monticello tend to be small, less than 10,000 square feet. Only three buildings are larger than 10,000 square feet. Medical office space is concentrated in the East Broadway area and totals about 106,000 square feet. • 1-1 Table 1-1 MONTICELLO OFFICE BUILDINGS • Year Building Vacant Name Built Sq.Ft. Sq.Ft. %Vacant DOWNTOWN 200 Broadway W 1886 3,900 800 20.5 % 141 Broadway E 1936 6,100 3,000 49.2 Cedarview Office Suites 1953 4,800 2,000 41.7 Walnut Plaza 1960 6,820 1,900 27.9 Colonial Court 1961 5,884 110 1.9 TDS 1967 12,000 E - - Times Building 1973 3,721 3,721 100.0 Cedar Court Offices 1978 5,600 E 1,400 25.0 Broadway Partners 1983 6,900 - - Prairie Professional Centre 2004 6,600 1,000 15.2 Law Office NA 8,096 - - Subtotal 70,421 13,931 19.8 % SOUTH 206 Chelsea Road 1999 6,000 1,800 30.0 % Premier Bank Building 2005 10,281 6,880 66.9 Fallon Avenue Office Building 2005 20,000 6,229 31.1 Prairie Edge Professional Center 2006 1,100 Professional Business Park 2009 6,400 1,400 21.9 Subtotal 43,781 16,309 37.3 % EAST AREA Central Minnesota Mental Health Center 1969 14,136 New River Professional Building 1983 36,400 Monticello Clinic 2006 55,400 Subtotal 105,936 III Source:Wright County,CityoMonticello,Internet Research and MNCAR. Office Development Monticello has 114,200 square feet of commercial office space, as shown in Table 1-2. During the period 1950 to 1989, office development was concentrated in downtown. The largest amount of office space, 24,704 square feet,was developed in the 60's. By the turn-of-the-century, office development had shifted to south of I-94. Of the 50,381 square feet of space developed between 1999 and 2009, 86 percent was located south of I-94. During this period, office development averaged about 4,500 square feet per year. Table 1-2 M ONTICELLO COMM ERCIAL OFFICE SPACE (Square Feet) Downtown South Total Prior to 1950 10,000 10,000 1950-1959 4,800 4,800 1960-1969 24,704 24,704 1970-1979 9,321 9,321 1980-1989 6,900 6,900 1990-1999 6,000 6,000 2000-2009 6,600 37,781 44,381 Unknown 8,096 8,096 70,421 43,781 114,202 III Source:Wright County,CityofMontjcelto,jntemet Research and MNCAR. 1-2 • Vacancy Vacant space was identified in eight downtown buildings and four of the five buildings south of I-94. Downtown vacant space was about 13,900 square feet or 19.8 percent. Vacant office space south of I-94 was 16,309 square feet or 37.3 percent. Vacant commercial office space in Monticello totals about 30,200 square feet. Taking this vacancy into consideration, Monticello absorbed an average of 3,000 square feet of office space in the 11-year period 1999 to 2009. Assuming a normal vacancy rate of 10 percent (11,400 square feet) leaves excess vacancy of 18,800 square feet. With annual absorption of about 3,000 square feet, Monticello has about a six-year supply of vacant space. Much of the office space, however, is in small buildings of B and C quality and may not meet the needs of future office tenants. Table 1-3 MONTICELLO OFFICE MARKET (Square Feet) Category Downtown South Total Total Space 70,421 43,781 114,202 Occupied Space 56,490 27,472 83,962 Vacant Space 13,931 16,309 30,240 Vacancy Rate 19.8 % 37.3 % 26.5 % Development 1999-2009 6,000 43,781 49,781 Indicated Absorption 5,000 27,472 32,472 Annual Absorption 454 2,497 2,951 • Source: McComb Group,Ltd. Employment Office inclined employment categories for Monticello are contained in Table1-4 for 2000 to 2009, the latest year available. Employment in professional and technical services and management of companies and enterprises was only reported in 2009. Without the 176 reported for these categories, 2009 employment, consistent with the previous years,was 989 resulting in a generally declining trend since 2000. Communities with expanding office market generally have growing employment in office inclined employment. Table 1-4 • MONTICELLO OFFICE INCLINED EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES 2000 TO 2009 Industry 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Information 90 90 86 78 95 59 30 82 75 71 Financial Activities 163 168 186 191 177 182 188 186 190 177 Finance and Insurance 121 127 145 145 128 134 134 132 157 149 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 42 41 41 46 50 48 53 53 32 27 Professional and Business Services 778 545 523 513 473 470 485 513 393 371 Professional and Technical Services 97 Management of Companies and Enterprises 79 Administrative and Waste Services 395 382 365 354 292 309 327 344 216 194 Total 1,589 1,353 1,346 1,327 1,215 1,202 1,217 1,310 1,063 1,165 Source:Minnesota Department o f Employment and Economic Development. • 1-3 Rental Rates Asking net rents for office space in downtown Monticello range from$6.00 to$15.00 per square • foot with considerable weakness at the upper end of the price range due to the weak economy. The high level of vacancy makes it difficult to maintain net rent. Combined common area maintenance (CAM) and property taxes range from $3.00 to $3.75 per square foot. Two office buildings south of I-94 were asking $12.00 per square foot net. CAM and taxes are about $6.00 reflecting newer buildings. Summary Annual office absorption of about 3,000 square feet per year is not sufficient to support much office space development. This is why most of Monticello's buildings are less than 10,000 square feet. Recent trends in office inclined employment have been declining, which is consistent with office vacancy rates and pressure on net rent rates. The typical demand creators for office space are new business and/or existing business that are expanding and need more space. Implementation of redevelopment in downtown Monticello will require relocation of office tenants which will need new office. It would be good to retain these firms in downtown. Monticello should seek to attract new businesses that will need office space to fill existing vacancy and create demand for new office buildings. Since new buildings require higher rents to cover development costs, this could result in increased market rents and increased returns to building owners. • 411 1-4 0 Chapter 2 MULTI FAMILY HOUSING The downtown Monticello study area contains 17 apartment buildings with 393 units, as shown on Map 2-1. The study area was divided into two segments,north, and south of 4th Street. Map 2-1 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO RENTAL HOUSING 4r (River Part View] Jc 11 -)Z-- j ae_-. IFI eroadwa y Squa:el ...,. Landmark Square illii ....__ E - -e_I-- x 4- >-�+rhsr �'e _._.-ICcmerstonel •- l I Smnh&Assoc) _ � a pr?.. d Wim, r f k'Srhs (Ri^cew ad Pose- • ' tii, ,w • y y 3r d IR;dgema-.t I Terrace Su' • h k I N'onlictl'.o Maned t .i` C. c' h •� I HYtude ll l` l ` r.. EN Sr a o Multi Family Housing •i 3 13 0 Study Area 1 3 Terrace Vie-u _ o 005 0.1 0.15 02 �� / l2F ith scale:1'.0.la miles - __-� Maw- C v: ©Copyright 2011 McComb Group,Ltd 10/2C/11 Seven multi-family buildings in the north segment contain 108 units, as shown in Table 2-1. Three of the buildings (Broadway Square, Park Place, and Landmark Square) are of recent vintage and contain 47 units. The other units are older, many located above ground floor retail. These older buildings located along Broadway may be replaced by future redevelopment. Landmark Square,a recent retail/residential mixed-use building, is expected to remain. Multi-family buildings in the south segment are generally separated from the downtown commercial area and are located in/or adjacent to residential areas. This area has ten buildings with 285 units in buildings that range in size from 12 to 48 units. These buildings are not likely • to be affected by future downtown redevelopment. 2-1 Table 2-1 • DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO APARTMENTS Name Address Units North Study Area Broadway Square 249 Broadway W 28 Cornerstone 154 Broadway W 3 Hammer 154 Broadway E 15 Landmark Square 254 Broadway W 11 Park Place 11 Walnut St 8 River Park View 218 River St W 31 Smith&Assoc 200 Broadway W 12 Subtotal 108 South Study Area Cedar Crest 406 Cedar St 36 Hillside I 207 7th St E 24 Hillside II 301 7th St E 24 Marywood 407 7th St E 24 Monticello Manor 306 6th St W 12 Ridgemont 716 Maple St 48 Ridgeway 330 6th St W 44 Silver Crest 307 7th St E 35 Terrace Six 318 6th St W 12 II/ Terrace View 401 7th ST E 26 Subtotal 285 Total 393 Source: City of Monticello. In the future, multi-family housing in downtown as a single building use is unlikely. Mixed use residential above either offices or retail stores may be possible. At the current time, mixed use buildings are not economically viable. In the future, if mixed-use becomes economically viable, these buildings could be considered. Building location and design will need to incorporate the characteristics that lead to successful residential development. • 2-2 0 FINAL REPORT Embracing Downtown Monticello Monticello CCD Revitalization City of Monticello, Minnesota 0 Appendix B Design Guidelines • DRAFT FINAL REPORT Embracing Downtown Monticello Monticello CCD Redevelopment City of Monticello, Minnesota 0 Appendix B Design Guidelines 40 • EMBRACING DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO DESIGN GUIDELINES November 4, 2011 • zn -t ami , 0 "°' ' r �_ =,rs'maa/®I_nork4 I 1:.,-I ..� s • • • 0 FRAMEWORK FOR DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT The Preferred development plan selected for the CCD Redevelopment shows specific uses and parking relationships that may, or may not accurately depict how opportunities are captured over time within the CCD. However, what is specific about the preferred alternative is the general organization of uses, and the location of types of uses within the CCD. The Redevelopment Framework Plan, depicted below, illustrates the recommended use districts consistent with the preferred plan for the CCD. Proposed use areas, or districts, in the Framework Plan are based on access, location within the CCD, and surrounding land use relationships. The Framework Plan represents the flexibility needed to capture all potential development and redevelopment opportunities for the CCD. As opportunities present themselves and are evaluated, locations for uses should fit the purpose and capabilities of the districts illustrated in the Framework Plan. The use districts are defined in greater detail as part of the proposed Design Guidelines for the CCD. _/'\� �� Pubic? L, Futiic ; - r P`L'` ratkin3' '.. i w r- ,r,„,., u ,,1i f". W N v ti N 0 e, N 1.' • } d 1 Ccnvenience: T,,,,EAOADWAY STREET ' - ...'-,'441 I i w E .7, r- Shcppirg co th'v G c Utn u j i �J PUbiIC =Irl STREET Parking ( IIJI r I V .. LI Car-::'., 1111 (Public Oil o{PuWic =( 6TH STREET Cr. c ,-- nill±� r.,bGc _ WALNUT SNS1REEt STREET 0 0 E. f'etJd Er sLnq Rr.'J= ----0 Y' 1 1.94 DOWNTOWN FRAMEWORK PLAN STRUCTURE FOR DESIGN GUIDELINES • The Design Guidelines are intended to correspond to the limits of the CCD Zoning District, and to establish development controls within the CCD. With the recent modifications to the Monticello Zoning Code, the development standards for the CCD District were revised to refer to the CCD Design Guidelines as the controlling legislation for land use, site development standards, and building design standards. The proposed CCD Design Guidelines have been structured to provide these controls while maintaining the flexibility that will be important to allow response to a wide variety of development and redevelopment opportunities as they present themselves. A key feature of the Design Guidelines is the attempt to draft them so that while they remain somewhat flexible, they also provide enough certainty so that prospective owners and developers can evaluate how they relate to site and building design and the cost implications of conforming to the standards outlined by the Guidelines. The most basic purpose of the Design Guidelines is to establish direction and controls for land use within the CCD. The Framework Plan is the basis for the definition of uses and relationships that have been determined to be desirable to achieve the desired results for the redevelopment of the downtown. Use areas or districts for the CCD are established and described in the Design Guidelines as either Landmark Areas, or Flex Areas. The establishment of these districts, and their location in the CCD, is illustrated in the Design Guideline Zones map on the next page. The Landmark Areas represent locations that have individual, single purpose from a land use perspective. The Flex Areas present a greater range of land use options, and represent the most flexible • portions of the CCD. Transitional areas that provide use buffers to adjacent, established residential neighborhoods are included as one of the Flex Area land use types. Eight Landmark Areas have been defined in the Design Guidelines as specific use recommendations that are consistent with the redevelopment plan: • L-1: Public parking ramp to the west of Westbridge Park • L-2: River-oriented shopping in the northwest quadrant of Broadway and TH-25 • L-3: The Cargill properties • L-4: The Community Center • L-5: The Riverfront Park (Westbridge and Eastbridge Parks) • L-6: Future Open Space (current liquor store site) • L-7: Permanent Public Open Space (cemetery) • L-8: Freeway retail (blocks 1,2, and 3 adjacent to 1-94) Each of these use areas has its own distinct set of requirements related to the development objectives for the specific use zone. In contrast to the Landmark Areas, Flex Areas have also been established that define areas within the CCD District that require land use flexibility to encourage the success of downtown. Three types of Flex Areas have been defined and incorporated into the Design Guidelines: • • • F-1: Shopping Area west of Highway 25 • F-2 : Convenience and Service Area east of Highway 25 • F-3: Transition zones The primary distinction in the Flex Areas is to encourage retail uses west of Highway 25 and to encourage service commercial, office, and clinic uses to the east of Highway 25. This land use arrangement is recommended in order to emphasize Walnut Street as the primary pedestrian zone and north-south connector through the CD, and to limit the need for pedestrian interaction across TH-25. The transition zones are established with uses that will help buffer commercial activity in the CCD District from adjacent residential neighborhoods to the east of Palm Street, and to the west of Maple and Linn Streets. ° � II F-3 7 a ©.1i4<J ;:t4:!:. F 3 F-3 yrt j ,---i II 1 771 ro (i) III _,. - P` i F3 E i a .F3 1 n 1.3 Li s _72" j F-3 - __ r• L-4 LFF2 t EICII o , y - PUBLIC -c. �.L F3 b����:eiffili t-. OS.L-7 O L'b 3 LurWmark Areat' Cnr.dat LI Pelee Pul:ng Ramp 1 Rrnaewry SUeet LZ Ri"ee Oriente)Shopping 2 Wahrut Stree[ L-3 Carg➢15:e 3 H3' '),25/Pine Street 1-4 COnente ity Center Ste l3 Rivrrfront Park 16 Future Pleb:01.15pt L-7 Permanent Public Open Space l Freeway Retnl 4-4 Zoning StandarJC: Flex Areas: F-1 Shopping f nuwert of Hwy 25 F.2 CaavtNeeceend Services DESIGN GUIDELINE ZONES 411 F.l Trantition DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO FRAMEWORK PLAN • The sub-districts of the downtown plan include areas of Flex Zones and Landmark Zones. Flex Zones are areas that need more flexibility for accommodating market driven factors such as vehicular access, visibility and service. Landmark Zones are key areas that will require more specific criteria for performance due to site forces, amenities, or a higher level of pedestrian experience. FLEX ZONES F-1 SHOPPING AREA WEST OF HWY 25: Area designated for downtown places to shop, work, and entertain that take advantage of the visibility, access and traffic from Hwy 25 and /or Broadway. Anchor type tenants such as department stores, hotels, general merchandise stores, financial institutions, theatres, office and restaurants are encouraged. -e,! - .yet ay{> "�,(�kiaT�'' / ,5 � �Irk,".:44� `' sit {5 Y. 0 11,1."-„r 1 (f r` } 4 • *, moi °` ..4':-.4.f..4-,,,,,. '- wm,,�. ""�."` e, I' k e --j- 1.3::" r,n :::?.',.i,-^.lam �.! 4 , >s 1:,r.;?" F-2 CONVENIENCE/ SERVICES: Area fronting on Hwy 25 designated for uses that take advantage of the convenient access and visibility from Hwy 25. Uses that are more automobile oriented such as drive- thrus and quick sales are envisioned in these areas. Areas with less visibility from Hwy 25 and/or Broadway provide a good location for business and professional services. '_., . . s t�' a3L4: i _r 1' • • F-3 TRANSITIONS: Areas that are less intensive in nature such as office, service, higher density housing, and medical that create an appropriate buffer to existing single family neighborhoods are encouraged in these areas r '" n r ■ i[r its, *` s, • r ,re s • ,,.s-,C A• .C' .`. �r± - .moi _ .wi'it , s'. i:;say" .•.i ,:�: Ala LANDMARK ZONES L-1 PUBLIC PARKING RAMP: Site areas designated to provide public parking stalls to meet high parking demands due to events or existing shortages. Parking ramps should follow the architectural and streetscape guidelines. Structures should be placed close to • the Walnut Street Corridor and provide a pleasant pedestrian atmosphere at the street level :4' { L-2 RIVER ORIENTED SHOPPING: Area fronting on Hwy 25 and Broadway Street designated for uses that take advantage of the river and park amenities. Small shop tenants such as restaurants, boutique specialty shopping, hospitality, tourism, recreation and outdoor-oriented tenants that gather the community are encouraged. ,"'" • Z Aft `a L-3 CARGILL SITE: • Critical site in completing the urban pedestrian corridor along Walnut Street. Streetscape elements and architectural design should follow the architectural guidelines for Downtown. Parking demand is high in this vicinity and needs to be addressed during development. e 1 I i' I • y L-4 COMMUNITY CENTER SITE: Civic sites that are owned by the city. The Community Center sets the tone for high architectural quality, materials and streetscape. The proximity of the municipal liquor store and Fiber-Net sites to Hwy 25 and Walnut Street offers opportunities for visual cues such as public monuments, entry signage, pathways and way-finding signage. The community Center provides an anchor to the south 111 end of the Downtown district. z U,yf ; • L-5, L-6, L-7 PUBLIC SPACES: The river front park to the north and cemetery open space to the south provide gateway opportunities that help define the Downtown area. Welcome to Downtown Monticello monuments or public sculptures and other amenities are encouraged for these areas. The southern public spaces offer opportunities for a visual connection to the Community Center- a high demand area for indoor gatherings. The northern park offers opportunities for recreation such as river boating, skating, sliding, picnics, amphitheatre, events, swan related activities, farmers markets and outdoor public gatherings. Active programming of the riverfront as outdoor space can complement active programming of the indoor civic center space. z{4- -i .9� `/a'4�;� Fly`6}y.�t'' .h. .,, Ir 'i^ •5; 7.{, r4 t- ��y .1.-1,-, #4 SPd ut.j :.. "itis..: f �-.-.-fir.r, .-gh'... ro .� : ,1, r. e -'' �� t-'s�., .w P..,, ¢. .h ar ' , , Grp Ca'+..a- 1111 _.,..„. , ..„....... ,,_ ..„,..,,,s,,, ,. . .. , „ ,, , . ,,,,„. , 4, „ s II L-8 FREEWAY RETAIL: Key anchor to the south of Downtown district. Freeway oriented shopping drives regional traffic to the area. Convenient and safe pedestrian and vehicular connections through Walnut Street is critical. Design guidelines should remain in the B-4 zoning criteria. et' ., Ji .' e r o k ..A'''',' ' t .YI Dy.: CORRIDORS • 1 BROADWAY STREET: Area for redevelopment and reorientation of storefronts to have both front and back exposure to the street and parking field. Broadway sidewalks need special attention to streetscape enhancements in order to temper the high volume of traffic and to accommodate pedestrian and outdoor seating areas. ' 1 — il ii' l'r'; 1 '-•Ni'' IT ,,; . 2 WALNUT STREET: Area to accommodate both vehicular traffic as well as the major north-south pedestrian corridor from the river to the shopping center north of Hwy 94. This pedestrian corridor is to provide the alternative walking experience to Hwy 25. Storefronts should face the street and provide a human scale atmosphere with sidewalks of an appropriate depth in order to provide ample streetscaping and IIII amenities. 7(7 ,ate<n rr4. t. f;:,rt •'...,' 1- IO' _ ,dS@ : ,...34. t . 3 HIGHWAY 25: Area intended to capitalize on the intensity of traffic, yet make an immediate positive impression of Downtown Monticello. Structures are located away from the corridor to provide enough room for significant berming and landscaping. Bicycle trails and vehicular movement is the dominant activity. Gateway features such as monuments, sculptures, or public kiosks to welcome residents, commuters, and travelers to the Downtown at both the river crossing and the south end. }} li‘4" tet r II . , tttt .e . y t. • DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO DESIGN GUIDELINES The purpose of these standards is to define the character of new development and redevelopment within the various districts of downtown. It is intended to help create new development patterns that are consistent with the vision and recommendation of the City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The guidelines apply to all zones and sub-zones within the CCD as described in the Framework Plan. These guidelines have been written to define specific standards necessary towards the creation of a mixed-use, pedestrian oriented development. They have been intentionally designed to allow enough flexibility for creative building solutions, while being prescriptive in areas necessary to complete the downtown vision. Where the guidelines are less restrictive than the city code, or where no standard has been provided,the city code will prevail. While many of the historic buildings in the downtown no longer exist, visual cues can be taken as to proportion, character and rooflines. 11110 , 1;iii7*‘'.'" ;', wt's;,-,it1..t I" .!; iii ``a .1: =Fk IS- ':7- � .rte 1' s1 ' -' 2_tis 3:: W_. --4'- -.'..,.4r.F-4.y[N sl--: i Historic images of Downtown Monticello 0 BUILDING ORIENTATION • F-1 SHOPPING AREA WEST OF HWY 25: - Site planning concept: Multiple buildings with an emphasis on pedestrian connections through the site and in front of storefronts. - The orientation and placement of buildings should take advantage of available view sheds from Hwy 25 - Anchor tenants shall be encouraged on the west side of the site with good visibility from Hwy 25 - Fronts of buildings should orient toward major roadways where feasible and have a direct relation to parking - Service areas should be oriented to the rear of buildings - Buildings should be located adjacent to Broadway where feasible - Corner site at intersection of Hwy 25 and Broadway should incorporate groupings of small buildings near the roadways with site amenities such as plazas or open space to allow for traffic visibility 0 MIDI-- i ' — C Q i 0 :0 E. „_. __.0 i. , IIII 1 NN K� o--i11 , _ it 0_ ,:. ao ., 1 O a — , 1 , , ,1Ms L-2 RIVER ORIENTED SHOPPING: - Buildings should have a direct relationship to the intersection of Hwy 25 and Broadway as well as the river - Outdoor dining patios and exterior access shall be encouraged facing the River - Visibility from the intersection of Broadway and Hwy 25 to the storefronts is encouraged fr--C,f ) ; - 0 ::i a . \ C 1 - ? II/ „,, ,,__, , „__ ... ,,,..,_ + _ -il ( .._ innl rt 6 • F-2 CONVENIENCE/SERVICES: - Buildings shall take advantage of visibility to Hwy 25 by fronting the highway - Drive thru and service activity shall not dominate the Hwy 25 visibility - Cross parking and access shall be encouraged between site developments ( '' IntCo np,e, :.;?: i - II-1 1 TO '-2L.) 1 1r l �f u .' l ,fi4® • � 3 ii i Sl 1 , F-3 TRANSITIONS: - Buildings shall orient toward major thoroughfares and have less activity behind commercial buildings to buffer residential - Service areas, and drive-thrus shall be buffered from residential or shall be oriented to the sides of buildings away from residential - Parks, ponds, and heavy vegetation are appropriate uses - Residential buildings should orient north and south with ends buffering to commercial --== 1 li l'El :3 E JSj_' —1 L� �,,rte e ] - a I r =I) = J. 1 III D BUILDING DESIGN • - Building mass shall have a variety of scale that compliment the heights of anchor tenants and have a two-story appearance through the use of upper windows or taller tower features - Storefront glass shall dominate the pedestrian oriented facades - Varying rooflines shall be encouraged for skyline interest from highways - Large areas of blank wall surface facing street frontages must be interrupted a minimum of 40' for large scale buildings and 20' for small scale buildings with undulations or design features such as pilasters, change in material, streetscape elements such as light fixtures, planter beds or other architectural details - Building character shall be urban in nature with visual cues from Cargill "white house", Community Center contemporary, traditional details from Historic Monticello Broadway Street buildings - A variety of storefront designs are encouraged in order to enhance the pedestrian experience - Individual buildings should take on unique detailing to be distinct from other neighboring buildings - Masonry detailing such as soldier coursing, or patterning shall be encouraged - Thematic brand identifications are limited to front entries or signage only - Dual front buildings, corner buildings, and facades that are visible from • R.O.W.s should have the same high level of architecture as the main entry facades - The use of cornices, decorative light fixtures, and other architectural details are encouraged - Colorful and unique canopies, rooflines and accent details are encouraged eikh. I I _ ..' Tr 1-1-142E ATMO:AZ-1 /I" d Z o .,20' I 2 0' I• 20' I, I 20' fi1,1, so' Small tenant proportions 1,200 SF-5,999 SF i_f I SF, UPJ I i �,�-.. � - �_�-� L y `� . .•--t- y;��,-- � -'-:.� ;tom, � - 40 Ao' I 4o' I 4o' 4. I 4' Large tenant proportions 6,000 SF-100,000 SF • • _ \ kk".:\\i Community Center „v ,r,� r„ ....'...'• -- , --,r$ :vs. C 'ti . +rte' ,.1 ✓r `:,'::1":4.;ts. 4K: .j •IIICargill "White House" � , ( 1 _ ; roil_ , ' l iter, -,�f Li <� El I Historic Downtown ----' t ;,--.',,;:.?...ti:'''''' 'Al--t -;I:,:•;-1..rt'. 1.:!.. ..•:-..1.7!.17-7,Ti.:-..,---:....i,'''''.-..-,...‘,...J•tilr4„ . „ ,,,:-,-,,,'---x---____TT-'1'--.:-..•:.1..tt r 4,1.1-1'71 ...)-'''' kt.4,,,,,,,, l',.t `c!- r + � i�.lE :f�i'”} 5 i, ;, ... --A;,...,.„.S 4,tom* ,f jj j.,,, III • BUILDING MATERIALS • - Materials shall be selected for suitability to the type of buildings and the design in which they are used. - Facades should be finished in aesthetically acceptable tones and colors that compliment and do not compete with neighboring buildings - Materials shall be of a durable quality - Exterior wall treatments such as brick, natural stone, decorative concrete block, stucco and or architectural metal panels are encouraged - All wood treatment shall be painted or stained for weatherproofing - A minimum of 25% of the facades shall be treated with finished masonry building material or glass - Secondary materials such as decorative concrete block, precast panels, EIFS, or standing seam metal shall be allowed on the remaining 75% - Transparent glass shall be used at the majority of street level windows. Spandrel glass is acceptable for minor in-fill usage. Mirror glass is not allowed - Masonry walls shall have decorative variation in color, texture, or pattern - Rear of buildings not visible from public shall be consistent in color to the front facades - The natural brick and copper tones of the community center should give visual cues to the appropriate color palette selection /7.; III). -,,,..A.,,,,,, ,., „,-ti144 . i, / ,I% ..i„e',-).„:.: 5 - 4% 1.1 L�" .e `` , s11l 1 . '''',f; f r a 4 air" m. - --a:,. '... 4 l .x...-�+,:L '^i" t�_�_ =fit "ter Example of combination of acceptable materials Community Center Ai :. ,7 r,:::6 :.;":4;;VA:Z.V*. '..';.'".1-'''-'4:. : il. ill L.,.. -.%......0. _ ... . DOORS AND WINDOWS - Windows and doors must be glazed in clear glass for retail establishments. The use of tinted glass is allowed for office type of uses for sun protection only. The use of mirrored glass is prohibited - Window frames shall be constructed of prefinished metal or other durable materials - Window frame, material and color must compliment architectural style of the building - Window openings may be modulated to scale and proportion complementary to the architectural proportions - Canopies, awnings or other creative overhangs shall be encouraged at entryways - A minimum of 8' clear shall be provided from sidewalk to lowest point of canopy or suspended sign - The use of upper windows to give a 2-story appearance is encouraged - Spandrel glass or frosted glass is allowed where the appearance of storefront is desired but not feasible to be true, clear glazing 111 ri„.• .,,, ,,,i ,, i ii 1 el 9• g• fi •,.... } v /r 9ris .,-,iit... - '-''''-Z-- -1).W1 v r K, '"� } ";-_'-'1 4 Y air: c 7 1 _ t4''4.. ' tea. ;x'�4 _ � a rC Example of human scale proportions of storefront glass III SCREENING • - Loading areas, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, or other utility hardware on the ground, roof, or building shall be screened from the public view with materials similar to the building and landscaping FRANCHISE DESIGN - Franchise design shall utilize materials, scale and size to complement the downtown atmosphere without losing corporate identity 111) As , ,J. i.11 i7:44•14i` s�•�„�,-- �. Example of acceptable franchise design SITE TREATMENTS - Landscaping is to be utilized within the master plan as an aid to provide continuity within the areas and to provide a recognized definition of boundaries, entrances and other key features - Entry points to the areas are to have enhanced landscape design features with a common theme - Sidewalks in front of buildings should incorporate planting beds, or planters - Parkway like trees must be utilized along all external and internal roadways with placement as to not obstruct visibility of commercial signage, view of pedestrians and drivers - Unity of design shall be achieved by repetition of certain plant varieties and other streetscape materials consistent with the downtown theme • • - Plant material is to be utilized as a screening element for parking lot headlights and building utility areas - Plant materials are to be utilized within parking lot islands with grouped massing of landscape encouraged in parking lots versus island planting to maximize landscape impact and allow functional snow removal and storage - Plant material shall be selected in regard to its interesting structure, texture, color, seasonal interest and its ultimate growth characteristics - Urban substitutes for planting shall include ornamental fencing, masonry walls, pavers and plaza features - Streetscape elements such as wrought iron benches, trash and ash receptacles shall be encouraged and should be of a color and style compatible with the architecture - Ornamental pedestrian light fixtures should be of a color and design compatible with established downtown streetscape elements - Stormwater ponding and stormwater treatment facilities shall be incorporated into the site design - Site landscaping must meet existing code standards for design, except where this code is more restrictive 410 - . - iitls:.-P---;v14 ri_ _ e.„ .. • ' °_ T $t k. Examples of appropriate streetscape elements • PARKING • - Commercial areas shall incorporate identifiable motorcycle parking and bicycle parking with bike racks - Cross parking between sites is encouraged - Parking ratios shall be appropriate to market demands with emphasis on shared parking, peak/off peak demand analysis and locations in order to maintain smaller parking fields where feasible - The inclusion of public parking ramp facilities shall be encouraged where appropriate - Parking stalls shall not exceed 9' x 18' with 24' drive aisles to encourage less asphalt and higher density - Parking lot layouts should include clear, direct traffic movement throughout the site - Pedestrian circulation areas shall incorporate elements designed to help protect the pedestrian from vehicular traffic. - Stormwater run off infiltration treatments such as rain gardens should be incorporated into parking lots where feasible. LIGHTING - Lighting should provide continuity and consistency throughout the downtown • - Lighting styles shall be of a design and size that is compatible with the downtown theme - Exterior wall fixtures shall be encouraged to enhance the building design, and where feasible, eliminate the need for freestanding parking lot lights - Parking lot lights shall not exceed 30' in height and shall be full cut off to avoid glare - Parking lot fixtures shall be consistent in color and style - Safe pedestrian light levels shall be maintained - Excessive brightness shall be avoided - Energy efficient lighting shall be encouraged - Decorative pedestrian light fixtures shall be encouraged along pedestrian corridors. 16' height should be consistent. Gt 1' rtiiis ,10 q 411,0 _ ziai Example of night lighting building enhancements • 410 SIGNAGE - All signage must meet existing code standards, except where this code is more restrictive - Signage not allowed includes rooftop signage, signs painted on buildings, flashing or moving signs, or pole signage - Freestanding signs must incorporate a masonry base that is compatible with the building architecture. Pylon signs are discouraged in the CCD - Building signage shall not overpower the architecture, but serve as identity - Wall signage is allowed on any facades facing public R.O.W. - Dual front buildings shall have signage above all entries - The use of projecting style signs mounted perpendicular to street front facades is encouraged - Wall signage shall not exceed 8% of building elevation SF - No unarticulated box cabinet signage, visible conduit, exposed junction boxes or light tubing is allowed - Signage on awnings is limited to a minimum of 8" vertical flap - Way finding signage is encouraged and shall be consistent in architectural character and materials, - Downtown messaging monuments shall be encouraged in public plaza • areas, and entry points to downtown }:ter _:T v. .'rf a -'3" rilti D1 P t 11. Sr*T a . 4( ,``i(frI �� C ! .T -rte. k i ' !g;'44,4 i'4Y12 �,!,�._ pt ,' r Y � 1 Ti[c•t Freestanding sign example Appropriate wall signage lit' 11 t.��' 4'. • . . C ....... Banner style signagei_ I161 STREETSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES — CORRIDORS • Downtown Monticello owes its identity in part to the primary movement corridors along which it is most usually experienced by those who travel through it and those who live, shop, work, and play in the Downtown district. The design recommendations for the Downtown are extracted in part from the positive and negative features of the existing corridors and their existing strengths and shortcomings. The following descriptions attempt to isolate important elements for three primary corridors that must contribute to the overall image to be created as the downtown area redevelops and revitalizes. For each corridor a brief description of its contribution to the identity of the Downtown area is followed by design objectives for continuing, strengthening, and/or improving upon its contribution. THE BROADWAY STREET CORRIDOR The Broadway Street identity through downtown Monticello is largely created by continuous, varied storefronts along the edge of relatively narrow sidewalks in a mostly hard-surfaced environment. In this respect, Broadway Street and its historic remnants represent the closest model for traditional Downtown Monticello. Visual diversity in this corridor is provided mostly by variations in building architecture. Although the land use recommendations envision partial replacement of existing structures with new buildings in a similar relationship to the street, there will also be necessary open edges created along Broadway to promote visibility to retail development set back from the street. To recapture definition of edges along Broadway, the following streetscape design objectives should apply: • Establish a setback for new structures 10 feet from the existing right-of-way line. The additional corridor width will: o allow expansion of the sidewalk zone with sufficient distance between storefront and curb line to allow for continuous new street tree plantings along both sides of the corridor. o allow for future widening of the roadway lanes to reasonable minimum lane widths while also preserving on-street parking critical to adjacent businesses. o provide additional space for other streetscape elements including outdoor seating area, bicycle parking, signage, and way-finding features. • Reinforce the streetscape identity with consistent street lighting, pedestrian-scale lighting, and other street furnishings as used elsewhere throughout the downtown 411 S area as unifying design elements. Encourage the continued and expanded use of ornamental fencing with design origins in the old river bridge for Highway 25. • Street trees should be provided along the Broadway corridor with the same density of spacing as used elsewhere throughout the downtown district to reinforce the grid street pattern and "block" structure of the downtown area. • Where corridor edges are not completed by structures, provide vertical "edge" elements to reinforce the separation of the street corridor and pedestrian sidewalk zones from adjacent open areas. "Edge" features could include walls, fencing, columns, bollards, or landscape hedges that relate to the back side or edge of the sidewalks. • As suggested for the Walnut Street corridor, allow the evolution of sidewalk materials and finishing techniques as sites develop and redevelop along the corridor. • Promote the provision of pedestrian byways and gathering spots along the corridor, especially at or near pedestrian street crossings. • If possible, continue the utilization of medians in this corridor with uniform landscape/streetscape applications to calm traffic and reinforce corridor aesthetics and continuity through the downtown area. • 10 SETBACK EXISTING 100 R 0. t0' SETBACK STREET TREES AT BUMP-OUT.f%REAS ONLY 10' 6'. f t STOREFRONT a" EXISTING STOREFRONT "t 1 ,t6 1 "i I PROPOSED STOREFRONT OR EDGE FEATURES gt ': 4 r: * I' 1 ._ STOREFRONT/�Y8' 78 TWO 1,4 40' THREE YoSrORE ROtT SIDEWALK'�4 a LANES � LANES iQ L SIDEWALK I 6'-16'CONCRETE ZONE O, 'a 1 ZONE SIDEWALK 'oom! 16' 88' FACE TO FACE TYPICAL i 16' BROADWAY STREET CROSS SECTION THE WALNUT STREET CORRIDOR The identity for the Walnut Street Corridor is currently established primarily by its design elements and adjacent development in the segment between 5th Street and 7th Street. • The street corridor in this two-block segment is reinforced by buildings located near the street, and by design elements for sidewalks, lighting, and landscape details such as fencing, raised planters, and stamped colored concrete utilized along its length. Design objectives to reinforce and expand the identity of the Walnut Street corridor include: • Provide street trees in boulevard and sidewalk areas to reinforce the corridor spatially and to emphasize the street grid and "block" structure of the downtown area. • Promote infill development near the street edge between 5th Street and 4th Street on both sides of the corridor. • Promote retail development along the west side of the corridor for the two-block segment from 4th street to Broadway. This approach will contribute to defining an edge for Walnut Street while providing visibility from Highway 25. • Promote retail development adjacent to Walnut Street from Broadway north to River Street and the riverfront park area to promote pedestrian movement from Broadway to the park and its potential public parking and activities. • Work with the owners of the retail development on the south side of 7th Street to extend pedestrian-oriented design features along the private entry drive from 7th and Walnut to the storefront area. • • Repeat street lighting, pedestrian scale lighting, and site furnishings consistently along the Walnut Street corridor to provide design continuity leading to a recognizable identity for the downtown district. • If building placement, street trees, and site furnishings can provide consistent visual cues along Walnut Street to reinforce its identity as a major downtown corridor, then it may not be necessary to provide absolute design consistency or uniformity in the application of materials used for hard-surfaced walk areas. There is currently an interesting variety in the application of pavement materials and finishing techniques through the downtown area that is eclectic, but part of the identity of the existing downtown. Infill hardscape material should be consistent with, but need not be identical to existing walking surfaces in this corridor. • Consideration should be given to providing distinct and highly visible pedestrian crosswalk designs to enhance pedestrian movement at local street intersections along Walnut Street from 4th Street south to 7th Street. This approach would create a recognizable design feature that could be replicated at Broadway, and at a plaza terminus at the north end of Walnut. These features would strengthen the identity of Walnut Street as a pedestrian-friendly corridor. • Promote the provision of pedestrian byways and gathering spots along the corridor, especially at or near pedestrian street crossings. • • 80' EXISTING R.O.W. 40' 40' STREET TREES REQUIRED TO 12' 12' REINFORCE "BLOCK" PATTERN r X WJE 6' CONC. b „ ' LIMIT OF a z WALK w I SURFACE BUILDING LINE I PARKING FOR NEW RETAIL o- u4 "EDGE" TREE 11 PLANTING j PLANTING ZONE 'I:4'1' : r�4 / I PARKING i 6./ 1 i STREET SCALE STOREFRONT LANE � LANE LANDSCAPE LIGHTING SIDEWALK ISLAND 24' ZONE WALNUT STREET CROSS SECTION THE HIGHWAY 25 CORRIDOR The identity of the Highway 25 corridor varies dramatically from the south end at 1111 Highway 94 where it is wide open and expansive, to the north end at Broadway where it is narrow and constrained by existing structures on either side of its 80-foot wide right- of-way. Tight conditions and high traffic levels in the corridor make it an unpleasant location for pedestrian circulation, so the corridor is largely experienced from vehicles passing through it. The variation in spatial relationships and general lack of consistent design elements and landscaping detract from a positive identity within the downtown area. Design objectives to improve the identity for the Highway 25 corridor through the downtown area from Highway 94 to the river crossing include: • Provide for street trees to frame the corridor and enclose the unconfined southern end. • Provide "edge" elements from the ground plane to a height just below eye level for travelers along the corridor to define a boundary for the corridor while still allowing visibility to development beyond the new "edge". • Include streetscape elements in repetitive fashion to establish continuity along the corridor. Streetscape elements used in this way should include consistent street lighting, signage, way-finding elements, and possibly larger structures marking entry points to the downtown at the northerly and southerly gateways to • the downtown district. • Provide for a bicycle trail along the west edge of the roadway, set back from the • edge of the roadway and protected by a landscaped boulevard area. • Reserve up to 10 feet of lot area along the east and west sides of the corridor from 5th Street north to Broadway. Reserved areas should be acquired for MnDOT right-of-way to expand the width available for corridor improvements from 80 to 100 feet. Building setback lines should be established ten feet to the east and west of the existing right-of-way line to prevent redevelopment within the reserved area until the right-of-way can be dedicated or acquired. • Pedestrian interaction with the Highway 25 corridor should be limited to the establishment of safe pedestrian crossings at Broadway, 4th Street, and 7th Street. Gathering places should be located a safe distance from this corridor. t0' SETBACKJLANF)SCAI'L 2tir+L 100' EXISTING R G 4 10' SETBACK/LANDSCAPE ZONE PROPOSED —PROP05ED BUILDING FACE BUILDING FACE OR { r Li OR PARKING EDGE PARKING EDGE— — �- x:16' r 26' •5.• 40' 9' 14 I4 i 14 12 i 1' %. 6 11 EDGE FEATURES EDGE FEATURES--- _. Cc- :; x,. I ,,,,., ,I ' ..__(WALL OR FENCING) (WALL OR FENCING) Cr.-1) '� 10'LANDSCAPE-------r j '---10' LANDSCAPE ZONE • - 9MULTI—USE TRAIL ' L 6 BLVD. WITH L CONCRETE 6' BLVD. 6' WALK (PED. &8ME) 2' CONC. STRIP MEDIAN WITH 2' CONC. STRIP HIGHWAY 25 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION 7TH STREET LOOKING NORTH TO BROADWAY HIGHWAY 25 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION 110' OVERALL ROW. 10' ADDITIONAL R.0.W. OR 100' EXISTING R.O.W. PERMANENT EASEMENT • 10'.✓ I s PARKING LOT & ALTERNATE BUILDING SETBACK, PROPOSED ' ',E 6' 28'_ 3' 52 BUILDING FACE OR - ;- ' ' ; -- .- PROPOSED BUILDING FACE ,y PARKING EDGE �. 9- 6 14 14' 14' '12 12' , 14 , • (N„ SETBACK) I I EDGE FEATURES (WALL OR FENCING) 7 t�ii 4-a T L---10' LANDSCAPE ZONE 10' LANDSCAPE iI' SIDEWALK TO BLDG. 9'MULTI—USE TRAIL 6'BLVD. WITH —CONCRETE. \ FACE (PED. &BIKE) .- 2' CONC. STRIP MEDIAN RIGHT TURN LANE HIGHWAY 25 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION WITH RIGHT TURN LANE LOOKING NORTH • HIGHWAY 25 CROSS SECTION WITH TURN LANE • FINAL REPORT Embracing Downtown Monticello Monticello CCD Revitalization City of Monticello, Minnesota Ill Appendix C Transportation Study • S FINAL REPORT Embracing Downtown Monticello Monticello CCD Revitalization City of Monticello, Minnesota S Appendix C Transportation Study • 1C) 10 r • TRANSPORTATION STUDY Monticello CCD Revitalization City of Monticello, Minnesota November 4, 2011 r V • IMF 151 • Itrip •" e• a • • — - • kyr._ter - -4,1! f •,•'t 7 '.1117$. ,•• - ' . • • lig . .-- -4, __Ait•ir • . . • , •'•.;--01),, • IMMO larera. 2 ...my I z•Zt. g. LT= r- -41‘.i 'IL 107.-11,2 auf 4 -:111111' =,.•• ••`; ,;•`• , „„s. _ ` • Prepared For: Prepared By: C.i41 of iAONTICELLO MINNESOTA Malinill :111M111111WeStWOod • TRANSPORTATION STUDY Monticello CCD Revitalization City of Monticello, Minnesota November 4, 2011 • Prepared for City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 Prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Project No. 2010-1228 • • . . Monticello CCD Revitalization Page ii November 4,2011 • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Traffic impacts associated with the proposed CCD Revitalization Plan are expected to be minor. In total, the Revitalization Plan is anticipated to result in a net increase of 9,000 ADT. Of this total,the largest increase to any one street is expected to be around 3,000 ADT. Compared with existing traffic volumes of about 30,000 ADT on TH-25 and more than 14,000 ADT on East Broadway; and considering anticipated background growth between today and 2030 will be between 20% and 60%, additional traffic generated by CCD Revitalization will be minimal. Under both existing and future conditions, the intersection most critical to traffic flow in and around the Monticello CCD is the intersection of TH-25 and CSAH- 75/Broadway. Because of high east/west traffic volumes and turning volumes (especially eastbound to northbound and southbound to eastbound); little spare green time is available for heavy through traffic volumes on TH-25. Current plans for the intersection of TH-25 with CSAH 75/Broadway, as identified in the City's recently published Transportation Plan,call for the addition of roadway capacity at this intersection. Plans include dual left turn lanes for the two heavy movements previously noted. In 2011 dual right turn lanes were added for the westbound to northbound movement. With these improvements, the intersection is anticipated to function acceptably through 2030, under one important condition. The condition required for acceptable operations at TH-25/Broadway is that a second river crossing over the Mississippi River must be constructed to provide an alternate route for trips between Monticello and Big Lake. This second crossing, as noted in the City's Transportation Plan, is the difference between 20% growth in background traffic with a second crossing, and 60% growth in background traffic without a second crossing. Without this vital second connection, no set of other minor geometric fixes to TH-25/Broadway will be able to bring the intersection up to acceptable performance thresholds. As noted, the proposed CCD Revitalization Plan will bring a modest amount of additional traffic to the CCD, spread among the many roads and intersections within the downtown core. In order to provide for adequate access to the proposed retail facilities, creation of an additional signalized access point to TH- 25 at 4th Street is proposed. This intersection will not only be capable of providing the additional access needed by the new retail facilities,but will also provide a much-needed alternate route for local east/west through traffic in the downtown core, improving operations at the critical TH-25Broadway intersection, and in turn, operations along the TH-25 arterial corridor. In order to maximize the benefit of the traffic signal at 4th Street and offset the • impact of the addition of signalized access points, access restrictions at the Monticello CCD Revitalization Page iii November 4, 2011 intersection of TH-25/3n1 Street are proposed. Conversion to right-in/right-out access is recommended on both sides of TH-25. • In addition to the benefit to vehicular traffic generated by the signal at 4th Street, pedestrians will also benefit. Currently, a 5-block separation exists between signalized crossing points of the high traffic volume TH-25 corridor. The addition of a traffic signal at 4th Street will limit the distance a pedestrian must go out of his/her way to cross TH-25 to one and a half blocks. Improved traffic operations at TH-25Broadway as a result of the 4th Street traffic signal will also be of benefit by limiting the potential for queues on Broadway to extend upstream to both Walnut Street to the west and Cedar Street to the East. Analysis of post-redevelopment traffic operations at these intersections shows levels of service above acceptable thresholds with little queuing impacts from the critical TH-25/Broadway intersection. Other geometric improvements recommended to improve traffic operations, whether or not the proposed Revitalization Plan proceeds, include an additional westbound approach lane at TH-25/7th Street and revised signal phasing and extension of the westbound storage bay at the I-94 North Ramp intersection. MnDOT has plans to complete the I-94 North Ramp improvements in the near future. Lastly,to improve north/south pedestrian connectivity at Broadway, consideration • for future installation of a signal system at Locust Street is recommended if and when warranted. • Monticello CCD Revitalization Page iv November 4, 2011 • TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 Purpose 5 VEHICULAR OPERATIONS 6 Turning Movement Volumes 6 2030 Transportation Plan 6 CCD Revitalization Trip Generation 14 Trip Distribution/Assignment 16 Operational Analysis 24 PARKING 32 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE 34 East/West Ped Crossing of TH-25 34 North/South Ped Crossing of Broadway 35 Bicycle Circulation and Facilities 35 APPENDIX 37 • TABLES 1. Preferred Revitalization Plan Comparison 2 2. Trip Generation Estimates—Existing& Future Land Uses 10 3. Trip Generation Estimates—CCD Redevelopment Land Uses 10 4. Trip Generation Estimates—Net 11 5. Operational Analysis Results—2010 Existing 20 6. Operational Analysis Results—2030 No-Build 21 7. Operational Analysis Results—2030 No-Build with Second Bridge 22 8. Operational Analysis Results—2030 Build with Second Bridge 23 9. Parking Count Details 28 1111 Monticello CCD Revitalization Page v November 4, 2011 • FIGURES 1. Study Area 3 2. Preferred CCD Revitalization Concept Plan 4 3. Existing AM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts 8 4. Existing PM Peak Hour Turning Movement Counts 9 5. 2030 No-Build AM Peak Hour TMCs 10 6. 2030 No-Build PM Peak Hour TMCs 11 7. 2030 No-Build with 2"d Bridge AM Peak Hour TMCs 12 8. 2030 No-Build with 2"d Bridge PM Peak Hour TMCs 13 9. Trip Distribution 18 10. AM Peak Hour Trip Assignment 19 11. PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment 20 12. 2030 Build with 2"d Bridge AM Peak Hour TMCs 21 13. 2030 Build with 2"d Bridge PM Peak Hour TMCs 22 14. Existing and 2030 ADTs 23 15. Parking Study Area 32 • Monticello CCD Revitalization Page vi November 4, 2011 • INTRODUCTION Background In 2010, the City of Monticello's Economic Development Authority hired Westwood, in partnership with the McComb Group, Ltd. to complete a Downtown Revitalization Plan. This Transportation Study is a component of that effort. The Downtown Revitalization Plan outlines a preferred scenario for potential redevelopment of the Central Community District(CCD). This transportation plan looks at the future infrastructure improvements that will be required to implement this preferred scenario. Much of the study of the future infrastructure needs for the CCD has already been completed as part of Monticello's recently completed 2030 Transportation plan. To the extent that the Redevelopment Plan and the 2030 Comp plan are alike,the transportation needs will also remain aligned. To address the transportation needs specific to the Redevelopment Plan, the 2030 Transportation Plan traffic forecasts were used as a starting point in development forecasts post-redevelopment. A majority of the effort associated with this transportation plan focused on Trunk Highway 25, a primary arterial roadway running north/south through the CCD. As noted in the City's Transportation Plan, congestion caused by traffic on TH-25 in the CCD is currently the cause of a majority of the City's traffic-related issues. Figure 1 shows the intersections studied as part of this transportation plan. Intersections studied as part of this report are highlighted. In addition to the intersection along TH-25, several other intersections were analyzed as part of this study: • three additional intersections along Walnut Street(one block west of TH- 25) at 4th Street, 3rd Street, and Broadway; • three additional intersections along Locust Street(two blocks west of Broadway) at the same three cross streets; and • the intersection of Broadway and Cedar Street(one block east of Broadway). The intersections of Broadway/Walnut and Broadway/Cedar were included due to their short separation from the critical intersection of TH-25/Broadway. The other intersections were included due to the desire to assess the impact of changing roadway capacity on Walnut Street with the various redevelopment concepts. Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 1 November 4, 2011 Table 1 compares the Preferred Revitalization Plan to the 2030 Transportation • plan. Figure 2 provides a plan view concept of the Preferred Redevelopment Plan. Table 1 Preferred Revitalization Plan Comparison to Transportation Plan 2030 TAZ Forecasts Component Difference from 2030 Transportation Plan Residential 32 fewer residential units Retail 77,000 s.f. increase in retail space Non-Retail (Office) 41,000 s.f. increase in non-retail space • 1111 Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 2 November 4,2011 Figure 1 0 Study Area .,.. -, . , C) .. . . -,..,....; ..zx c". i--• C) . .. . .+, 4" 7.;" I% —_ - Co ..c. N. ••,,, 'I .,,te j .1, / 6-:-. "N • Co, ...., "tr, , / .::•.' St ,:.....:. Bridge , ...„ / e A ' ---;,, I / -.- - tv,... j / ;''.frOp / 1 0 Monticell. / ......),E , / .k ,... . ilk ;\ • .., ...--. ii4.• . c -I. 0 ® fri / 0 (.7/ oiy `• P St t.-,,t, , .. t: 'r. 0 . thral11, , • ct,s, era Co rq i 0_1)44• s ''..''.-11•'. . I >-' 'f.' e.r ,s- Prl,,,f 4% Fargo 6;14 tz'w c- 4...7 diS't sel - c .... ...,. sz." P ,. •••• /.. .r....:5• ji ,... ,s, . ,.., 14, .. Ce6 3t ....: , 1-05,de - ,,,, , 1.4 I -.... erntl.,tr, BourFourthc:: E ikri St r.. if! Street Park CD .e...* - --..7----4---2-_:.:1:71---=--41, -.:77'"'":::-.: 11"...'".,.. • • '-i. -- - ,•-. c -.- n .4 7J ';."1..' u. r.. ...., di.ka jr..................z.%,...-„,,,,....,:......,.,..,...„.„,....„..., 1.1 C 1111 Et. rn -',•.7.7:,-,...,,,,,, The , ti Source: Google Legend i I CCD Area 1._ ... ... .... • Study Intersection 0 Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 3 November 4, 2011 Figure 2 Preferred Downtown Plan 0 0 -..„.N.,......, 1! :,,, , ).4..,9..e.c. t i I i I L-...-.'.•.....-- -'"....i.l...„...,"''' 1'1 I: ,y .,:,, ;-'--- -'7 gr.', U ! ' ' / I ' r" ----- ,.., _. 7..1 -1,„,,..)' ) 1 1 7 I ,.:,.-- A 1 re ,..., i I— i.,,.... '9,..,,,i) ...sr) f i L — ..J ,.... .. „. ..,,-, —---. _ --- I XI rdg 4:1,,t, ! , 1 c .3sc,..s •-...,,--,, „___—..—-- -.'\ r 1 , El, . , , II _____, .. ..) lil ‘,„. (c_TI.H, ._....„,, , Id l'.---'7,,,,,--• sir....c 1-7--, , „0-- --,j , ro 4 ,. I G j MK , i i 1 =ILI'l 1111 ' 1---1 1 ° ::C° Xs':%----r,CI O. ( t 1 { __ •._,—,.. —. '2.-:-:::"...) \ --' , ) ' l `,... -- ---=-"" '''.------- ,,,,,,,,,,,w,1 4-Ertl- -Th 11— -711 r__.-,11 r..„ --+,—. r ti . ,, icN, , .T-----, -oc- -) .,,,7 (-T__, ,,-/- ri--- ........ ___, ‘,....._,-- ---7- - ) if- 1 a{) Cr----- ----0 I 11,1"';,-, ',..7 -r-L--1 'n T O -o 'i re i..., ' no : ti ,a 7,-0 '. 0---L- - f-d-,-----.--,) c.fi,---„,„-- II 1„..---,,---- t ,------ rt- - t) o-- i < _t-LL*.zo ci... ' v ') -9 ,_-_-_-___—_, -- ---- ,3 . ,..sra..-E- E — -— , --7- Cr.::-:77-,-.1-1---) (.71:::::-"„ ik 77.- .-----Z C--' (7----) (--T-7-77---1 r li ts1,01 At \ I g 0 ': c;',,, ‘, I ; "; :-'1 Tvi: i it-14,4, '. 6i-'-ii- 1 :. ,-., t , _.:..' (1. 11 i II __ ,n0,_,, i 7-,,„---] ,L,..7,.__I, ! I : '- --;-:r-72.4 Molt ' ' 1 C.V. 4- 4 1.4,4,..4 -- ' C. C--, „) C----- ) s C---- 1\ r-----' C.' Cer tz.,_-,,), r---------, --- I .F...eri ; 9-4-01 1 -Fl , LI 1 I r--1--Al H ''rr;-1 1 1,,4". ) C. '''',' . : -4 : —-—1 1 j-----11- -1___e_.,r 1 3.,\..,, 74,, 1 ,...___J 1 J 1 I7;rt____ -, ,,,,_„r, , t-, ,,___ 1 1 d '1—T*7— Avitt rl 111' ,fi...........„0 , —--------'-------,-,7L-,-.,',1,-,-,z.-:7-----).-- :::".`p„,'7,,,-;,::A7 r I, --'----=_--).-1---•-•------ , Refined Scheme A 0 Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 4 November 4, 2011 • Purpose The purpose of this report is to identify needed transportation infrastructure improvements for the future CCD Revitalization Plan. Potential infrastructure improvements in three general areas were analyzed: • Vehicular • Parking • Pedestrian/Bicycle The remainder of this report is laid out to cover three areas in turn. The first area covered is vehicular operations. To assess infrastructure needs in this area, a traditional Synchro/SimTraffic operational analysis was completed. Three scenarios were analyzed: • 2010 Existing. Analysis of existing conditions is undertaken primarily to calibrate the computer traffic model used. Review of the results of this scenario can be helpful in gaining a feel for how Level of Service correlates to real life conditions. • 2030 No-Build. This is a baseline scenario that establishes which improvements will be required regardless of whether the Redevelopment Plan proceeds, and; • 2030 Build. This scenario will be studied to identify additional • improvements needed due to the Revitalization Plan. Initially both the AM and PM peak periods were analyzed. As noted below, review of the initial analysis results indicated that the PM peak hour was the critical peak hour in terms of traffic capacity. This result is typical of areas with a mix of residential, office, and retail land uses. Because the PM peak hour will primarily control the design of any added roadway capacity, it will be the focus of this report. Areas where capacity limitations are observed in the AM peak are noted. Analysis of Parking and Ped/Bike needs was completed by reviewing existing infrastructure in light of the results of the vehicular analysis and looking to see where improvements could be made. More detail on the process used for these areas is provided under the respective sections of the report. • Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 5 November 4, 2011 VEHICULAR OPERATIONS • Turning Movement Volumes Manual turning movement traffic counts were conducted by Westwood at the TH- 25 intersections in September 2009. All of the TH-25 intersections from the I-94 ramps north to County Highway 11 on the north side of the river were counted. Additional ADT tube counts were collected throughout 2009 and 2010 by the City of Monticello. Additional PM peak hour turning movement counts were collected in March 2011 at the intersection of TH-25 and Broadway, and in August 2011 at the following intersections by Westwood: • Locust Street/Broadway • Walnut Street/3`d Street • Locust Street/3rd Street • Walnut Street/4th Street • Locust Street/4th Street Based on the count data,the peak hours of traffic occur weekdays from 6:45 to 7:45 a.m. and 4:15 to 5:15 p.m. The AM and PM peak hour volumes for the study area intersections are shown on Figures 3 and 4. The volumes shown are primarily from Westwood count data where available and have been adjusted to reflect 2010 conditions,prior to improvements at the intersection of TH-25 and Broadway. The intersection of TH-25 and Broadway is a compilation of the three • counts available. All of the existing volumes used in the transportation analysis are considered to represent 2010 conditions. 2030 Transportation Plan Review of Monticello's 2030 Transportation Plan indicates that background traffic volumes are anticipated to grow by 60%between today and 2030. Based on this information,2030 No-Build peak hour volumes were developed by factoring existing volumes up by 60%. The 2030 Transportation Plan notes traffic growth of 60%between now and 2030 will likely lead to a breakdown of traffic flow in the CCD. In order to limit the growth in background traffic volumes in the CCD,the Transportation Plan recommends that an additional bridge crossing the Mississippi River be constructed. This bridge would relieve traffic volumes on the TH-25 bridge, lowering background growth in the CCD to 20%. Two sets of 2030 background peak hour traffic volumes were therefore developed. The first set assumed existing geometry(no improvements),no second river crossing, and 60%growth in traffic volumes. The second set assumes geometry as set forth in the City's Transportation Plan with a second river crossing and 20% growth in traffic volumes. • Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 6 November 4, 2011 Figures 5 and 6 detail the No-Build volume estimates without an additional river II/ crossing. Figures 7 and 8 provide the No-Build volume estimates with a second river crossing in place. • • Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 7 November 4, 2011 Figure 3 2010 Existing AM Volumes Monticello CBD Revitalization tih \ • yk UJ U v )7 3;06 �`� `�4Oi( � 70 nj �2 7y ^oi Rii �t eV 327 <-3 j 7 4 411k 73 �0) ors/ 9 3 29 4t) ^ �`�", `b 'C • `�iry S 77601 � 29 3 i " tsz , ? s7? 4cyd 791,- 7 ^oft/...„ 0 aa ^ �M^�'�: 1 p i - �22 1 4114i: 73 ii • vU ��^O 3s 77 sr'n 7 3�d �� . 1�7 csAy lis 2 7 19 , ''(Try st �, ch co tit4'1144) 4 tit 4 Not to Scale 37)f p(doh' St III v. 40 op ,(4-, ,50,:\, 7 7 7 6n - �^^T�,6th st 4043 k..374) 7? IP •6 797 ---,1 T�. ' th 6,,, ,-- ^ i 4s Ill 163 ,Q./co ^r /94No /76s : A sOOt �� I94E8 III h 4_ n c"3,316'n Ramps Westwood 8/26/2011 Figure 4 2010 Existing PM Volumes Monticello CBD Revitalization S ryh N. ,r.;,3 ,�Z 0 4°. j) O �S � 00 4j 3St6 c'``' �1 O 770 70. ^0 1' ^ I 1, �� 1 .dry" y' 3 `` M ,4 7y d Riic,,st 1 35 5724 S ry� 7il‘ 70 7 � 3Sy 9l do �O e, 7� ,�ryd4r Otry �•Ct?00 :p• ?0 70S � 7� ))CV '3 ?0 ?1 7, 7 S0y • &I• � it, 6,7 r^� ^Oryny t. r X74 37 g,, 73 y 7 C8,416, 45 • eO `3 7 8 ,, S ° 77i '0 SO�y �OoT.1°03�dst ' (l, R • d vim' a Ory I. o 413, o rb its lik 70 6-47 4t6 St jot to Scale 4� V.cod O4,1\33 Co ic • SA - „7.,!...\,,,:r 6th St 76 7 43 8' 1167 3 la 797 p:or -th St • 206 49 ��^�46 4 NOrth 1' s /,9 4 S°Gth Q ^ ,;•,:r^ 9q EB Ramps •Westwood 8/26/2011 Figure 5 2030 No-Build AM Volumes Monticello CBD Revitalization �y " • ,. o- 0 co co d/ '�v . X76 ^ o 76 y� r 4' it 2 ��^ 40ry�r1t kryti� �3 2y 4-' Rifrer Ari jo4 -3 46 . ilk 21 0) 7 7 IA 74T h cb 2 y vMKr�' 3� • y ry ry`�� `� `\'"c° 760 7 65 �"hh .73 �6 26-♦ • 6 1 tS7 77 . ' 8�' �0)d r., ���• r� 4� c. �� CII lei �2 i ti�ry� ti 4))CV 4t) „76 ?2 Of SSS o y ���^O S6 2 2 3r 32� ^°`ti• r�, ,776. 2 ?S 3 : ^'dam dst a C.,,.qai 4.1()/ 32 2 . It 3 y Not to Scale 6-°)i ^ry 4thS co • O O Do. �,( 7, * 2 r ryo�91 ���r,shsr q. ��hh �S0 PIA 706 3p6� q) cd 'rh St 1. +oma O rV .„./ N fc... ‘19 S2 76S 7' /9 ti ^ 0c� 0rfh . Ra is9 .w 4 Sofh. OQS'mac' 1-94 Es Ramps Westwood 8/26/2011 • Figure 6 2030 No-Build PM Volumes Monticello CBD Revitalization • by V y , 1 0 Nv. v 15. Ss°6 c`''am s�cb Z ,� 76 76), 7� • 8y r �m c‘;c5:E' (V7. VI E"3 co�`' ry V S3 7 2y ry0,cl ,-,it R"ens y� S t �G �s 83�. s& cb ° (10 o, SR_ 30. ' ryT�, `y�i`o "' `� ^� 32 3 9 � T77? ^ �7 48 : 70 99:._ 4'd r' N ,0,,x ti�ry� °^ ^�ti� ` .'' 222 6 . 2�°�6 o Y' 966 y 2 3�as 38; ^�T�,C6gy s 27. Sr 4 80. ���� t b c6 l 47 d y °1. i 79 It 76 ii•Not to Scale 8�y ,:vcris4/66, N co3 7 3 9,23--"' No?' 6rh st , cy cb ^° )off n ,, il II\ .26 9 7 7) 7 1j 30 s' c?.? " '1/2,t c' co^.N `, -- , ,,,5. Iv 300 cv,,�c No7h d• o ,\N �9 • asOGth nef n I-94 EB Ram Ps R, Westwood 8/26/2011 Figure 7 2030 No-Build AM with Bridge Volumes Monticello CBD Revitalization (,) ei. ` • .(z..,A, UJ O 5p v �1 ^�iV v X72 p �0 7: . 41? c3- ^p O 33 � \�, 7? 30)i ^p1_ s'm �7 o ^p ,..)',/ 7 �7 ^ p b • ,2 77y ^ 7, Rifrer,, .-P7 S X,9 ^^4)^e' 0 dIS 77 28y T p MSO 7)f , e' ^p p' (1, ``j 1 `V X770 �r\I �b z . �7 `�dry • st ��, a 35 4 d 7 ,. T ti ^ , ^�^c+� 77 ?66 ^� ^ p X72 7 76 .. �1,`,.`v �7 48 C 'y •i? 7 7 ? .I^7 sly S U ? ?s- 7 Ss ??7y ^p^7I,3`0'& p f^ ‘ i4 lig ? Not to Scale 3 14 4b`0�'4�,S). • horn co ho 'J j c ,77 7 7 i.,....y ' 7,r'6 Sl O Oco co� �.';' 3, S 22,9? so.7‘ ,...,,'&?sr ww coo 40 �ry^^ r 94 411 72sr h ^� i9_ ,�'��`O� ^pp rfh'9'� a OS N. ,s9 4 SO4i • ' x'94 EB Ramps • h ,. c _ R �x Westwood 8/26/2011 Figure 8 2030 No-Build PM with Bridge Volumes Monticello CBD Revitalization Ns h 0 :7 .40 - ,.../ 50,%,, ,, co , , S 7; �2 9 c0- ��'ry X12 m 7 72)1 ^ ryrco 72 �`2 ry V kI ti . 2 70):7y 4� T Rivers X36 474 '`,;(„ r �2 6 2s ti op 2 427 lt 2 2`? :3,^r,,r, o,`o�o`,ti 7� "�",d`or ,�`�,o 2 0 3 X260 ,� �2 4 2s i 8 �`�� • O6 ?4 ? y d �' a 7 36_ ry `c> �' it cO,�, ^ryO , ,, . X77) 4 72. ,,ry, 76 8-' -� � 2 77 tri 7 3rd 29v�y "�,,f. �ja �y?s 2It '8 6a�' "�off, Sr �" M r y a° r Co^ry ,Lc�� iL74 7 4 giA, 72 ly 4�s •Not to Scale 6,S ``'�0�� f N h 2 7• tik, 2 U-y co aT, sjh•S1 ,Pi�4" I9 7 70. � 2 e 2 2y ro j , nth sj ry DSO ^ti ZS 24, d 494 ✓055) Rats p /94soG'''& & �od�' 1-94 EB Ramps Sel •Westwood 8/26/2011 CCD Revitalization Trip Generation Trip generation estimates for the CCD Revitalization land uses were based on • rates documented in Trip Generation, 8th Edition,published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). For land uses anticipated to be removed as part of the CCD redevelopment, a rate equal to one-half of the ITE rate was used to estimate the amount of traffic to be eliminated. The use of a rate equal to half of the ITE rate provides for a conservative estimate of future traffic volumes with the redevelopment. Pass-bytrips and internal/shared trips were neglected both due to the small g total volume of added trips anticipated, and to provide for conservative forecasts. The tables below provide a summary of the trip generation estimates. Table 2 summarizes the trips to be eliminated. Table 3 summarizes the trips to be added. The total net trip generation associated with the Revitalization Plan(Table 3 totals less Table 2 totals) is provided in Table 4. A column noting the TAZ, or Traffic Analysis Zone, for each land use is included in each of the trip generation Tables. The TAZ for each land use corresponds to its location within the downtown area. Further description of how this data is used is provided under Trip Distribution/Trip Assignment below. • e Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 14 November 4, 2011 Table 2 • Trip Generation Estimates Existing Land Uses and Future Land Uses Included in 2030 Comp Plan but Not Anticipated to Be Part of CCD Redevelopment (50% of ITE Rates) Land Use TAZ ITE Size AM Trips PM Trips Daily Trips Code Enter/Exit Enter/Exit Enter/Exit Retail 28 820 9,000 s.f. 3/2 8/9 97/97 Gen. Office 29 710 8,000 s.f. 5/ 1 1 /5 22/22 Retail 30 820 26,000 s.f. 8/5 24/25 279/279 Retail 37 820 5,000 s.f. 2/ 1 5/5 54/54 Gen. Office 37 710 6,000 s.f. 4/ 1 1 /4 17/ 17 Condo 38 230 5 units 0/ 1 1 /0 7/7 Retail 38 820 21,000 s.f. 6/4 19/20 225/225 Gen. Office 38 710 6,000 s.f. 4/ 1 1 /4 17/ 17 Retail 10 820 13,000 s.f. 4/3 12 / 12 140/ 140 Condo 43 230 3 units 0/ 1 1 /0 4/4 Retail 43 820 9,000 s.f. 3/2 8/9 97/97 Condo 44 230 16 units 1 /3 3/ 1 23/23 Retail 44 820 21,000 s.f. 6/4 19/20 225/225 Gen. Office 44 710 1,000 s.f. 1 /0 0/ 1 3/3 Single Family 45 210 6 units 1 /2 2/ 1 14/ 14 Retail 46 820 7,000 s.f. 2/ 1 6/7 75/75 Gen. Office 50 710 5,000 s.f. 3/0 1 /3 14/ 14 Single Family 21 210 2 units 0/ 1 1 /0 5/5 Totals 53/33 113/ 126 1,318/ 1,318 411 Table 3 Trip Generation Estimates CCD Redevelopment Land Uses Not Included in 2030 Transportation Plan (100% of ITE Rates) Land Use TAZ ITE Size AM Trips PM Trips Daily Trips Code Enter/ Exit Enter/Exit Enter/Exit City Park 27 411 6,000 s.f. 2/2 6/6 30 /30 Retail 28 820 14,000 s.f. 9/5 26/27 301 /301 Restaurant 29 932 4,000 s.f. 24/22 26/ 18 254/254 Retail 29 820 6,000 s.f. 4/2 11 / 11 129/ 129 Dept. Store 30 815 64,000 s.f. 46/22 160/ 160 1,832/ 1,832 Restaurant 37 932 8,000 s.f. 48/44 53/37 509/509 Retail 37 820 20,000 s.f. 12/8 37/38 429/429 Retail 39 820 9,000 s.f. 5/4 16/ 17 193/ 193 Walgreen's 43 881 13,000 s.f. 20/ 15 67/67 573/573 Medical Office 43 720 8,000 s.f. 15/4 7/20 145/ 145 Gen. Office 43 710 9,000 s.f. 12/2 2/ 11 50/ 50 Retail 44 820 30,000 s.f. 18/ 12 55/57 644/644 Retail 45 820 20,000 s.f. 12/8 37/38 429/429 Gen. Office 46 710 21,000 s.f. 29/4 5/26 116/ 116 Medical Office 49 720 12,000 s.f. 22 /6 11 /30 217 /217 Medical Office 50 720 7,000 s.f. 13/3 7/ 18 126/ 126 Medical Office 51 720 4,000 s.f. 7/2 4/ 10 72/72 Totals 298/ 165 530/ 591 6,049/6,049 III Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 15 November 4, 2011 Table 4 Trip Generation Estimates • CCD Redevelopment Plan Net Totals above 2030 Transportation Plan TAZ AM Trips PM Trips Daily Trips Enter/Exit Enter/Exit Enter/Exit 27 2/2 6/6 30/30 28 6/3 18/ 18 204/204 29 23/23 36/24 361 /361 30 38/ 17 136/ 135 1,553/1,553 37 54/50 84/66 867/867 38 (10)/(6) (21)/(24) (249)/(249) 39 5/4 16/ 17 193/ 193 40 (4)/(3) (12)/(12) (140)/(140) 43 44/ 18 67/89 667/667 44 10/5 33/35 393/393 45 11 /6 35/37 415/415 46 27/3 (1)/19 41 /41 49 22/6 11 /30 217/217 50 10/3 6/ 15 112/ 112 51 7/ 1 3/ 10 67/67 Totals 245/132 417/465 4,731 /4,731 Trip Distribution / Assignment Trip distribution for site-generated traffic was based on the market surveys • completed by McComb. A plot of the CCD users was produced and divided into travelsheds based on anticipated travel routes to/from the CCD. The percentage of users in each travelshed was determined by counting the number of users in each travelshed. Figure 9 provides an illustration of the anticipated trip distribution pattern. Survey respondents were mapped. Using this trip distribution pattern, site-generated trips were assigned to the study area roadways. The exact path through the study area is determined by the TAZ the trip is destined to (or originating from). Routing was accomplished separately for each TAZ. The resulting totals were then summed to provide overall trip assignment totals. Figures 10 and 11 provide this summary for the AM and PM peak hours, respectively.' Adding the site-generated trips to the No-Build trips results in the estimates of Build trips. As will be noted in the next section of the report, forecasts of 2030 traffic operations without a second river crossing in place show extreme The routes chosen assume the post-redevelopment roadway network,including a traffic signal at 4th Street. Please see the discussion later in this report under 2030 Build with 2nd River Crossing. Inclusion of this traffic signal is anticipated to result in a diversion of some local east/west traffic from Broadway to 4th Street to make better use of available capacity. The amount of traffic anticipated to divert is small;roughly 50-100 peak hour vehicles,depending on peak hour. These totals represent less than one-third of the peak hour volume on these movements. The traffic volumes assumed to divert are reflected in Figures 10 and 11. • Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 16 November 4,2011 congestion, even without the proposed CCD redevelopment. Accordingly, • operational analysis of post-CCD redevelopment conditions focused on the scenario with a second river crossing. Figures 12 and 13 depict the 2030 Build scenario volume estimates with this second crossing in place. Figure 14 provides a look at traffic volumes on a daily basis. Existing volumes are shown along with 2030 No-Build(with bridge) and 2030 Build scenario volumes at locations throughout the study area where existing ADT count data is available. • 411 Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 17 November 4,2011 Figure 9 Trip Distribution 0 50/0 , •Adi'-4P 0 4.. 700 7..a.,.. ..,„.. 7.,, , Co ,Rd 5. Co Hwy 39 y 56. - . 10 -„ SIT , E .., ct. s. .7 ....2,2 ..„....:-,,,,,,, .1.'' '',,, a ., t\,.• Z . • 0 4. , • --.k. E,,,or,,a. _ - _ , , . •cio 0 Z , CI, -,(-3 '' 6 04• C.,...‘ tr.. Cl C—) :"..- 1 41() . .,e ... , Tr c,-ar 0 ..4%, l •A '' e.,,,,..P 1 "a, 4°/0 f 4`. : 1 3,.•,'''' 0 6%0_, .. a . 9 a• ;-.. , %NENz -: 4 -4 _ o\0 ii .../h '4, 0; t ., , '. 5 ihe,ai ehd .2'1 ”" so.,avd a, 1 ., "-•,,,.„ c 1 'rr Filsf r• r,..1r r.,, r, ,..ra,,^ 9 --, .. a ;V",.... 0 9 m 5, . ; ^, righ”Geogle"rt Map Zi'a C2C 1 410 Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 18 November 4, 2011 Figure 10 Net AM Trip Assignment(Difference From 2030 Transp. Plan) Volumes Monticello CBD Revitalization • ei h Jy OV n �rK 2 �33p) ^Sry 3 .7 a, 3 c ` j',L"` 3 Qt4 er'S't 7c'seJ It y ^iv. 7 p �2 ti �� ��4 7 , * 4 8) / .6"'" . ^�' ti kip) ' 3 .d ry 2j 530) �Q N 27 yq 4�y , �L �j'7 `S� .` 3r (� ryd,�' ti?S ° 774 7 fid`fir' cis( r-..S3 P 4'st •ottoScale , c+),o,'''�d Tr Numbers in Parentheses �I Are Negative •?!. 'S0 I I a) .csr Cr' h sr �t � ��' �77 1 * / �^ - 7 7 cp . T '94 tJ)tip' �� NorrhR dh o S alh , 4 soo„ _ _ gyp._Ofir 1-94 EB Ramps Westwood 8/29/2011 Figure 11 Net PM Trip Assignment(Difference From 2030 Transp. Plan) Volumes Monticello CBD Revitalization 4., "s 0 0 cV S / ^O (��2 r I 73 �y �dti� o�m —19 • Tv�o kJ,? . 000 t� R,i (4 et ( 7• 603) y ^O"^� e`Si �, ry r 7�y ^:dam :N N o 's cS ,Lo 23 ' S 1 N� 2 gr- (1$ ;4 710) •764 4? �O(V ^ '3y co O h ‘s.04) S %d�, ^O fin,^�, 4, 8 � o°'� 10 r� 6 2j�r k.79 (z),' ^ cS csAh s S 8 a �' 3,-aSt % ``� 732 ^Z`^o �y7 778 7 S, III 28 3 7qfh Not to Scale 27 y ^^IT� St III Numbers in Parentheses ^ Are Negative 42 4°O 11 , 0./i * • h JI�y ^���6rh S( s 1111 • cf .�7 ?ti)SI cr IvvS '' ^ ' 02' .a7 49q, ^ °j4h ✓,rye ^ % ,( '??,Da q re- S' o . ^ Z cr 1-94 ES Ramps Westwood III 8/29/2011 Figure 12 2030 Build AM with Bridge Volumes Monticello CBD Revitalization 110 h y h�ry off' v �4 N �2j� �� c�00� ‘,6„._. 7• s ``moi( 'L7 g� m �7 S 33 c J`O( ^� sa 7 ilk E-7 N ^ 77y ^ River_ �� ,C7.. . 7. 23 B ' NV. 1' 8? �°�r �' C� -j CV �7? 4 `h �. d ^ 3� 2�4, IA '9 `�,2Q' 90 gt 78 9�� o�DoT. ,�^. rra'' • ticr ^ �^ a0 ? 0 r 1,...„, "� r. ^ ^� ?38 y `�, `�� 85 ?� X76 7?y T�►�Ay s 0 7 ^ ^ °U 7 * SS 8 ��' 3�asr ^i 8d (o ^ a" 3ry (1.. �0)' U>' y �N� eco8 S 77 * 4 36 • d 4rh sr SNottoScale 9y 0cy^C5 co 00 �1 ;� c7 7 i 7 2 0 (0,-,,r'' Sr bo, ^?) 8 IS zy'y� cz tiT�'o sr �h^o, ^^^`o9r .-/ " 30A, 4914,0 40 46 f fps 9'disk 64„, Cr 777E8 Ramps R_ M o, 0, Mr Westwood 8/29/2011 Figure 13 2030 Build PM with Bridge Volumes Monticello CBD Revitalization \ 0 ,.. J� I� OV ��97 Oco 6-.<0,,_, ^.^� • �� ,[ , S 7� ry�,T� ^ 7 e27 4J ti^0 76 70 ,7 43 T Rifrer �ry Ss,4 33" ryry�� sr 6y ^ ^ 71 c • 381 cV ^fob` ^o�'� S 4i^ a ,� 'L X• 76-3 �'`� : %6)9d 22 ;39 Ili 752X • ?4 721 y h^T h 72 7 ^ W W ^�d^� ry�� ^h^t�� S, is, �¢8 ;y Y' 724 8? ,�36 400_ 0, ^ T cs,, 754 4, 43 0 ^� 3rdst 9� g? s S(�y ,,P" 0 0' ^ Via 16 S4 * •p 4 J� Not to Scale 8 / ^cy�4$�f 4 SC ^ cv • N. 1. �2 V 1. 2 >�y �,00ryr sjh sr tiv. ?2 7 70• J fi � cT4' `h srgvS„ co cz, 4.-/ " i?S) S 24, T 4s at' to f R .�� d*ps N.,5, 1” 1fR. m co 0 ''9q EB Ramps Westwood 8/26/2011 5 i 0 s 0 I 0 b0 u I, 1 go.'°' iit, 11 1 C lti1@ a UO2 C4 � . :1 r scu� SAH ' * ' 11 i . r ,' HQ o ao 75 0 2' 3Q CLL '#y *PC _ , },. • pi ra . r �4eaWm Z N d ,4 4.1\c4P) .rv /' �F ' n y OO A 1 ',t N NN _N Jti. yi Ta i'''' , �f p , ., '09 z a sc 0 o c , '4xd, !� A" a # ?� r ift p .r r .e p.o o "' ..k.„.,‘„- �ga z cs4 F r rf.�,�s .. -. 'Yg ft it r17.'. h , 't pyy O O pp �.�.: ♦ ar �,4' yypse r ,CS of \ "ri4 4e Y \ • tt, �y.. • ,s ,rte;;, houS oo / `� aJ. t'' O O / �, /�., . Y' , 4:4,:', ,,,,,,,„ .).„.., 47,,,.. .,-,,,t• ..w..... ..-..-44.0.7,4„.--. ....,..".„7,,,, t'i t; JI / - • � / ' • i ti m / M ( t // ` : c 41 o >/&1 ? ./ [,??§.§.., � ,, 1,,, e N mA� • `- • oog • • • �Qv .� ci.wit; �i ri7 r ` i a $ ''' '' IQ, 1 111 pggCQw!S`�/' �ry§l 01 ^N Nob � ,, • h�aD �g 1,.li 0 0 loo ,- $ ' o .� r '*¢ •�--g, f p 92 1 B t c, _ ' t• �€ v • s.Ra 1 t.' ,t, _ 'iris�,, + t . t ;$ 1 n +''IL - '. '/' '1,.....-Z's YY 1*T"1{a All.it„` fes ' k 4 a '�.. , L J Operational Analysis Using the roadway geometric and traffic volume data described above as input, • traffic operational analysis was performed per the standards set out in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual,published by the Transportation Research Board. The industry-current Synchro/SimTraffic 7 package was used to complete the analysis. Two fundamental outputs from the model are typically used to characterize traffic flow. The first is Level of Service(LOS);a letter grade ranging from"A"(free flow)to"F"(over-saturated forced flow). Generally, Level of Service D represents the threshold for acceptable overall intersection operating conditions during a peak hour in an urban area such as Monticello. On an individual movement basis, LOS E is typically considered the lowest acceptable LOS. Movement LOS F can sometimes be considered acceptable for a side street movement at a two-way stop controlled intersection under peak hour conditions that does not meet warrants for installation of a traffic signal. For movements operating at a low LOS,the second important output to consider from the model is queuing. A queue is a line of vehicles waiting to pass through an intersection. While an intersection may be reported as operating at an acceptable level of service, queues from the intersection extending to upstream intersections or driveways could create a potential safety issue. The 95th percentile queue is typically considered the standard for design purposes. The microsimulation component of the model, SimTraffic, is best suited for reporting queuing between closely-spaced intersections. • Analyses were conducted for the AM and PM peak hour conditions for the 2010 Existing and 2030 Build scenarios. Results of the operational analyses are summarized below, by scenario: 2010 Existing Analysis of 2010 Existing conditions was performed in order to properly calibrate the model to match observed"real-world"conditions. Results of the analysis are summarized in Table 5. Detailed results are available in the appendix. The operational analysis of existing conditions assumes completion of a Mn/DOT project currently under construction at the first TH-25 intersection north of the river, County Road 11/14. This project involves the addition of dual northbound left and dual eastbound right turn lanes along with modifications to signal phasing. • Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 24 November 4, 2011 Table 5 • Operational Analysis Results—2010 Existing LOS Intersection AM PM Cty. Rd. 11/14/TH-25 C C/F River Street/TH-25 A A Broadway/Locust A A Broadway/Walnut A A Broadway/TH-25 B D Broadway/Cedar A A 3`d Street/Locust A A 3rd Street/Walnut A A 3ra Street/TH-25 A A/F 4`"Street/Locust A A 4m Street/Walnut A A 4"'Street/TH-25 A A Gm Street/TH-25 A A 7"'Street I TH-25 B C 1-94 North Ramps/TH-25 B B 1-94 South Ramp/TH-25 B B Signalized Intersections in Bold. "/F"Indicates one or more movements at LOS F. Existing traffic operations in the AM peak hour are very good, with all intersections and movements meeting or exceeding acceptable LOS thresholds. • Operations in the PM peak hour are good, with all intersections operating at acceptable overall LOS. LOS F movements are observed at two of the studied intersections (Cty. Rd. 11/14, 3rd Street). The intersection with the most significant capacity issues is the intersection of TH-25 and Broadway. This intersection operates at LOS D overall. 95th percentile queuing reported by the model extends beyond available storage bays for the eastbound and southbound lefts for 12% and 6% of the peak hour, respectively. 95th percentile queuing on the northbound through movement is the most critical, extending to 3`d Street 33% of the peak hour. These queues are based on the existing signal timing plan in place, and vary from day to day based on actual traffic conditions2. The levels of service and 95th percentile queues reported are intended to represent typical midweek(Tuesday- Thursday) conditions. Conditions on Friday afternoons during the summer are likely to be worse. Observation of the model suggests that the queuing experienced is typically of a short duration. Few, if any, cycle failures (vehicles waiting several cycles to move through an intersection) are likely to be experienced in the field. 2 As of August 2011,the intersection of TH-25 and County Road 11/14,located north of the River, is currently under construction. Delays to northbound TH-25 traffic in the PM peak period are • severe,with queues often spilling back to south of I-94. Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 25 November 4, 2011 2030 No-Build The results reported below for 2030 Build conditions assume optimized signal • timing. Operations also assume additional capacity improvements at the intersection of TH-25/Broadway. The ultimate intersection configuration of dual southbound lefts, dual eastbound lefts, and dual westbound rights is assumed for this intersection. Table 6 Operational Analysis Results— 2030 No-Build (Existing Geometry) Intersection LOS AM PM Cty. Rd. 11/14/TH-25 F/F E/F River Street/ TH-25 E/F A/F Broadway/Locust A A/F Broadway/Walnut A A Broadway/TH-25 D/F E/F Broadway/Cedar A F/F 3fd Street/Locust A A 31tl Street/Walnut B A 3`d Street/TH-25 D/F D/F 4`h Street/Locust F/F A 4th Street/Walnut F/F A Lith Street/TH-25 E/F E/F 6th Street/TH-25 F/F C/F 7"'Street/TH-25 D E/F 1-94 North Ramps/TH-25 C/F F/F 1-94 South Ramp/TH-25 B D/F *Signalized Intersections in Bold. "I F"Indicates one or more movements at LOS F. With the 60% growth in traffic anticipated between today and 2030, traffic operations become extremely congested in the study area. Half of the study intersections are forecast to experience LOS F movements in the AM peak hour, and all but five will have LOS F movements in the PM peak hour. In order to provide acceptable levels of service for baseline 2030 conditions, significant additional capacity will be required. The main constraint to expanding capacity to additional facilities is the existing 4-lane bridge over the Mississippi River. Due to this constraint, adding lanes on TH-25 in the CCD will provide little, if any,benefit. As noted in the City's transportation plan, the only effective long-term solution is to construct an additional river crossing. In the Transportation Plan, the City notes that a second river crossing is an essential upgrade to the existing roadway network to support anticipated increases in both local and regional traffic growth. Beyond the second river crossing, other recommended improvements include 1) the addition of a third approach lane(to provide left, through, and right turn lanes) on the westbound approach at 7th Street and 2) extension of the storage bay for the westbound off-ramp at the I-94 North Ramp intersection from 225 to 400 feet • Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 26 November 4, 2011 (or longer). Conceptual design plans for the 7th Street improvements are • currently underway by the City. Operations with these improvements in place (as assumed for 2030 baseline conditions in the City's transportation plan)were next analyzed to provide a better look at 2030 baseline(No-Build) conditions. 2030 No-Build with Second River Crossing Table 7 Operational Analysis Results—2030 No-Build with Second Bridge (City Comp Plan 2030 Baseline Geometry) LOS Intersection AM PM Cty. Rd. 11/14/TH-25 D/F C River Street I TH-25 A A Broadway/Locust A A Broadway/Walnut A A Broadway I TH-25 C D/F Broadway/Cedar A A 3`d Street/Locust A A 3`d Street/Walnut A A 3rd Street/TH-25 A A 4`h Street/Locust A A 4"'Street/Walnut A A • 4"'Street/TH 25 A A/F 6`"Street/TH 25 A/F A/F 7"'Street/TH-25 B C 1-94 North Ramps/TH-25 B C 1-94 South Ramp I TH-25 B B *Signalized Intersections in Bold. "I F"Indicates one or more movements at LOS F. The addition of a second river crossing improves traffic operations within the CCD substantially. The additional capacity at 7th Street and the I-94 North Ramps provides improved operations at these intersections as well. For the AM peak hour, all intersections return to acceptable overall intersection LOS. Three TH-25 intersections (3rd Street, 4th Street, 6th Street) experience movements at LOS F. In the PM peak hour, all intersections again operate at overall LOS D or better. Three intersections have movements operating at LOS F. They include TH- 25/Broadway, TH-25/4th Street, and TH-25/6th Street. Other than the westbound approach to TH-25/Broadway, queuing does not present a major issue throughout the network. Queues are short in duration with few, if any, cycle failures observed. • Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 27 November 4, 2011 • 2030 Build with Second River Crossing The addition of traffic associated with the proposed Revitalization Plan will drive • the need for some capacity improvements along TH-25 in the heart of the Monticello CCD. In order to provide for adequate access opportunities to the proposed retail land uses west of TH-25, installation of a traffic signal at 4t'' Street is needed. Without a traffic signal in place, retail operations are likely to be less than optimal. To offset the addition of a controlled full access point onto TH-25, conversion of 3rd Street to right-in/right-out (RIRO) access only is recommended. Results of traffic operations for 2030 Build conditions with these modifications in place are summarized in Table 8: Table 8 Operational Analysis Results— 2030 Build with Second Bridge Intersection LOS AM PM Cty. Rd. 11/14/TH-25 C C River Street/ TH-25 B A Broadway/Locust A A Broadway/Walnut A A Broadway/TH-25 C C Broadway/Cedar A A • 3rd Street/Locust A A 3`d Street/Walnut A A 3rd Street/TH-25 A A 4`h Street/Locust A A 4th Street/Walnut A A 4`h Street/TH-25 A B 6tn Street/TH-25 B/F A/F 7`n Street/TH-25 C C 1-94 North Ramps/TH-25 B C 1-94 South Ramp/TH-25 B B Signalized Intersections in Bold. "/F"Indicates one or more movements at LOS F. Traffic operations post-redevelopment show little change from those pre- redevelopment. One notable improvement is operations at the intersection of TH-25/Broadway. This improvement is due to the diversion of some east/west through traffic to the new traffic signal at 4th Street. It is anticipated that up to one-third of the east/west through traffic (100 - 150 vph in each direction during peak times) may divert to 4th Street. Trips making this diversion are anticipated to be very local in nature(origins/destinations within 5-6 blocks) as opposed to more regional trips originating from or destined to the perimeter of Monticello and beyond. 1110 Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 28 November 4, 2011 The improvement at TH-25/Broadway also helps to improve operations at 111 Broadway/Cedar. Queuing from TH-25/Broadway is not expected to impede operations at the Broadway intersections located one block in either direction (Cedar and Walnut). One critical issue involved with the addition of a traffic signal on TH-25 will be whether the traffic signal will result in increased delay and/or stops for mainline traffic. The current cycle length for the traffic signals on TH-25 (in both the AM and PM peak hours) is 130 seconds. At the intersection with Broadway,north/south through traffic receives 76-78 seconds of green time during the AM peak hour and 55-65 seconds during the PM peak hour. At the intersection with 4th, with the proposed traffic signal,north/south through traffic would receive 94-95 seconds during the AM peak hour and 78-85 seconds during the PM peak hour. In simple terms,the amount of green time is 20-40% greater for north/south traffic at 4th Street, depending on the direction and peak period. The availability of extra green time will provide extra flexibility when developing optimized signal coordination timing plans for the TH-25 corridor. This added flexibility will offset the loss in flexibility inherent with the addition of another signalized intersection to the corridor. Walnut and Locust Street non Arterial Intersections • Analysis was performed at the non-arterial intersections along Walnut and Locust Streets to determine if the addition of redevelopment-related traffic would result in traffic capacity issues. Under existing conditions which included MnDOT's TH-25/CR 11/14 intersection reconstruction project, field observations conducted in 2011 suggest that some northbound vehicles divert to Walnut Street to bypass queuing on TH- 25. Some of the vehicles using Walnut Street as an alternate route are destined west along Broadway, although a majority of the cut-through traffic appeared destined to the TH-25 river bridge. Although spare capacity exists at the Walnut Street intersections,the cut-through traffic eventually reaches the TH- 25/Broadway intersection,where little spare capacity is available. The cut- through vehicles add to the volume of eastbound lefts at this intersection,taking away green time from the northbound through movement. Despite this additional cut-through traffic, operations on Walnut Street as observed in the field were quite good, with no queues in excess of two vehicles observed at any intersection. Under the proposed CCD Revitalization Plan,Walnut Street would be designed to serve not only local through traffic, but also as a primary"drive aisle"for retail traffic. As such,pedestrian volumes would likely increase to reflect increased store-to-parking-lot foot traffic. The existence of increased vehicle-pedestrian 411 conflict has the potential to lessen Walnut Street's role as a desirable alternate Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 29 November 4, 2011 route to TH-25 under times of high traffic congestion. Because of Locust Street's location one block immediately west, it was included in operational analysis of • post-redevelopment conditions to determine if adequate capacity was available to handle any traffic diversion that might occur. The operational analysis conducted for 2030 post-redevelopment conditions assumed a high volume of pedestrian crossing traffic at the intersection of Walnut Street and 3rd Street. 160 peds per hour were assumed to be crossing each of the legs of this intersection, equal to the peak hour traffic volume expected for the primary retail generator planned for the southwest corner of the intersection. Even with the significant volume of ped traffic assumed, results of the operational analysis post-redevelopment(summarized in Table 8) indicate that reserve capacity is likely to remain available along Walnut Street. Overall intersection operations remain at LOS A at Walnut Street intersections. Accordingly, the amount of traffic to be diverted to Locust Street would be expected to be small. If this conclusion proves to be incorrect and a significant portion of existing traffic does divert to Locust Street,the analysis shows that the necessary roadway capacity exists to be able to handle the extra traffic while maintaining a LOS A. The intersection of Walnut/7th Street and intersections along Cedar Street were not included in this supplemental analysis because the amount of added traffic is expected to be small(less than 50 vph/500 ADT). Accordingly,no change in LOS would be expected. Any operational issues identified at these intersections in the future are not likely to be appreciably impacted by the proposed • Revitalization Plan. Operational Analysis Conclusions • The addition of a second Mississippi River crossing will be essential to providing acceptable level of service along TH-25 by the year 2030. Without a second river crossing, traffic volumes are anticipated to increase by as much as 60%per the City's Transportation Plan,resulting in demand exceeding capacity along the entire TH-25 corridor from the River to 1-94. • Assuming a second river crossing is implemented as recommended in the City's Transportation Plan,the intersection of TH-25 and Broadway is forecast to operate at LOS D through 2030. This intersection is the critical intersection in terms of north/south capacity on TH-25 through downtown Monticello. • The addition of traffic related to the proposed Redevelopment Plan will result in additional traffic demand at and around the TH-25/Broadway intersection. The addition of a traffic signal at 4th Street will provide an alternate route for local east/west traffic,resulting in additional green time 11111 Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 30 November 4, 2011 for TH-25 traffic at 7th Street and Broadway and improved operations for 111111 all traffic along TH-25. • Post-Redevelopment, acceptable LOS D is forecasted to remain for the TH-25/Broadway intersection. Queues are expected to remain short and result in minimal upstream intersection interference at the intersections of Broadway/Walnut and Broadway/Cedar. These two intersections are expected to operate at acceptable overall LOS with all movements at acceptable LOS. • The non-arterial intersections along Locust Street and Walnut Street are expected to be able to handle the anticipated post-Redevelopment traffic demands with reserve capacity. No diversion to Locust Street from Walnut Street will be required to achieve LOS A, even with significant pedestrian activity that is likely to be present along Walnut Street between Broadway and 4th Street. Spare capacity is available along Walnut Street to handle traffic that may choose to divert. • Capacity improvements are likely to be needed by 2030 at the TH-25 intersections of 7th Street and the I-94 North Ramp intersection, regardless of whether the proposed CCD Revitalization Plan proceeds. The recommended improvements are as follows: 0 7th Street: Add 3rd westbound approach lane. Add protected/permitted eastbound/westbound left turn phasing. o I-94 North Ramps: Extend westbound left turn lane storage bay from 225 feet to 400+ feet. Modify signal phasing to incorporate a westbound right turn overlap phase that is able to run concurrent with southbound throughs or northbound lefts. MnDOT currently has this work programmed for completion in the near future. • Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 31 November 4, 2011 PARKING • A parking study was conducted within the Monticello CCD to assess the quantity of public parking available on a typical weekday. Counts were conducted in December, 2010. In general, the area studied is the region bounded by River Street on the north, Locust Street on the West, Cedar Street on the east, and 5th Street on the South. Figure 15 depicts this area: Figure 15 Parking Study Area �,,_• .�_ AJCC C0 �'\1f tray 5 C7: , 3 ,,. f • tS, 51 East Bndne ._ 52 ; * r ara•; 'r,,,>., K'`r�',5,� 36 l'.1153 . ,t,�� 35 k 0 ‘� ;,. {31 34 , _ • '' 18` �� �_ 33 . 0,y` 35 PirH., -ifn 17 jr $, - :iia' tit% '"qtr �' to i .9 {9 ti Legend zi'.. Hillside '1. #1 ,... me er $ .. 00 Block Number F0,17-1 Cortl E 7tr,St street furl, c� ,„ Source: Google To ensure that the average mid-week parking demand was accounted for, all of the public parking spaces (both on-street and off-street) within this region were counted at the following times: • 8:30 AM, 10:30 AM, and 12:30 PM on Thursday, December 9, 2010. • 3:30 and 5:00 PM on Wednesday, August 24, 2011 • 7:00 and 8:30 AM on Thursday, August 25, 2011 • Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 32 November 4, 2011 The counts showed that of the roughly 600 public spaces available within this 12 • square block area, approximately 80% are available on a typical weekday. Detailed count data is summarized in Table 9,below. Table 9 Parking Count Details Block Total Spaces Available Number Spaces 7:30 8:30 10:30 12:30 3:30 5:00 AM AM AM PM PM PM 16 20 20 20 20 20 19 20 17 20 15 5 2 2 5 18 18 23 0 0 0 2 8 20 31 40 29 29 26 24 25 29 32 30 28 28 26 26 27 28 33 30 29 29 28 28 27 27 34 99 87 86 83 85 87 90 35 134 123 119 105 108 102 105 36 43 42 36 34 27 35 38 51 40 38 36 29 29 32 34 52 74 70 68 53 53 54 54 53 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 Overall 573 496 471 420 418 435 477 87% 83% 74% 74% 77% 84% Based on the findings in this parking study,public parking is generally in ample 411 supply within the 12-square-block study area. Between 70% and 90% of the public parking spaces are available throughout an average day. The one exception to this general trend is within the vicinity of the existing Cargill facility at 4th and Walnut (Block 18). Parking on this and nearby blocks is in short supply during working hours, forcing employees to park up to a block or more away. Employees are also observed parking in adjacent land use parking lots, including the Wells Fargo Bank parking lot across Walnut Street. Although a parking deficiency exists in the immediate vicinity of the Cargill facility, the availability of a significant amount of reserve parking capacity elsewhere in the CCD suggests that no additional parking capacity is needed within the CCD to support existing demand. Future parking facilities should incorporate stonnwater infiltration and ponding elements as much as practicable. III Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 33 November 4,2011 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE • East/West Ped Crossing of TH-25 One of the primary issues facing pedestrians in downtown Monticello is how to cross TH-25. Currently,pedestrian crossing is available at the following locations: • Pedestrian underpass north of River Street o 1.5-block separation from Broadway • Signalized crossing at Broadway o 5-block separation from 7th Street • Signalized crossing at 7th Street The 5-block separation between available crossing opportunities at Broadway and 7th Streets presents the biggest barrier to pedestrians. The proposed traffic signal at 4th Street would provide an additional signalized crossing opportunity for pedestrians. This signal would be located roughly midway between Broadway and 7th Streets,reducing the maximum separation between signalized crossing opportunities for pedestrians from 5 blocks to 3. The recommended signal phasing for east/west movements at the proposed 4th • Street traffic signal is permitted only, similar to existing operation at 7th Street. The minimum required time for the east/west phase to accommodate ped crossing will be approximately 26 seconds.3 Based on the operational analysis conducted and discussed earlier, a signal cycle length of 130 seconds is anticipated for 2030 conditions. In the PM peak hour, the side street(east/west)phase is projected to receive 30 seconds of green time, sufficient to meet the ped minimum. In the AM peak hour, when peds are less likely to be present, the amount of time projected for the side street is 20 seconds. If and when a ped call occurs during the AM peak hour, the signals would pause coordinated operations for one cycle to fully serve the pedestrian minimum time,returning to coordination in one cycle by shortening time on the mainline TH-25 phase. During off peak times,when cycle lengths would likely be less than 130 seconds, operation similar to the AM peak hour would occur if the side street phase were shorter than the required ped minimum. Coordination would be paused while the ped phase is serviced,then reinstated. The amount of time necessary to return to 3 Assumes 4-second Walk,22-second Flashing Don't Walk(5 travel lanes @ 12 ft.wide+6 ft median+four 2-ft shoulders @ 3.5 ft/sec.) 111 Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 34 November 4, 2011 coordinated operation would vary depending on the cycle length and total number • of phases. As flashing yellow arrow signal indications become more prevalent, the potential to eliminate unnecessary phases by time of day(such as north/south protected lefts during off peak times)expands,decreasing the likelihood that a ped call would require the signal to temporarily pause coordinated operations to serve the ped call. North/South Ped Crossing of Broadway The other issue facing pedestrians is north/south crossing of Broadway in the vicinity of the CCD. Currently, only one signalized crossing opportunity exists— at TH-25. Under existing conditions, low traffic volumes on Broadway permit crossing at the unsignalized intersections to the west and east(Walnut, Locust, Cedar, etc.) However, as traffic volumes on Broadway continue to grow, crossing at these unsignalized locations will become more problematic. One solution for this problem would be to add a traffic signal at one of the nearby unsignalized intersections. The mostly likely candidate for signalization is likely to be Locust Street. Although Walnut Street and Cedar Street experience higher daily and peak hour traffic volumes, their separation from TH-25 (one block/approximately 330 feet) suggests that operations could become problematic at some point in the future due to queuing. Locust Street, at two blocks separation to the west would be the next best option in terms of proximity to the heart of the CCD,traffic volumes, and separation from TH-25. Neither the intersection of Walnut Street nor Cedar Street currently meets peak hour vehicular volume warrants for signalization. Noting that traffic volumes are slightly lower on Locust Street indicates that this intersection currently would not meet peak hour signal warrants as well. In order to meet pedestrian warrants for signalization,the intersection would at a minimum need to experience over 190 pedestrians in the peak hour. Based on field observation of minimal ped activity,this threshold is far from being met. Bicycle Circulation and Facilities The major issues confronting bicyclists in the CCD include high traffic volumes on TH-25 and lack of dedicated facilities. In large part, as shown on the City's Existing Parks and Pathways Plan,bicyclists must share lanes with automobile traffic in the CCD. No dedicated bicycle facilities, except trails within East and West Bridge Parks adjacent to the Mississippi River, exist within the CCD. In order to improve service for bicyclists, implementation of a comprehensive dedicated network of bicycle facilities is needed. Such a plan has been developed by the City and published in May of 2011 as the Park and Trail Draft System 41111 Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 35 November 4,2011 Plan. The Park and Trail Draft System Plan identifies two corridors within the CCD as bicycle corridors: • • Broadway/River Street is identified as a Primary Pathway Route • TH-25 is identified as a Secondary Pathway Route While bicycle use of these two facilities within the CCD is not prohibited, the current geometric design of these two facilities does not consistently facilitate use by bicycles. To the extent possible, as improvements are made to both Broadway and TH-25, a prudent action would be to design the improvements mindful of bicyclists as users in addition to automobiles. Due to right-of-way constraints within the CCD,the bicycle facilities developed for these roadways may need to be of the on-street variety(wide shoulders or dedicated bike lanes), as opposed to dedicate off-street trail facilities. The implementation of bicycle facilities on TH-25, while recommended in the City's Park and Trail Draft System Plan,runs contrary to the functional classification of TH-25 as an arterial roadway, the primary purpose of which is to carry regional vehicular traffic. As preliminary-level design of bicycle-related improvements on this corridor is undertaken, consultation with Mn/DOT should take place to ensure that the functional integrity of the corridor will not be impacted. • Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 36 November 4, 2011 • APPENDIX A. Traffic Count Data • September 2010 turning movement counts • March 2011 turning movement count at TH-25/Broadway B. Operational Analysis Results • 2010 Existing AM &PM • 2030 No-Build AM &PM • 2030 No-Build with Bridge AM &PM • 2030 Build with Bridge AM&PM C. Monticello Trail Plans • Existing Trail Plan(2011) • Proposed Trail Plan • II/ Monticello CCD Revitalization Page 37 November 4,2011 W Westwood Professional Services 7699 Anagram Drive Westwood Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Highway 25 and River St Solutions for four Success File Name : 18-25 and River St Monticello Site Code : 15497182 III Start Date :9/15/09 Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Total River St River St Highway 25 Highway 25 EB %VB NB SB Start Time Left Thru Right App' Left Thru Right App' Left Thru Right App' Left Thru Right App. Int. Total Total Total Total Total 06:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 147 0 148 0 378 19 397 545 06:45 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 137 0 137 0 419 17 436 574 Total 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 284 0 285 0 797 36 833 1119 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 148 0 148 0 395 22 417 565 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 149 0 149 0 395 18 413 562 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 0 163 0 384 10 394 557 07:45 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 166 0 166 0 342 8 350 517 Total 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 626 0 626 0 1516 58 1574 2201 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 130 0 131 0 251 11 262 393 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 131 0 132 0 245 7 252 384 ***BREAK*** Total i 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 01 2 261 0 263 I 0 496 18 514 777 ***BREAK*** 11:00 AM 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 149 0 150 0 152 4 156 311 11:15 AM 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 2 153 0 155 0 189 6 195 354 11.30 AM 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 164 0 164 0 206 8 214 380 11:45 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 186 0 187 0 198 13 211 399 Total 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 0 4 652 0 656 0 745 31 776 1444 12:00 PM 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 2 220 0 222 0 199 6 205 431• 12:15 PM 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 216 0 217 0 206 10 216 436 12:30 PM 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 3 205 0 208 0 184 3 187 399 12:45 PM 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 211 0 225 11 236 456 Total 0 0 20 20 0 0 0 0 6 852 0 858 0 814 30 844 1722 ***BREAK*** 03:00 PM 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 2 326 0 328 0 225 17 242 576 03:15 PM 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 362 0 362 0 225 15 240 606 03:30 PM 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 1 403 0 404 0 267 13 280 691 03:45 PM 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 405 0 406 0 258 23 281 691 Total 0 0 21 21 0 0 0 0 4 1496 0 1500 0 975 68 1043 2564 04:00 PM 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 1 449 0 450 0 229 14 243 700 04:15 PM 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 473 0 474 0 264 15 279 755 04:30 PM 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 1 490 0 491 0 224 13 237 733 04:45 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 445 0 446 0 298 24 322 769 Total 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 0 4 1857 0 1861 0 1015 66 1081 2957 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 471 0 471 0 294 28 322 793 05:15 PM 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 454 0 456 0 258 18 276 734 05:30 PM 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 397 0 397 0 242 14 256 657 05:45 PM 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 414 0 414 0 236 11 247 663 Total 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 2 1736 0 1738 0 1030 71 1101 2847 Grand Total 0 0 78 78 0 0 0 0 23 7764 0 7787 0 7388 378 7766 15631 Apprch% 0 0 100 0 0 0 0.3 99.7 0 0 95.1 4.9 Total% 0 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.1 49.7 0 49.8 0 47.3 2.4 49.7 0 a. WPrinted By: Westwood Professional Services Westwood 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 553_44 Hwy 25 and Broadway (CSAH 75) H1 e Name : 17 - 25 and Broadway (CSAH 75) enticello Site Code : 16497172 Start Date : 9/16/2009 Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Total Broadway(CSAH 75) Broadway(CSAH 75) Highway 25 Highway 25 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Time Left Thru Right I App.Total Left Thru Right App.Total Left Thru I Right App.Total Left I Thru Right App.Total Int.Total 06:30 AM 29 29 13 71 4 18 25 47 11 89 1 101 36 285 26 347 566 06:45 AM 25 41 11 77 2 21 28 51 19 116 5 140 49 318 29 396 664 Total 54 70 24 148 6 39 53 98 30 205 6 241 85 603 55 743 1230 07:00 AM 24 48 10 82 7 13 22 42 10 81 6 97 65 319 26 410 631 07:15 AM 30 67 16 113 11 19 34 64 13 106 6 125 62 347 21 430 732 07:30 AM 31 24 14 69 9 30 36 75 10 110 12 132 50 311 21 382 658 07:45 AM 34 36 13 83 20 19 35 74 13 110 Il 134 60 263 17 340 631 Total 119 175 53 347 47 81 127 255 46 407 35 488 237 1240 85 1562 2652 08:00 AM 123 28 17 68 1 10 14 13 37 I 12 83 8 103 I 46 202 10 258 I 466 08:15 AM 26 31 9 66 10 22 20 52 10 84 12 106 41 203 14 258 482 ***BREAK*** Total I 49 59 26 134I 20 36 33 89I 22 167 20 2091 87 405 24 5161 948 ***BREAK*** 11:00 AM 17 25 26 68 22 22 30 74 18 77 10 105 35 157 16 208 455 11:15 AM 42 36 16 94 16 23 36 75 19 127 10 156 31 139 12 182 507 11:30 AM 33 37 25 95 21 25 40 86 18 119 9 146 30 157 13 200 527 11:45 AM 46 33 21 100 27 37 37 101 23 121 13 157 27 131 14 172 530 Total 138 131 88 357 86 107 143 336 78 444 42 564 123 584 55 762 2019 0 12:00 PM 24 36 18 78 15 32 48 95 17 126 9 152 30 158 15 203 528 12:15 PM 40 35 21 96 17 36 45 98 19 118 14 151 36 162 28 226 571 12:30 PM 33 24 19 76 11 19 32 62 17 139 13 169 28 142 9 179 486 12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 13 22 38 73 26 133 12 171 0 0 0 0 244 Total 97 95 58 250 56 109 163 328 79 516 48 643 94 462 52 608 1829 ***BREAK*** 03:00 PM 63 34 30 127 22 42 77 141 13 203 8 224 34 160 25 219 711 03:15 PM 53 30 13 96 18 45 79 142 17 220 5 242 35 175 28 238 718 03:30 PM 86 65 24 175 20 45 98 163 14 219 4 237 32 161 23 216 791 03:45 PM 72 51 18 141 26 40 89 155 21 229 9 259 32 160 19 211 766 Total 274 180 85 539 86 172 343 601 65 871 26 962 133 656 95 884 2986 04:00 PM 72 58 17 147 25 48 101 174 21 237 6 264 42 178 20 240 825 04:15 PM 73 65 17 155 25 56 113 194 21 244 3 268 52 196 20 268 885 04:30 PM 73 72 16 161 24 64 125 213 19 251 1 271 61 213 21 295 940 04:45 PM 84 44 8 136 20 57 111 188 18 301 1 320 57 240 24 321 965 Total 302 239 58 599 94 225 450 769 79 1033 11 1123 212 827 85 1124 3615 05:00 PM 95 51 18 164 21 59 121 201 17 323 1 341 53 193 19 265 971 05:15 PM 89 43 20 152 8 37 108 153 16 295 2 313 58 208 21 287 905 05:30 PM 84 39 12 135 17 51 123 191 16 263 8 287 47 166 14 227 840 05:45 PM 57 35 16 108 19 43 122 184 16 256 6 278 40 196 21 257 827 Total 325 168 66 559 65 190 474 729 65 1137 17 1219 198 763 75 1036 3543 Grand Total 1358 1117 458 2933 460 959 1786 3205 464 4780 205 5449 1169 5540 526 7235 18822 Apprch% 46.3 38.1 15.6 14.4 29.9 55.7 8.5 87.7 3.8 16.2 76.6 7.3 Total% 7.2 5.9 2.4 15.6 2.4 5.1 9.5 17 2.5 25.4 1.1 29 6.2 29.4 2.8 38.4 III 1 I I RIF Westwood Professional Services 7699 Anagram Drive Westwood Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Hwy 25 and 7th St Solutions for your Success File Name : 16-25 and 7th St Monticello Site Code : 15225162 Start Date :9/15/09 III Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Total 7th Street 7th Street Highway 25 Highway 25 EB WB NB SB Start Time Left Thru Right App' Left Thru Right App' Left Thru Right App' Left Thio Right App. Int. Total Total Total Total Total 06:30 AM 5 6 33 44 12 5 4 21 17 137 10 164 3 279 13 295 524 06:45 AM 6 4 47 57 17 19 7 43 11 135 17 163 6 309 17 332 595 Total 11 10 80 101 29 24 11 64 28 272 27 327 9 588 30 627 1119 07:00 AM 1 13 51 65 19 11 7 37 12 135 29 176 10 270 13 293 571 07:15 AM 5 23 43 71 14 17 7 38 19 137 38 194 11 285 15 311 614 07:30 AM 4 12 38 54 17 9 9 35 26 156 35 217 6 282 13 301 607 07:45 AM 7 13 59 79 16 6 8 30 27 153 42 222 5 250 13 268 599 Total 17 61 191 269 66 43 31 140 84 581 144 809 32 1087 54 1173 2391 08:00 AM 7 8 30 45 15 8 4 27 27 137 18 182 13 169 16 198 452 08:15 AM 4 10 17 31 25 8 9 42 16 119 40 175 11 190 7 208 456 ***BREAK*** Total I 11 18 47 76 I 40 16 13 69 I 43 256 58 357 I 24 359 23 406 908 ***BREAK*** 11:00 AM 12 22 27 61 24 17 12 53 21 127 41 189 9 132 12 153 456 11:15 AM 10 12 39 61 25 27 25 77 21 133 32 186 26 156 17 199 523 11:30 AM 9 19 30 58 36 27 20 83 35 146 32 213 13 141 20 174 528 11:45 AM 14 24 40 78 37 33 20 90 38 164 46 248 15 184 17 216 632 Total 45 77 136 258 122 104 77 303 115 570 151 836 63 613 66 742 2139 12:00 PM 9 19 35 63 29 36 26 91 33 183 40 256 16 164 19 199 609• 12:15 PM 18 22 32 72 37 29 29 95 38 198 38 274 13 160 15 188 629 12:30 PM 14 23 33 70 37 30 23 90 36 204 40 280 23 152 21 196 636 12:45 PM 16 26 23 65 40 33 22 95 54 178 43 275 13 179 7 199 634 Total 57 90 123 270 143 128 100 371 161 763 161 1085 65 655 62 782 2508 ***BREAK*** 03:00 PM 15 23 36 74 36 31 19 86 41 241 31 313 10 172 14 196 669 03:15 PM 16 17 37 70 34 34 19 87 44 264 32 340 12 195 10 217 714 03:30 PM 24 28 59 111 45 38 19 102 72 262 35 369 8 187 3 198 780 03:45 PM 17 26 43 86 33 39 23 95 78 293 35 406 12 197 9 218 805 Total 72 94 175 341 148 142 80 370 235 1060 133 1428 42 751 36 829 2968 04:00 PM 25 19 45 89 46 37 20 103 60 305 32 397 13 199 15 227 816 04:15 PM 24 30 44 98 36 34 30 100 56 350 32 438 13 194 11 218 854 04:30 PM 20 24 38 82 39 37 14 90 61 323 38 422 13 173 17 203 797 04:45 PM 21 28 48 97 49 42 14 105 65 297 49 411 15 180 12 207 820 Total 90 101 175 366 170 150 78 398 242 1275 151 1668 54 746 55 855 3287 05:00 PM 23 28 61 112 49 30 10 89 58 379 45 482 8 187 17 212 895 05:15 PM 18 29 38 85 30 41 14 85 68 290 30 388 19 187 16 222 780 05:30 PM 15 39 45 99 50 45 22 117 56 331 44 431 17 162 17 196 843 05:45 PM 24 27 46 97 31 27 26 84 43 297 31 371 12 177 16 205 757 Total 80 123 190 393 160 143 72 375 225 1297 150 1672 56 713 66 835 3275 Grand Total 383 574 1117 2074 878 750 462 2090 1133 6074 975 8182 345 5512 392 6249 18595 Apprch% 18.5 27.7 53.9 42 35.9 22.1 13.8 74.2 11.9 5.5 88.2 6.3 Total% 2.1 3.1 6 11.2 4.7 4 2.5 11.2 6.1 32.7 5.2 44 1.9 29.6 2.1 33.6 410 V V Westwood Professional Services 7699 Anagram Drive Westwood Eden Prairie,MN 55344 Hwy 25 and 1-94 WB Ramps Solutions for your Success File Name : 15- 25 and I94 WB ,nticello Site Code : 17497152 Start Date :9/17/09 Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Total 1-94 WB Ramp 1-94 WB Ramp Highway 25 Highway 25 EB WB NB SB Start Time Left Thru Right App. Left ThruRight App' Left Thru Right App' App' Int. Left Thru Right Total Total Total Total Total 06:30 AM 0 0 0 0 21 0 64 85 16 94 0 110 0 342 13 355 550 06:45 AM 0 0 0 0 31 0 58 89 20 116 0 136 0 347 21 368 593 Total 0 0 0 0 52 0 122 174 36 210 0 246 0 689 34 723 1143 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 25 0 55 80 28 112 0 140 0 295 24 319 539 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 22 0 56 78 44 148 0 192 0 321 24 345 615 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 29 0 61 90 49 135 0 184 0 331 22 353 627 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 27 1 73 101 25 156 0 181 0 293 21 314 596 Total 0 0 0 0 103 1 245 349 146 551 0 697 0 1240 91 1331 2377 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 18 0 49 67 30 105 2 137 0 221 19 240 444 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 20 0 46 66 34 133 0 167 0 235 17 252 485 ***BREAK*** Total 0 0 0 0I 38 0 95 1331 64 238 2 3041 0 456 36 492 929 ***BREAK*** 11:00 AM 0 0 0 0 38 0 44 82 23 139 0 162 0 227 19 246 490 11:15 AM 0 0 0 0 25 0 42 67 17 136 0 153 0 225 17 242 462 11:30 AM 0 0 0 0 28 0 75 103 31 159 0 190 0 208 12 220 513 11:45 AM 0 0 0 0 26 0 59 85 19 196 0 215 0 232 23 255 555 Total 0 0 0 0 117 0 220 337 90 630 0 720 0 892 71 963 2020 ilo12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 30 0 62 92 30 201 0 231 0 238 35 273 596 12:15 PM 0 0 0 0 40 0 54 94 23 202 0 225 0 232 24 256 575 12:30 PM 0 0 0 0 34 0 73 107 21 187 0 208 0 218 24 242 557 12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 34 0 56 90 29 170 2 201 0 246 13 259 550 Total 0 0 0 0 138 0 245 383 103 760 2 865 0 934 96 1030 2278 ***BREAK*** 03:00 PM 0 0 0 0 47 0 86 133 36 209 1 246 0 239 30 269 648 03:15 PM 0 0 0 0 38 0 92 130 26 217 0 243 0 236 31 267 640 03:30 PM 0 0 0 0 44 2 115 161 23 239 0 262 0 276 27 303 726 03:45 PM 0 0 0 0 52 0 124 176 27 249 0 276 0 269 28 297 749 Total 0 0 0 0 181 2 417 600 112 914 1 1027 0 1020 116 1136 2763 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 50 1 119 170 31 229 0 260 0 307 28 335 765 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 53 0 140 193 29 265 0 294 0 263 31 294 781 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 52 1 110 163 37 323 0 360 0 286 22 308 831 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 54 1 105 160 31 306 0 337 0 277 35 312 809 Total 0 0 0 0 209 3 474 686 128 1123 0 1251 0 1133 116 1249 3186 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 47 0 101 148 41 248 0 289 0 250 35 285 722 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 61 1 120 182 23 260 0 283 0 259 25 284 749 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 51 1 134 186 26 227 0 253 0 279 30 309 748 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 50 0 126 176 20 251 0 271 0 258 24 282 729 Total 0 0 0 0 209 2 481 692 110 986 0 1096 0 1046 114 1160 2948 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 1047 8 2299 3354 789 5412 5 6206 0 7410 674 8084 17644 Apprch% 0 0 0 31.2 0.2 68.5 12.7 87.2 0.1 0 91.7 8.3 Total% 0 0 0 0 5.9 0 13 19 4.5 30.7 0 35.2 0 42 3.8 45.8 ID W Westwood Professional Services 7699 Anagram Drive Westwood Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Hwy 25 and I-94 EB Off Ramp/CR117 Solutions for your Success File Name : 14-25 and I94 EB Monticello Site Code : 16225142 Start Date :9/16/09 III Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Total 1-94 EB Ranip CR 117 11wy 25 Hwy'25 EB WB NB SB Start Time Left Thru Right App' Left Thru Right App' Left Thru Right App" Left Thru Right App' Int. Total Total Total Total Total 06:30 AM 12 13 18 43' 9 0 44 53 0 139 16 155 32 127 0 159 410 06:45 AM 17 8 23 48 6 0 38 44 0 150 21 171 26 123 0 149 412 Total 29 21 41 91 15 0 82 97 0 289 37 326 58 250 0 308 822 07:00 AM 15 20 16 51 9 0 47 56 0 156 16 172 24 131 0 155 434 07:15 AM 29 9 30 68 9 0 58 67 0 183 27 210 26 166 0 192 537 07:30 AM 20 12 23 55 11 0 60 71 0 185 32 217 27 182 0 209 552 07:45 AM 20 9 20 49 10 0 37 47 0 168 16 184 23 159 0 182 462 Total 84 50 89 223 39 0 202 241 0 692 91 783 100 638 0 738 1985 08:00 AM 7 9 13 29 6 0 36 42 0 167 20 187 27 150 0 177 435 08:15 AM 9 10 16 35 7 0 47 54 0 176 22 198 16 99 0 115 402 ***BREAK*** Total I 16 19 29 64 I 13 0 83 96 I 0 343 42 385 I 43 249 0 292 837 ***BREAK*** 11:00 AM 5 12 18 35 9 0 53 62 0 134 9 143 19 128 0 147 387 11:15 AM 12 9 18 39 5 0 47 52 0 137 13 150 20 137 0 157 398 11:30 AM 14 3 16 33 4 0 47 51 0 177 15 192 23 185 0 208 484 11:45 AM 8 9 14 31 6 0 42 48 0 218 20 238 31 155 0 186 503 Total 39 33 66 138 24 0 189 213 0 666 57 723 93 605 0 698 1772 12:00 PM 8 9 16 33 13 0 56 69 0 190 23 213 28 172 0 200 515 12:15 PM 10 7 14 31 11 0 41 52 0 184 18 202 29 164 0 193 478 i 12:30 PM 19 4 21 44 6 0 59 65 0 175 13 188 20 147 0 167 464 12:45 PM 17 11 19 47 7 0 54 61 0 197 15 212 16 158 0 174 494 Total 54 31 70 155 37 0 210 247 0 746 69 815 93 641 0 734 1951 ***BREAK*** 03:00 PM 21 7 24 52 4 0 29 33 0 201 10 211 17 176 0 193 489 03:15 PM 20 10 18 48 7 0 32 39 0 247 17 264 13 203 0 216 567 03:30 PM 15 13 19 47 6 0 44 50 0 236 14 250 27 207 0 234 581 03:45 PM 17 9 32 58 9 0 59 68 0 242 14 256 25 162 0 187 569 Total 73 39 93 205 26 0 164 190 0 926 55 981 82 748 0 830 2206 04:00 PM 20 12 24 56 10 0 61 71 0 280 15 295 28 176 0 204 626 04:15 PM 28 10 30 68 7 0 38 45 0 296 19 315 21 164 0 185 613 04:30 PM 24 10 29 63 20 0 69 89 0 294 14 308 29 174 0 203 663 04:45 PM 22 11 26 59 9 0 63 72 0 259 13 272 17 226 0 243 646 Total 94 43 109 246 46 0 231 277 0 1129 61 1190 95 740 0 835 2548 05:00 PM 29 1 16 46 8 0 54 62 0 275 18 293 25 269 0 294 695 05:15 PM 25 6 37 68 11 0 34 45 0 244 14 258 23 234 0 257 628 05:30 PM 15 15 20 50 8 0 46 54 0 268 12 280 22 183 0 205 589 05:45 PM 26 9 22 57 8 0 49 57 0 285 14 299 28 205 0 233 646 Total 95 31 95 221 35 0 183 218 0 1072 58 1130 98 891 0 989 2558 Grand Total 484 267 592 1343 235 0 1344 1579 0 5863 470 6333 662 4762 0 5424 14679 Apprch% 36 19.9 44.1 14.9 0 85.1 0 92.6 7.4 12.2 87.8 0 Total% 3.3 1.8 4 9.1 1.6 0 9.2 10.8 0 39.9 3.2 43.1 4.5 32.4 0 37 0 WCounted By: Westwood Professional Services Westwood 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344File Name : TH 25 at Broadway2011-03-24 Monticello O25 at Broadway Site Code : 22222222 urs, March 24, 2011 Start Date : 3/24/2011 Counted By: Westwood Page No : 1 Groups Printed-Unshifted Broadway Broadway TH 25 TH 25 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Start Time Left I Thru I Right Left I Thru I Right Left I Thru I Right Left I Thru I Right Int.Total 03:00 PM 7 8 5 7 19 17 14 74 3 10 56 5 225 03:05 PM 14 13 5 3 10 27 13 60 4 13 41 5 208 03:10 PM 8 11 6 5 18 19 13 67 2 24 61 8 242 03:15 PM 18 11 4 10 20 30 8 59 2 16 64 8 250 03:20 PM 11 13 5 7 17 28 12 56 5 12 55 8 229 03:25 PM 18 17 5 6 20 25 2 69 2 14 56 9 243 03:30 PM 20 13 9 10 17 33 6 62 1 7 49 5 232 03:35 PM 24 14 7 9 12 20 8 74 4 8 84 5 269 03:40 PM 21 13 7 9 13 27 8 72 0 15 57 4 246 03:45 PM 14 24 7 5 20 27 5 77 2 14 43 7 245 03:50 PM 14 16 8 7 25 35 8 62 3 14 79 4 275 03:55 PM 27 21 7 6 27 31 5 64 3 19 44 4 258 Total 196 174 75 84 218 319 102 796 31 166 689 72 2922 04:00 PM 29 20 8 11 12 33 8 69 2 14 42 6 254 04:05 PM 28 18 2 8 18 29 4 70 1 10 57 8 253 04:10 PM 22 14 3 8 7 28 10 85 3 15 49 9 253 04:15 PM 13 8 1 9 14 28 7 81 3 16 58 9 247 04:20 PM 17 15 6 9 16 28 11 70 3 13 56 6 250 04:25 PM 15 13 5 9 16 26 11 91 11 11 64 17 289 04:30 PM 25 19 6 6 23 38 8 72 1 20 36 5 259 • 04:35 PM 23 10 2 3 11 23 12 112 5 9 66 13 289 04:40 PM 28 8 10 7 23 39 8 68 3 10 60 11 275 04:45 PM 14 11 6 10 9 32 8 100 3 13 77 12 295 04:50 PM 22 19 5 7 18 37 7 73 1 15 47 3 254 04:55 PM 23 9 5 7 11 20 7 108 2 20 90 12 314 Total 259 164 59 94 178 361 101 999 38 166 702 111 3232 05:00 PM 26 20 6 12 12 35 11 69 6 12 39 13 261 05:05 PM 14 10 6 6 19 29 9 82 3 13 71 9 271 05:10 PM 34 18 6 8 27 33 11 57 2 18 53 8 275 05:15 PM 19 5 9 2 19 31 6 99 2 10 72 12 286 05:20 PM 26 22 10 5 20 27 11 60 5 18 43 5 252 05:25 PM 16 10 12 6 17 33 4 110 4 13 70 7 302 05:30 PM 32 15 10 4 26 43 10 65 2 17 50 12 286 05:35 PM 30 9 22 1 11 24 11 84 5 5 56 11 269 05:40 PM 35 20 15 4 15 31 7 49 0 12 39 13 240 05:45 PM 18 9 9 3 11 18 6 91 3 12 64 18 262 05:50 PM 22 17 9 11 23 29 17 64 0 17 42 3 254 05:55 PM 12 11 7 3 15 30 10 73 3 14 72 13 263 Total 284 166 121 65 215 363 113 903 35 161 671 124 3221 Grand Total 739 504 255 243 611 1043 316 2698 104 493 2062 307 9375 Apprch% 49.3 33.6 17 12.8 32.2 55 10.1 86.5 3.3 17.2 72 10.7 Total% 7.9 5.4 2.7 2.6 6.5 11.1 3.4 28.8 1.1 5.3 22 3.3 III Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2010 Existing AM Node Intersection I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 10 CR 11&TH 25(Signalized—Cycle Length:105) Lanes <T 44 E- T> E-E- TT 4 E- TT> Volume 7 9 750 200 10 1 255 255 99 3 750 6 III Phasing pm+ov Split Prot Perm Prot Synchro LOS D C E D B B A D D D SimTraffic LOS D C D C B A A E D C Storage/*Link Dist. *776 300 *1,191 *1,191 200 *1,645 170 300 *1,578 SimTraffic 95th Queue 45 240 226 26 85 77 26 11 342 Queue Block Time(%) 1 20 River St&TH 25(Signalized—Cycle Length:105) Lanes <T> <T 9 € TT> E- TT> Volume 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 598 1 33 1,600 67 Phasing Perm Perm Perm Synchro LOS C D C A A A A A SimTraffic LOS C A B A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *702 100 60 *332 200 *1,645 SimTraffic 95th Queue 12 29 9 28 33 146 Queue Block Time(%) 26 Broadway St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- TT> E- TT> <T 4 <1' 4 Volume 15 278 25 35 206 10 15 5 15 20 10 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 150 *803 100 *324 100 *341 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 14 3 26 42 34 49 23 Queue Block Time(%) 28 CSAH 75&Walnut St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- 1`T> E- TT> <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 4 290 19 13 237 2_ 13 1 18 3 1 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a III SimTraffic LOS A A A A C A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 100 80 *326 100 *306 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 6 18 387 3 19 14 Queue Block Time(%) 30 CSAH 75&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:105) Lanes € TT> € TT> € TT> € TT> Volume 100 160 51 29 1031 100 52 4001 40 225 1,280 97 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Prot Prot Synchro LOS D D C C E B D B C SimTraffic LOS D D D D D B C B B Storage/*Link Dist. 200 *343 200 *321 200 *331 220 *332 SimTraffic 95th Queue 119 130 57 147 90 127 248 355 Queue Block Time(%) 1 2 32 CSAH 75&Cedar St(Unsignalized) Lanes F 1`1`> E- TT> <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 1 404 20 13 222 1 9 1 25 1 1 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 80 *321 100 *940 *418 100 *309 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 2 16 3 28 45 8 14 Queue Block Time(%) 36 3rd St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes <1' 4 <1' 4 <0 <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 7 20 1 9 33 21 8 7 1 20 42 8 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *367 25 *328 25 *334 *334 25 *324 25 III SimTraffic 95th Queue 3 11 3 25 25 17 38 31 Queue Block Time(%) 11 1 4 1 Westwood Professional Services Page 1 of 3 8/26/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2010 Existing AM Node Intersection I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 38 3rd St&Walnut St(All-way stop) Lanes <I' 4 <1' 4 <1' 4 <1‘ 0 Volume 7 15 19 5 35 5 20 20 1 5 20 8 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *328 25 *330 25 *333 25 *326 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 33 43 40 25 40 15 35 32 Queue Block Time(%) 2 2 4 1 5 3 1 40 3rd St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <T 4 <1' 4 4- TT> F TT> Volume 1 1 19 1 1 10 11 481 12 11 1,316 33 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS D B E A C A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *330 100 *315 100 130 70 *331 SimTraffic 95th Queue 11 42 11 28 26 9 2 Queue Block Time(%) 46 4th St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes <T> <'f' 4 <T> <T 4 Volume 5 5 1 5 32 8 1 3 1 28 3 21 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *370 *339 25 *141 *334 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 5 6 2t".: 20 35 , 47 Queue Block Time(%) 2 2 48 4th St&Walnut St(All-way stop) Lanes <1' 4 <1' 4 <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 11 20 13 471 35 10 9 30 6 101 33 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop • Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *339 25 *332 25 *344 25 *333 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 30 39 45 38 39 25 41 7 Queue Block Time(%) 1 1 5 1 3 3 50 4th St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <T 4 <1' 9 4- TT> 4- TT> Volume 41 1 31 21 1 20 45 480 53 15 1,2751 46 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS C B E A B A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *332 100 *351 100 150 *745 150 *335 SimTraffic 95th Queue 23 49 21 42 41 1 21 2 Queue Block Time(%) 70 6th St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <1' 4 <1' 4 E- TT> E- TT> Volume 61 1 60 11 1 1 57 571 1 30 1,2151 63 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS F C E A C A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *760 100 *376 100 125 125 *745 SimTraffic 95th Queue 28 67 15 14 71 45 29 Queue Block Time(%) 1 80 7th St&TH 25(Signalized—Cycle Length:105) Lanes E- T 4 E- T> E- TT> E- TT> Volume 17 61 191 66 431 31 80 581 135 36 1,1651 75 Phasing Perm Perm Perm Prot Prot Synchro LOS D D B E D E A D A B SimTraffic LOS D D C D D D A D A B Storage/*Link Dist. 0 *304 *304 *304 *365 *365 3001 *438 125 *334 SimTraffic 95th Queue Queue38 88 165 103 102 111' 115 69 228 Block Time(%) 2 Westwood Professional Services Page 2 of 3 8/26/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2010 Existing AM Node Intersection Eastbound 1 Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 90 1-94 North Ramps&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:105) Lanes <T 4 E- TT TT> Volume 103 1 245 129 551 1,315 107 • Phasing Perm Prot Synchro LOS D B D A A B SimTraffic LOS D A D A B B Storage/*Link Dist. *1,159 400 *729 *438 SimTraffic 95th Queue 1":3 87 161 81 387 Queue Block Time(%) 95 1-94 EB Ramps&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes 'M. 4 'NM' 4 Volume 680 275 720 698 Sign Control Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 125 *729 5 SimTraffic 95th Queue 6 Queue Block Time(%) 100 1-94 South Ramp&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:105) Lanes E- <T 4 E- 4 TT 4 E- TT Volume 76 39 86 36 191 688 80 100 620 Phasing pm+pt Perm custom custom Perm Prot Synchro LOS C D B C B A A D A B SimTraffic LOS D D B D A A A D A B Storage/*Link Dist. 175 *1,084 175 *443 *443 *771 300 *167 *167 SimTraffic 95th Queue 87 87 53 42 73 145 37 122 119 Queue Block Time(%) 110 Chelsea Rd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:105) Lanes F TT> F TT> E- TT 4 E- TT 4 Volume 175 102 49 12 65 53 - 36 540 28 85 552 105 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Prot Perm Prot Perm Synchro LOS C C C C D B A D B A C SimTraffic LOS C C D D D B A D A A B • Storage/*Link Dist. *331 *331 200 *314 300 *2,646 300 400 *771 250 SimTraffic 95th Queue 174 87 28 81 68 152 34 109 108 42 Queue Block Time(%) 120 School Blvd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:105) Lanes E- T> € T 4 <- TT 4 <- TT 4 Volume 25 38 12 71 20 103 5 476 84 95 500 18 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Synchro LOS C D C D B D B A D B A B SimTraffic LOS C D D D A E A A D A A B Storage/*Link Dist. *318 *318 300 *392 200 300 *1,245 300 400 *2,646 300 SimTraffic 95th Queue 47 74 91 40 49 12 106 30 140 137 17 Queue Block Time(%) • Westwood Professional Services Page 3 of 3 8/26/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2010 Existing PM Node Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 10 CR 11&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:120) Lanes <1' 44 F 1'> E-E- 1`1' 4 E- TT> 0 Volume 8 12 400 190 14 1 700 850 230 7 554 9 Phasing pm+ov Split Prot Perm Prot Synchro LOS D B E D C B A E D C SimTraffic LOS E B E D C B A F D C Storage/*Link Dist. *776 300 *1,191 *1,191 200 *1,645 170 300 *1,578 SimTraffic 95th Queue 48 128 260 39 246 192 51 30 272 Queue Block Time(%) 5 2 20 River St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:120) Lanes <1'> <1' 4 E- TT> E- TT> Volume 10 1 8 2 1 10 15 1,760 25 10 1,080 54 Phasing Perm Perm Perm Synchro LOS C D C A A A A A SimTraffic LOS E C C B A C A A Storage/*Link Dist. *702 *891 100 60 *332 200 *1,645 SimTraffic 95th Queue 45 13 33 35 105 25 129 Queue Block Time(%) 3 26 Broadway St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- TT> F TT> <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 15 474 10 35 316 5 16 2 38 30 5 15 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A B A A Storage/*Link Dist. 150 *803 100 *324 100 *341 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 14 6 40 36 46 54 40 Queue Block Time(%) 28 Broadway St&Walnut St(Unsignalized) Lanes F TT> F TT> <1' 4 <1` Volume 4 519 19 24 345 2 10 1 50 3 1 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a • SimTraffic LOS A A A A C A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 60 *331 50 *343 *326 100 *306 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 5 26 29 3 31 56 19 13 Queue Block Time(%) 30 Broadway St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:120) Lanes E- 1`T> E- TT> E- 1`t> E- TT> Volume 300 210 62 73 217 400 74 1,100 5 210 800 80 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Prot Prot Synchro LOS D C C D E D E B D SimTraffic LOS D C C D E D D B D Storage/*Link Dist. 200 *343 160 *321 200 *331 200 *332 SimTraffic 95th Queue 295 260 100 385 215 411 261 266 Queue Block Time(%) 12 1 12 33 6 2 32 Broadway St&Cedar St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- TT> E- TT> <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 15 386 24 13 635 1 10 1 25 10 1 45 Sign Control Free . Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A C E A Storage/*Link Dist. 70 *321 150 *940 *418 100 *309 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 27 4 18 125 35 48 75 76 Queue Block Time(%) 4 36 3rd St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes <1' 4 <1' 4 <0 <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 1 35 1 10 35 30 15 25 5 45 3 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 25 *328 25 *334 *334 25 *324 25 • SimTraffic 95th Queue 10 6 47 38 38 29 43 15 Queue Block Time(%) 3 3 1 4 Westwood Professional Services Page 1 of 3 8/26/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2010 Existing PM Node Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 38 3rd St&Walnut St(All-way stop) Lanes <T - <1' 4 <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 5 30 50 6 20 20 45 36 14 8 26 10 III Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A B A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *328 25 *330 25 *333 25 *326 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 38 56 34 =7 52 44 Queue Block Time(%) 4 6 3 3 11 2 5 1 40 3rd St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <'r - <1' 4 4- 1 D> 4- TT> Volume 1 1 50 1 1 14 15 1,164 5 5 900 30 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS D A C F B B A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *330 100 *315 100 130 *335 70 SimTraffic 95th Queue 10 53 13 44 41 381 15 Queue Block Time(%) 11 46 4th St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes <'r> <T 9 <''> <7, 4 Volume 10 25 1 84 30 1 5 1 7 2 5 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *370 *339 25 *141 *334 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 10 8 47 28 21 26 Queue Block Time(%) 1 48 4th St&Walnut St(All-way stop) Lanes <T 4 <1' 4 <1' 4 , <T 4 Volume 10 18 5 40 60 35 45 50 10 30 42 10 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a • SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *339 25 *332 25 *344 25 *333 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 34 24 46 54 46 3E 43 35 Queue Block Time(%) 2 7 3 7 1 5 1 50 4th St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <1' 4 <1' 4 4- TT> F TT> Volume 3 1 54 10 1 12 45 1,169 10 30 832 89 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS E A E C A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *332 100 *351 100 150 *745 150 *335 SimTraffic 95th Queue 21 54 46 32 35 109 34 4 Queue Block Time(%) 1 70 6th St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <1' 4 <1' 4 4- Is l'> 4- TT> Volume 8 2 58 2 2 4 70 1,212 10 16 796 84 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS D B E B C A C A A Storage/*Link Dist. *760 100 *376 100 125 *334 125 *745 SimTraffic 95th Queue 31 56 17 18 82 6 43 18 Queue Block Time(%) 80 7th St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:120) Lanes 4- T 4 4- T> 4- TT> 4- CC> Volume 88 110 191 173 143 66 240 1,138 169 45 756 55 Phasing Perm Perm Perm Prot Prot Synchro LOS F D A E D [ B E B C SimTraffic LOS E D B E D D B D B C Storage/*Link Dist. *304 *304 *304 *365 *365 300 *438 125 *334 SimTraffic 95th Queue 135 129 113 270 233 279 338 78 215 III Queue Block Time(%) 1 I 4 Westwood Professional Services Page 2 of 3 8/26/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2010 Existing PM Node Intersection I Eastbound I Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 90 1-94 North Ramps&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:120) _ Lanes <1' 9 E- TT TT> 0 Volume 2061 2 447 138 1,100 1,000 120 Phasing Perm Prot Synchro LOS C E E B C C SimTraffic LOS L C E A B B Storage/*Link Dist. *1,159 400 *729 *438 SimTraffic 95th Queue 241 304 174 269 347 Queue Block Time(%) 2 4 95 1-94 EB Ramps&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes TT 4 TTT 9 Volume 1,238 170 875 331 Sign Control Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 125 *729 5 SimTraffic 95th Queue 36 Queue Block Time(%) 1 100 1-94 South Ramp&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:120) Lanes € <1' 9 E- 4 TT 4 E- TT Volume 100 28 108 48 236 1,072 59 94 781 Phasing pm+pt Perm custom custom Perm Prot Synchro LOS D D B D B A A E A B SimTraffic LOS D E B D C A A D A B Storage/*Link Dist. 175 *1,084 175_ *443 *443 *771 300 *167 *167 SimTraffic 95th Queue 101 101 59 53 162 166 29 117 183 Queue Block Time(%) 1 110 Chelsea Rd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:120) - Lanes E- TT> E- TT> E- TT 4 E- TT 4 Volume 170 701 90 62 1131 146 83 815 33 81 638 218 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Prot Perm Prot Perm Synchro LOS D B C C D B A E A A1) B SimTraffic LOS D D D D D B A D B A C Storage/*Link Dist. *331 *331 200 *314 300_ *2,646 300 400 *771 250 SimTraffic 95th Queue 196 95 78 131 117 187 30 117 140 50 Queue Block Time(%) 120 School Blvd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:120) Lanes E- T> E- '1' 9 E- TT 4 E- TT 4 Volume 80 65 21 147 110 260 36 591 129 205 483 102 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Synchro LOS D E D E B E C A D B A C SimTraffic LOS D D D D A E C A D B A C Storage/*Link Dist. *318 *318 300 *392 200 300 *1,245 300 400 *2,646 300 SimTraffic 95th Queue 97 112 166 130 107 61 185 44 233 140 40 Queue Block Time(%) 411 Westwood Professional Services Page 3 of 3 8/26/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 No-Build AM Node Intersection I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 10 CR 11&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <1' 44 (— T> EE TT 4 E- TT> Volume 11 14 1,200 320 16 2 408 408 158 5 1,200 10 4111 Phasing pm+ov Split Prot Perm Prot Synchro LOS E F F D C B A c F F SimTraffic LOS F F F F D B A F F F Storage/*Link Dist. *776 300 *1,191 *1,191 200 *1,643 170 300 *1,578 SimTraffic 95th Queue 979 77 1,386 i, 175 117 41 164 1,944 Queue Block Time(%) 6 73 31 12 1 64 20 River St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <T> <1' 9 E- 'Is t> E- TT> Volume 2 2 2 2 2 16 2 957 2 53 2,560 107 Phasing Perm Perm pm+pt Synchro LOS D E C A A A F F SimTraffic LOS D E B E A F F Storage/*Link Dist. *696 *885 100 60 *316 200 *1,643 SimTraffic 95th Queue 30 13 28 16 27 Queue Block Time(%) 38 26 Broadway St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- TT> E. TT> <1' 4 <T 4 Volume 24 445 40 56 330 16 24 8 24 321 16 8 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A B A A Storage/*Link Dist. 150 100 *331 *324 100 *341 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 18 41 4 47 49 49 30 Queue Block Time(%) 28 Broadway St&Walnut St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- TT> € 'PT> <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 6 464 30 21 379 3 21 2 29 5 2 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a • SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A B A A Storage/*Link Dist. 60 *331 50 *325 100 *306 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 9 30 27 53 47 18 18 Queue Block Time(%) 30 CSAH 75&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes EE TT> 4- T 44 E- TT> EE TT> Volume 160 256 82 46 165 160 83 640 64 360 2,048 155 Phasing Prot pm+pt pm+ov Prot Prot Synchro LOS E F D F A E A D F F SimTraffic LOS E F E F A E A D C D Storage/*Link Dist. 190 *334 200 *312 200 200 *326 180 *316 SimTraffic 95th Queue 179 329 105 277 64 112 143 Queue Block Time(%) 11 16 38 32 Broadway St&Cedar St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- TT> E- TT> <T 4 <T 4 Volume 2 646 32 21 355 2 14 2 40 2 2 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A B A A B D A A Storage/*Link Dist. 50 150 *418 100 *308 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 32 44 44 21 14 Queue Block Time(%) 36 3rd St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes <'' 4 <1' 4 <0 <1' 4 <T 4 Volume 11 32 2 14 53 34 13 11 2 32 67 13 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A E A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *367 25 *328 25 *334 *334 25 *324 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 18 15 12 58 33 33 21 53 38 IIIQueue Block Time(%) 1 2 2 11 1 Westwood Professional Services Page 1 of 3 8/26/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 No-Build AM Node Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 38 3rd St&Walnut St(All-way stop) Lanes <T 4 <1' 4 <1' 4 <1' 9 ii• Volume 11 24 30 8 56 8 32 32 2 8 32 13 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS E A A A B A B A B Storage/*Link Dist. *328 25 *329 25 *333 25 *325 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 71 48 35 56 11 43 = Queue Block Time(%) 16 4 8 1 11 8 1 40 3rd St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <1' 4 <T 4 F TT> F TT> Volume 2 2 30 2 2 16 18 770 19 18 2,106 53 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS F F F 8 D A A C D Storage/*Link Dist. *329 100 *315 100 130 70 *326 SimTraffic 95th Queue 344 162 51 44 28 16 441 Queue Block Time(%) 15 71 31 46 4th St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes <T> <T 4 <T> <1' 4 Volume 8 8 2 8 51 13 2 5 2 45 5 34 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS F A A A F F F Storage/*Link Dist. *370 25 *141 *334 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 36 36 27 312 57 Queue Block Time(%) 42 2 48 4th St&Walnut St(All-way stop) Lanes <1' 4 <1' 4 <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 2 32 21 75 56 16 14 48 10 16 53 2 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a • SimTraffic LOS F F A A A F F F F Storage/*Link Dist. *339 25 *332 25 *344 25 *333 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 426 42 48 39 43 40 252 21 Queue Block Time(%) 61 1 10 1 4 41 55 50 4th St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <T 4 <1' 4 F TT> F 1'T> -_ Volume 6 2 50 3 2 32 72 768 85 24 2,040 74 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS F F B C A D D E Storage/*Link Dist. *332 100 100 150 150 *335 SimTraffic 95th Queue 458 157 40 66 103 503 Queue Block Time(%) 59 76 36 70 6th St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <1' 4 <1' 4 4- TT> F TT> Volume 10 2 96 2 2 2 91 914 2 48 1,944 101 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS F F A A E A F F F Storage/*Link Dist. *760 100 *376 100 125 125 *745 SimTraffic 95th Queue 1,013 145 77 14 108 97 1,022 Queue Block Time(%) 61 90 42 80 7th St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes F 1' 4 F T> F TT> F TT> Volume 27 98 306 106 69 50 128 930 216 58 1,864 120 Phasing pm+pt Perm pm+pt Prot Prot Synchro LOS D D F D D F B D D D SimTraffic LOS C D E D E E B E D D Storage/*Link Dist. *304 *304 *304 *365 *365 300 *438 125 *334 • SimTraffic 95th Queue 65 146 383 150 171 193 214 144 397 Queue Block Time(%) 9 44 Westwood Professional Services Page 2 of 3 8/26/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 No-Build AM Node Intersection I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 90 1-94 North Ramps&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <1' 9 <— TT ,( (> Volume 165 2 392 206 882 2,104 171 III Phasing custom Prot Synchro LOS F D F B E E SimTraffic LOS F B E B C C Storage/*Link Dist. *1,159 400 *729 *438 SimTraffic 95th Queue -; 287 332 273 600 Queue Block Time(%) 1 1 3 95 1-94 EB Ramps&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes TT 4 1„(„(, - Volume 1,088 440 1,152 1,117 Sign Control Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 125 *729 5 SimTraffic 95th Queue 13 Queue Block Time(%) 100 1-94 South Ramp&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- <1' -4 E• 9 TT 4 € TT Volume 122 62 138 58 306 1,101 128 160 992 Phasing pm+pt Perm custom custom Perm Prot Synchro LOS D D C D C A A D A B SimTraffic LOS D D B D C B A D A B Storage/*Link Dist. 175 *1,084 175 *443 *443 *771 300 *167 *167 SimTraffic 95th Queue 124 124 84 42 181 216 48 154 97 Queue Block Time(%) 110 Chelsea Rd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- TT> E- TT> E- TT 4 E- TT 4 Volume 280 163 78 19 104 85 58 864 45 136 883 168 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Prot Perm Prot Perm Synchro LOS D C C D E C A E C A C SimTraffic LOS D C C E E C A D B A C III Storage/*Link Dist. *331 *331 200 *314 300 *2,646 300 400 *771 250 SimTraffic 95th Queue 284 131 31 108 112 267 31 186 237 46 Queue Block Time(%) 1 120 School Blvd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- T> E- T 9 E• TT 4 E- TT 4 Volume 40 61 19 114 32 165 8 762 134 152 800 29 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Synchro LOS D E D D B E C A E A A B SimTraffic LOS D E D D B F B A E A A C Storage/*Link Dist. *318 *318 300 *392 200 300 *1,245 300 400 *2,646 300 SimTraffic 95th Queue 66 139 139 45 81 21 248 38 184 76 9 Queue Block Time(%) III Westwood Professional Services Page 3 of 3 8/26/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 No-Build PM Node Intersection 1 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 10 CR 11&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <T 49 E- T> E-E- TT 9 E- TT> 0 Volume 131 19 640 304 22 2 1,120 1,360 368 11 886 14 Phasing pm+ov Split Prot Perm Prot Synchro LOS E C E D E B A E D SimTraffic LOS E C E D D B A F r Storage/*Link Dist. *776 300 *1,191 *1,191 200 *1,643 170 300 *1,578 SimTraffic 95th Queue 58 248 480 60 436 397 35 26 1,318 Queue Block Time(%) 1 25 1 48 20 River St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <1'> <1' 9 (- TT> (- 11s> Volume 16 2 13 3 2 16 24 2,816 40 16 1,728 86 Phasing Perm Perm pm+pt Synchro LOS C E C A D A A C SimTraffic LOS F D D C A D B A Storage/*Link Dist. *696 *885 100 60 *316 200 *1,643 SimTraffic 95th Queue 63 22 46 60 301 30 260 Queue Block Time(%) 11 1 26 Broadway St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- TT> E 1'T> <1' 9 <1' 4 Volume 24 758 16 56 506 8 26 3 61 48 8 24 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A F B C A A Storage/*Link Dist. 150 *803 100 *324 100 *341 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 20 4 43 52 57 66 40 Queue Block Time(%) 1 28 Broadway St&Walnut St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- TT> F 1'1> <T 4 <1' 4 Volume 6 830 30 38 552 3 16 2 80 5 2 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop 0 Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A B A A C E B A Storage/*Link Dist. 60 *331 50 *325 100 *306 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 267 43 43 78 29 17 Queue Block Time(%) 13 . 30 CSAH 75&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E-E• TT> E• 1' 44 E- TT> E-E TT> Volume 480 336 99 117 347 640 118 1,760 8 336 1,280 128 Phasing Prot pm+pt Perm Prot Prot Synchro LOS F E D F F E F F E F SimTraffic LOS F D F F E E D F C E Storage/*Link Dist. 190 *334 200 *312 200 200 *326 180 *316 SimTraffic 95th Queue 326 417 308 333 315 203 ?51 252 388 Queue Block Time(%) 41 18 84 15 49 9 24 32 Broadway St&Cedar St(Unsignalized) Lanes E TT> F 'H'> <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 24 618 38 21 1,016 2 16 2 40 16 2 72 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A F F F F F F F Storage/*Link Dist. 50 150 *940 *418 100 *308 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 37 150 1,147 558 49 41 ==- Queue Block Time(%) 83 87 82 94 36 3rd St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes <T 4 <1' 4 <0 <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 2 56 2 16 56 48 24 40 8 72 5 3 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 25 25 *334 *334 25 *324 25 4 SimTraffic 95th Queue 15 48 42 42 24 46 11 Queue Block Time(%) 1 5 5 5 Westwood Professional Services Page 1 of 3 8/26/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 No-Build PM Node Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 38 3rd St&Walnut St(All-way stop) Lanes <1' 4 <'1' - <1' -j <1' 4 Volume 8 48 80 10 32 32 72 58 22 13 42 16 III Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A B A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *328 25 *329 25 *333 25 *325 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 52 53 34 54 58 54 45 35 Queue Block Time(%) 6 10 7 5 16 5 8 1 40 3rd St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <1' 4 <1' 4 E- '(,T> F TT> Volume 2 2 80 2 2 22 24 1,862 8 8 1,440 48 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS F C A F C E E A D Storage/*Link Dist. *329 100 *315 100 130 *335 70 SimTraffic 95th Queue 79 78 420 152 25 385 36 Queue Block Time(%) 4 41 75 45 46 4th St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes <1s> <1' 4 <''> <'1' 4 Volume 16 40 2 134 48 2 8 2 11 3 8 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *339 25 *141 *334 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 17 51 36 29 34 Queue Block Time(%) 1 1 1 48 4th St&Walnut St(All-way stop) Lanes <1' 4 <1' 4 <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 16 29 8 64 96 56 72 80 16 48 67 16 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A III Storage/*Link Dist. *339 25 *332 25 *344 25 *333 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 44 27 56 59 48 43 42 43 Queue Block Time(%) 4 1 12 4 11 1 10 1 50 4th St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <1' 4 <1' 4 E- 1•'P> E- '`l'> Volume 5 2 86 16 2 19 72 1,870 16 48 1,331 142 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS B C F F F F D A E Storage/*Link Dist. *332 100 *351 100 150 *745 150 *335 SimTraffic 95th Queue 25 78 239 156 100 967 78 19 Queue Block Time(%) 1 48 38 70 6th St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <1' 4 <1' 4 € t'is> - 'l'> Volume 13 3 93 3 3 6 112 1,939 16 26 1,274 134 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS F F F F D A D C C Storage/*Link Dist. *760 100 *376 100 125 *334 125 *745 SimTraffic 95th Queue 229 140 32 27 134 309 51 583 Queue Block Time(%) 4 39 2 6 13 80 7th St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- T 4 E- T> E- TT> E- 'I't> Volume 141 176 306 277 229 106 384 1,821 270 72 1,210 88 Phasing pm+pt Perm pm+pt Prot Prot Synchro LOS F. F C F F F F E C F SimTraffic LOS E F C F F E C F D E Storage/*Link Dist. *304 *304 *304 *365 *365 300 *438 125 *334 SimTraffic 95th Queue 190 390 267 505 442 453 528 121 412 • Queue Block Time(%) 13 1 54 70 10 8 48 Westwood Professional Services Page 2 of 3 8/26/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 No-Build PM Node Intersection I Eastbound I Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 90 1-94 North Ramps&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <1' 4 E- TT TT> 411) Volume 330 3 715 221 1,760 1,600 192 Phasing custom Prot Synchro LOS F F F F D F SimTraffic LOS F F E f C F Storage/*Link Dist. *1,159 400 *729 *438 SimTraffic 95th Queue 410 1,193 459 335 415 Queue Block Time(%) 35 49 36 95 1-94 EB Ramps&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes TT 4 TTT 4 Volume 1,981 272 1,400 530 Sign Control Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *167 125 *729 5 SimTraffic 95th Queue 243 111 268 Queue Block Time(%) 8 100 1-94 South Ramp&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- <T 4 E- 4 TT 4 E- 1'1' Volume 160 45 173 77 378 1,715 94 150 1,250 Phasing pm+pt Perm custom custom Perm Prot Synchro LOS D D D D F D A F A D SimTraffic LOS D E C D D F B E A D Storage/*Link Dist. 175 *1,084 175 *443 *443 *771 300 *167 *167 SimTraffic 95th Queue 133 128 99 100 386 953 333 153 121 Queue Block Time(%) 10 6 110 Chelsea Rd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- TT> E- TT> <- TT 4 E- 1'1' 4 Volume 272 112 144 99 181 234 133 1,304 53 130 1,021 349 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Prot Perm Prot Perm • Synchro LOS E B D E F E A E C A D SimTraffic LOS D D D E F F F D C A F Storage/*Link Dist. *331 *331 200 *314 300 *2,646 300 400 *771 250 SimTraffic 95th Queue 317 112 105 272 433 3,129 236 156 259 74 Queue Block Time(%) 1 3 71 2 120 School Blvd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- T> E- T 4 E- TT 4 E- TT 4 Volume 128 104 34 235 176 416 58 946 206 328 773 163 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Synchro LOS D _ F F B E D A D A A C SimTraffic LOS D D E D C F F F E A A F Storage/*Link Dist. *318 *318 300 *392 200 300 *1,245 300 400 *2,646 300 SimTraffic 95th Queue 132 204 294 349 371 3 1,400 345 406 75 35 Queue Block Time(%) 1 15 39 1 III Westwood Professional Services Page 3 of 3 8/26/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 No-Build AM with Bridge Node Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 10 CR 11&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <T 99 4- ''> 4-4- TT 9 4- 1,T> Volume 8 11 900 240 12 1 306 306 119 4 900 7 4110 Phasing pm+ov Split Prot Perm Prot Synchro LOS f D F D C A A E. E D SimTraffic LOS F D E D C B A E D D Storage/*Link Dist. *776 300 *1,191 *1,191 200 *1,643 170 300 *1,578 SimTraffic 95th Queue 47 432 301 34 134 88 35 22 436 Queue Block Time(%) 7 6 20 River St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <1'> <1' 4 4- '(„1'> E- 1 1`> Volume 1 1 1 1 1 12 1 718 1 40 1,920 80 Phasing Perm Perm pm+pt Synchro LOS D E C A A A A A SimTraffic LOS D D A C A B A A Storage/*Link Dist. *696 *885 100 60 *316 200 *1,643 SimTraffic 95th Queue 13 8 31 10 49 33 171 Queue Block Time(%) 26 Broadway St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes 4- TT> 4- '('1'> <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 18 334 30 42 2471 12 181 6 18 241 12 6 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 150 100 *331 *324 100 *341 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 18 34 1 44 36 49 25 Queue Block Time(%) 28 Broadway St&Walnut St(Unsignalized) Lanes 4- TT> 4- 1'1•> <1' 4 <T 4 Volume 5 348 23 16 2841 2 161 1 22 4.1 1 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A B A B A A 4110 Storage/*Link Dist. 60 50 *325 100 *306 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 7 24 38 40 19 14 Queue Block Time(%) 30 CSAH 75&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes 4-4- TT> 4- 1' 9-> 4- T1'> 4-4- TT> Volume 120 1921 61 35 124 120 62 4801 48 270 1,5361 116 Phasing Prot pm+pt pm+ov Prot Prot Synchro LOS E E D F A f B D B C SimTraffic LOS E D E E A E A D B C Storage/*Link Dist. 190 *334 200 *312 200 200 *326 180 *316 SimTraffic 95th Queue 94 166 69 197 50 102 142 _ = 25 Queue Block Time(%) [ 2 2 32 Broadway St&Cedar St(Unsignalized) Lanes 4- 1'1`> 4- 'Ms> <'1' 9 <1' 8 Volume 1 4851 24 16 2661 1 111 1 30 11 1 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 50 150 *418 100 *308 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 4 20 38 47 12 13 Queue Block Time(%) 36 3rd St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes _ <1' 8 <1' 4 <0 <1' 4 <1' Volume 81 24 1 11 40 25 10 8 1 24 50 10 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *367 25 *328 25 *334 *334 25 *324 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 4 8 9 51 31 31 17 42 32 Queue Block Time(%) 1 1 6 1 • Westwood Professional Services Page 1 of 3 8/29/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 No-Build AM with Bridge Node Intersection I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 38 3rd St&Walnut St(All-way stop) Lanes <1` - <T -j <I' 4 <1(` 4 • Volume 8 18 23 6 42 6 24 24 1 6 24 10 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *328 25 *329 25 *333 _ 25 *325 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 33 47 43 27 41 14 38 Queue Block Time(%) 2 3 5 1 6 4 2 40 3rd St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <1' - <1` 4 4- I`1'> 4- T T> Volume 1 1 23 1 1 12 13 577 14 13 1,579 40 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS C C D A C A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *329 100 *315 100 130 70 *326 SimTraffic 95th Queue 10 48 14 33 25 19 1 Queue Block Time(%) 46 4th St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes <1`> <1` 4 <T> <1` 4 Volume 6 6 1 61 38 10 11 41 1 341 4 25 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *339 25 *141 *334 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 4 34 25 38 54 Queue Block Time(%) 3 2 48 4th St&Walnut St(All-way stop) Lanes <1` 4 <1` 4 <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 1 24 16 561 42 12 111 36 7 121 40 1 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a • SimTraffic LOS — A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *339 25 *332 25 *344 25 *333 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 34 45 52 39 47 _ 28 41 13 Queue Block Time(%) 2 2 7 1 3 1 4 50 4th St&TH 25(Unsignalized) _ Lanes <T 4 <1` 4 E- 1't> 4- TT> Volume 5 1 37 21 1 24 54 5761 64 18_ 1,5301 55 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS B C B A C A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *332 100 *351 100 150 150 *335 SimTraffic 95th Queue 22 61 18 40 72 24_ 8 Queue Block Time(%) 70 6th St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <I` 4 <1(` 4 4- 1'T> 4- TT> Volume 7 1 72 11 1 1 68 6851 1 36 1,4581 76 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS _ n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS F D F B D A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *760 100 *376 100 100 *322 125 *745 SimTraffic 95th Queue 59 91 17 11 . 3 40 191 Queue Block Time(%) 3 3 1 80 7th St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- T 9 4- T 4 4- TT 4 4- TT> Volume 20 73 229 79 52 37 96 697 162 43 1,398 90 Phasing pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Prot Perm Prot Synchro LOS D E D D D B F B A D A B SimTraffic LOS D D D D D A D A A D B B Storage/*Link Dist. *304 *304 *304 150 *354 *354 300 *438 300 150 *322 SimTraffic 95th Queue 53 113 245 117 81 33 134 139 46 87 • Queue Block Time(%) 7 Westwood Professional Services Page 2 of 3 8/29/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 No-Build AM with Bridge Node Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 90 1-94 North Ramps&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <T 4 F TT 'I r> Volume 124 1 294 155 661 1,578 128 III Phasing custom Prot Synchro LOS E B F A A B SimTraffic LOS D A D A B B Storage/*Link Dist. *1459 400 *729 *438 SimTraffic 95th Queue 199 122 205 139 418 Queue Block Time(%) 1 95 1-94 EB Ramps&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes 1'1' 4 T T T -4 Volume 816 330 864 838 Sign Control Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a _ n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 125 _ 5 SimTraffic 95th Queue Queue Block Time(%) 100 1-94 South Ramp&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes F <1' 4 4- 4 1'1' 4 F TT Volume 91 47 103 43 229 826 96 120 744 Phasing pm+pt Perm custom custom Perm Prot Synchro LOS D D B D B A A D A B SimTraffic LOS D E B D B A A D A B Storage/*Link Dist. 175 *1,084 175 *443 *443 *771 300 *167 *167 SimTraffic 95th Queue 109 109 60 51 114 170 39 163 79 Queue Block Time(%) 1 110 Chelsea Rd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes 4- TT> F TT> 4 TT 4 F TT 4 Volume 210 122 59 14 781 64 43 648 34 102 662 126 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Prot Perm Prot Perm Synchro LOS D C C C D B A D B A C • SimTraffic LOS D D D D E B A D B A C Storage/*Link Dist. *331 *331 200 *314 300 *2,646 300 400 *771 250 SimTraffic 95th Queue 238 116 31 95 77 206 28 137 163 48 Queue Block Time(%) 120 School Blvd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes i 4- T> F T 4 F TT 4 4- TT 4 Volume 30 46 14 85 24 124 6 571 101 114 600 22 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Synchro LOS D E D D B C B A _ A A B SimTraffic LOS D E D D A I B A E A A B Storage/*Link Dist. *318 *318 300 *392 200 300 *1,245 300 400 *2,646 300 SimTraffic 95th Queue 55 113 118 44 51 21 148 29 163 101 14 Queue Block Time(%) III Westwood Professional Services Page 3 of 3 8/29/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 No-Build PM with Bridge Node Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 10 CR 11&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <1' 44 E T> E-E- TT 4 E- TT> • Volume 10 14 480 228 17 1 840 1,020 276 8 665 11 Phasing pm+ov Split Prot Perm Prot Synchro LOS E C _ D D A A E D C SimTraffic LOS E C D D B A F D C Storage/*Link Dist. *776 300 *1,191 *1,191 200 *1,643 170 300 *1,578 SimTraffic 95th Queue 56 188 320 46 532 42 25 335 Queue Block Time(%) 21 1 20 River St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <T> <1' 4 E- TT> E- TT> Volume 12 1 10 2 1 12 18 2,112 30 12 1,296 65 Phasing Perm Perm pm+pt Synchro LOS C E C A A A A A SimTraffic LOS E B C B A D A A Storage/*Link Dist. *696 *885 100 60 *316 200 *1,643 SimTraffic 95th Queue 55 12 37 52 262 24 146 Queue Block Time(%) 11 26 Broadway St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- TT> E- TT> <T 4 <T -4 Volume 18 569 12 42 379 6 19 2 46 36 6 18 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A C A A Storage/*Link Dist. 150 *803 100 *324 100 *341 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue _ 25 3 37 44 47 58 39 Queue Block Time(%) 28 Broadway St&Walnut St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- TT> (-- TT> <'f' 4 <1' 4 Volume 5 623 23 29 4141 2 121 1 60 4 1 1 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a • SimTraffic LOS A A A A C A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 60 *331 50 *325 100 *306 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 13 56 33 33 58 22 13 Queue Block Time(%) 1 30 CSAH 75&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) _ Lanes E-E- TT> E- T 44 E- TT> f.(- Volume 360 2521 74 88 260 480 89 1,320 6 252 960 96 Phasing Prot pm+pt Perm Prot Prot Synchro LOS F D D F C F C F C D SimTraffic LOS I. D D F C E B E B D Storage/*Link Dist. 190 *334 200 *312 200 200 *326 180 *316 SimTraffic 95th Queue 231 _ 2`;S 196 S92 :.. Queue Block Time(%) 9 2 34 3 11 2 4 32 Broadway St&Cedar St(Unsignalized) Lanes - 1f'1'> E- TT> <1' 4 <'' 4 Volume 18 463 29 16 762 1 12 1 30 12 1 54 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A B A B C A Storage/*Link Dist. 50 *312 150 *940 *418 100 *308 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 32 6 24 159 36 45 37 62 Queue Block Time(%) 3 36 3rd St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes <1' 4 <1' 4 <0 <T 4 <1' 4 Volume 1 42 1 12 42 36 18 30 6 54 4 2 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 25 25 *334 *334 25 *324 25 • SimTraffic 95th Queue 6 _.0 40 40 27 46 19 Queue Block Time(%) 1 4 4 1 5 Westwood Professional Services Page 1 of 3 8/30/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 No-Build PM with Bridge Node Intersection 1 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 38 3rd St&Walnut St(All-way stop) Lanes < Volume 6 36 60 7 24 24 54 43 17 10 31 12 III Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *328 25 *329 25 *333 25 *325 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 38 51 34 39 38 37 Queue Block Time(%) 3 5 2 2 6 1 3 1 40 3rd St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <T -3 <1' 4 E- TT> - TT> Volume 1 1 60 1 1 17 18 1,397 6 6 1,080 36 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS c B E c B A C A A Storage/*Link Dist. *329 100 *315 100 130 *335 70 SimTraffic 95th Queue 17 57 13 38 44 236 14 Queue Block Time(%) 3 46 4th St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes <T> <T -> <T> <T 4 Volume 121 30 11 101 36 11 61 1 8 2 6 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *370 *339 25 *141 *334 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue _ 6 11 53 25 28 2 Queue Block Time(%) 1 1 1 48 4th St&Walnut St(All-way stop) Lanes <1' - <T 4 <T 4 <1' 9 Volume 121 22 6 481 72 42 541 60 12 36 50 12 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *339 25 *332 25 *344 25 *333 25 III SimTraffic 95th Queue 36 32 45 52 38 37 Queue Block Time(%) 3 1 9 3 8 1 6 1 50 4th St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <1' 4 <T 4 TT> - TT> Volume 4 1 65 12 1 14 54 1,403 12 36 998 107 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS F B E C B A B A A Storage/*Link Dist. *332 100 *351 100 150 *745 150 *335 SimTraffic 95th Queue 34 56 45 39 49 78 43 6 Queue Block Time(%) 70 6th St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <1' 4 <1' 4 TT> E- TT> Volume 10 2 70 2 2 5 84 1,454 12 19 955 101 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS F B F C B A C A A Storage/*Link Dist. *760 100 *376 100 100 *322 125 *745 SimTraffic 95th Queue 39 64 25 25 81 5 34 52 Queue Block Time(%) 80 7th St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- T 4 E- '7' 4 E- TT 4 E- TT> Volume 106 132 229 208 172 79 288 1,366 203 54 907 66 Phasing pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Prot Perm Prot Synchro LOS E F B E F B D B A E C C SimTraffic LOS D _ B F E B D B A F B c Storage/*Link Dist. *304 *304 *304 150 *354 *354 300 *438 300 150 *322 SimTraffic 95th Queue 157 207 176 2:-/ 319 74 343 339 58 110 309 Queue Block Time(%) I I 20 121 3 1 6 III Westwood Professional Services Page 2 of 3 8/30/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 No-Build PM with Bridge Node Intersection 1 Eastbound I Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 90 1-94 North Ramps&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <1' 9 E- 1")' 'N'> 410 Volume 247 2 536 166 1,320 1,200 144 Phasing custom Prot Synchro LOS E E D C A C SimTraffic LOS C D B B C Storage/*Link Dist. *1459 400 *729 *438 SimTraffic 95th Queue 344 440 239 353 254 Queue Block Time(%) 2 1 95 1-94 EB Ramps&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes 1'1' 9 TTT 9 Volume 1,486 204 1,050 397 Sign Control Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 125 5 SimTraffic 95th Queue 17 Queue Block Time(%) 100 1-94 South Ramp&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- <1' 9 E- 9 1'1' 9 - TT Volume 120 34 130 58 283 1,286 71 113 937 Phasing pm+pt Perm custom custom Perm Prot Synchro LOS D D B D D A A E A B SimTraffic LOS D E B D C B A D A B Storage/*Link Dist. 175 *1,084 175 *443 *443 *771 300 *167 *167 SimTraffic 95th Queue 112 112 75 63 207 253 33 163 76 Queue Block Time(%) 1 1 110 Chelsea Rd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- TT> E- TT> E- 1'1' 9 E- TT 9 Volume 204 84 108 74 1361 175 100 978 40 97 766 262 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Prot Perm Prot Perm Synchro LOS D B D C F B A D B A C • SimTraffic LOS D D D E E C A D B A C Storage/*Link Dist. *331 *331 200 *314 300 *2,646 300 400 *771 250 SimTraffic 95th Queue 225 98 89 163 151 299 35 125 207 61 Queue Block Time(%) 1 120 School Blvd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- 1'> E- 1' 9 E- TT 9 E- '(")' 9 Volume 96 78 25 176 132 312 43 709 155 246 580 122 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Synchro LOS D E D E B E C A D A A C SimTraffic LOS D IT D D B E C B _ A A C Storage/*Link Dist. *318 *318 300 *392 200 300 *1,245 300 400 *2,646 300 SimTraffic 95th Queue 122 136 218 175 145 77 257 63 310 77 32 Queue Block Time(%) • Westwood Professional Services Page 3 of 3 8/30/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 Build AM with Bridge Node Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 10 CR 11&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <T 44 E- T> E-E- TT -› E- TT> Volume 8 11 923 245 12 1 319 325 121 4 934 711111 Phasing pm+ov Split Prot Perm Prot Synchro LOS D F D C A A F E D SimTraffic LOS C E D D A A E D D Storage/*Link Dist. *776 300 *1,191 *1,191 200 *1,644 170 300 *1,578 SimTraffic 95th Queue 46 _ 364 32 138 82 35 12 441 Queue Block Time(%) 2 7 20 River St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <T> <T 4 E- TT> E- TT> Volume 1 1 1 1 1 15 1 749 12 40 1,982 80 Phasing Perm Perm pm+pt _ Synchro LOS D El C A A A A A SimTraffic LOS C A A A A B B B Storage/*Link Dist. *699 *888 100 60 *316 200 *1,644 SimTraffic 95th Queue 16 4 34 7 60 61 473 Queue Block Time(%) 1 2 26 Broadway St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- TT> E- TT> <T 4 <T - Volume 19 369 33 45 217 14 21 6 28 25 12 7 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 150 *803 100 *332 100 *341 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 18 2 33 44 44 54 24 Queue Block Time(%) 28 Broadway St&Walnut St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- TT> E- TT> <T 4 <1' 4 Volume 16 370 27 23 246 7 17 1 33 47 1 12 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop III_ Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A B A A Storage/*Link Dist. 100 *331 20 *344 250 *306 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 12 3 24 36 46 57 32 Queue Block Time(%) 1 30 Broadway St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <-E- TT> E- T 44 E- TT> E E TT> Volume 144 210 95 49 86 124 96 494 68 291 1,557 122 Phasing Prot pm+pt pm+ov Prot Prot Synchro LOS E E E E A E A D C C SimTraffic LOS _ D D E A E A D B C Storage/*Link Dist. 190 *328 200 *306 200 *338 *338 180 *316 SimTraffic 95th Queue 118 197 82 144 53 147 147 24: Queue Block Time(%) 7 32 Broadway St&Cedar St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- TT> E- TT> <1` 4 <T 4 Volume 28 512 24 21 236 4 13 1 31 4 1 8 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A C A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 60 *306 100 *935 *370 100 *309 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 19 1 24 2 36 48 18 27 Queue Block Time(%) 36 3rd St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- 4 <0 <T T 4 Volume 11 25 34 33 74 10 Sign Control Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ID SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A Westwood Professional Services Page 1 of 3 8/29/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 Build AM with Bridge Node Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall Storage/*Link Dist. *368 25 *340 *340 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 26 ._ 18 18 _ 0Queue Block Time(%) 1 2 38 3rd St& Walnut StAll-way( Y sto p) Lanes E-> 0 T> <'(` Volume 16 0 30 25 30 7 48 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *345 *339 *344 SimTraffic 95th Queue 50 55 50 Queue Block Time(%) 40 3rd St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes 4 4 TTT> TT> Volume 28 16 641 18 13 1,637 51 Sign Control Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS C A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *345 *292 *338 SimTraffic 95th Queue 62 36 115 Queue Block Time(%) 46 4th St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes <'i'> <T 4 <T> <T 4 Volume 14 12 1 6 90 33 1 4 1 81 4 25 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *370 *339 25 *144 *340 25 0SimTraffic 95th Queue 8 4 49 25 49 52 Queue Block Time(%) 1 7 2 48 4th St&Walnut St(All-way stop) Lanes <'' -4 <'1' -j <'(` 4 <T 4 Volume 15 34 39 55 103 35 24 32 6 24 40 2 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *339 25 *329 100 *344 25 *339 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 40 52 74 35 52 3? 40 7 Queue Block Time(%) 4 3 4 1 50 4th St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- T 4 E- T -> E- TT> E- TT> Volume 11 6 39 7 54 28 89 620 70 36 1,571 59 Phasing Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Prot Synchro LOS C D B E L C L A S A A SimTraffic LOS F C C D D A D A F A A Storage/*Link Dist. *329 *329 150 *356 *356 100 200 *738 200 *338 SimTraffic 95th Queue 35 25 68 21 87 64 125 126 76 194 Queue Block Time(%) 2 2 70 6th St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <'(` -> <Is 4 E- TT> E TT> Volume 7 1 72 1 1 1 68 771 1 36 1,506 76 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS F F D A E A B B B Storage/*Link Dist. *760 *760 *376 *376 100 200 *738 SimTraffic 95th Queue 198 277 10 11 11: 62 532 Queue Block Time(%) 3 4 0 80 7th St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- T - E- T 4 E- 1\1' -) E-- TT> Volume 20 73 229 79 52 48 96 772 162 49 1,440 90 Westwood Professional Services Page 2 of 3 8/29/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 Build AM with Bridge Node Intersection Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall Phasing pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Prot Perm Prot Synchro LOS D L D D D B F B A D A B III SimTraffic LOS D E D D D A B A D C C Storage/*Link Dist. *304 *304 *304 150 *354 *354 300 *438 300 150 *322 SimTraffic 95th Queue 51 129 260 115 84 42 173 177 48 107 10 Queue Block Time(%) 15 90 1-94 North Ramps&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <1' -> E- TT TT> Volume 124 1 305 155 725 1,614 135 Phasing custom Prot Synchro LOS E C it B A B SimTraffic LOS D A D A B B Storage/*Link Dist. *1,159 400 *729 *438 SimTraffic 95th Queue 202 126 224 176 33 Queue Block Time(%) 2 95 1-94 EB Ramps&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes TT -) T1`1' 4 Volume 880 330 893 844 Sign Control Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 125 5 SimTraffic 95th Queue 17 Queue Block Time(%) 100 1-94 South Ramp&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- <1' E- - 1"1' -- E- TT Volume 103 47 103 43 229 878 96 120 773 Phasing pm+pt Perm custom custom Perm Prot Synchro LOS D D B D B A A D A B SimTraffic LOS D E B D B B A D AB 41) Storage/*Link Dist. 175 *1,084 175 *443 *443 *771 300 *167 *167 SimTraffic 95th Queue 110 110 53 55 144 175 36 154 90 Queue Block Time(%) 1 110 Chelsea Rd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- TT> E- TT> E TT -4 E- TT 4 Volume 219 1221 59 14 78 73 43 682 34 107 682 131 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Prot Perm Prot Perm Synchro LOS D C C C D C A D B A C SimTraffic LOS D D D D E B A D B A C Storage/*Link Dist. *331 *331 200 *314 300 *2,646 300 400 *771 250 SimTraffic 95th Queue 251 121 34 106 78 221 34 144 165 49 Queue Block Time(%) 120 School Blvd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- T> E- T 4 E- TT 4 E- TT 4 Volume 30 46 14 85 24 135 6 594 101 120 613 22 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Synchro LOS D D D B F B A _ A A B SimTraffic LOS D E D E A E B A A A B Storage/*Link Dist. *318 *318 300 *392 200 300 *1,245 300 400 *2,646 300 SimTraffic 95th Queue 58 110 135 40 66 17 156 29 194 74 13 Queue Block Time(%) III Westwood Professional Services Page 3 of 3 8/29/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 Build PM with Bridge Node Intersection I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 10 CR 11&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <1' 4-> F T> FF TT 4 F 'P1'> eVolume 101 14 521 236 171 1 884 1,086 285 8 726 11 Phasing pm+ov Split Prot Perm Prot Synchro LOS E B E D D B A E D C SimTraffic LOS E B E D D B A E D C Storage/*Link Dist. *776 300 *1,191 *1,191 200 *1,644 170 300 *1,578 SimTraffic 95th Queue 60 136 291 42 448 519 41 28 378 Queue Block Time(%) 20 1 3 20 River St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <1'> <T -> F TT> E- TT> Volume 12 1 10 2 1 25 18 2,217 47 12 1,406 65 Phasing Perm Perm pm+pt Synchro LOS C E C A A A A A 1 SimTraffic LOS D E C C A 0 A A Storage/*Link Dist. *699 *888 100 60 *316 200 *1,644 SimTraffic 95th Queue 58 15 53 49 297 26 122 Queue Block Time(%) 10 1 26 Broadway St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- TT> F TT> <1' 4 <T 4 Volume 20 5291 16 47 2951 11 221 2 48 411 6 20 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A B A A Storage/*Link Dist. 150 *803 100 *332 100 *341 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 17 2 38 43 48 60 44 Queue Block Time(%) 28 Broadway St&Walnut St(Unsignalized) Lanes _ F TT> F TT> <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume _ 24 5561 38 35 3111 16 251 1 64 701 1 17 Sign Control _ Free Free Stop Stop • Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A B A A Storage/*Link Dist. 100 *331 20 *328 *344 250 *306 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 22 6 34 2 49 55 75 40 Queue Block Time(%) 2 1 30 Broadway St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes FE- TT> F T 44 F TT> FF TT> Volume 393 1771 121 152 150 503 151 1,3871 41 282 1,0071 107 Phasing Prot pm+pt pm+ov Prot Prot Synchro LOS E D D F D F C F C D SimTraffic LOS E D D E D E C E C D Storage/*Link Dist. 190 *328 200 *306 200 *338 *338 180 *316 SimTraffic 95th Queue 246 200 187 232 269 209 412 210 334 Queue Block Time(%) 6 3 4 5 1 10 32 Broadway St&Cedar St(Unsignalized) Lanes E- TT> F TT> <1' 4 <1' 4 Volume 58 4001 29 24 6681 6 271 1 35 251 1 85 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A B A A B A Storage/*Link Dist. 60 *306 100 *935 *370 100 *309 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 54 7 20 30 51 50 52 66 Queue Block Time(%) 36 3rd St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes F 4 <0 <T T 4 Volume 5 1 50 79 56 2 Sign Control Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *368 25 *340 *340 25 4 SimTraffic 95th Queue 18 18 20 20 16 Queue Block Time(%) Westwood Professional Services Page 1 of 3 8/29/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 Build PM with Bridge Node Intersection I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 38 3rd St&Walnut St(All-way stop) Lanes E-> 0 1`> <1' Volume 74 0 22 87 84 35 44 III Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *345 *339 *344 SimTraffic 95th Queue 59 81 55 Queue Block Time(%) 40 3rd St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes 4 4 1'1'1'> T T> Volume 87 36 1,5411 19 1,205 75 Sign Control Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS C D A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *345 *292 *338 *338 SimTraffic 95th Queue 90 67 320 4 Queue Block Time(%) 4 46 4th St&Locust St(Unsignalized) Lanes <1'> <1' 4 <T> <1' 4 Volume 12[ 1431 1 11 265 89 11 61 1 61 2 6 Sign Control Free Free Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *370 *339 25 *144 *340 25 SimTraffic 95th Queue 17 10 50 27 50 31 Queue Block Time(%) 2 9 1 48 4th St&Walnut St(All-way stop) Lanes <1' 9 <T 4 <1' 9 <T 9 Volume 201 154 50 431 240 124 901 63 7 69 53 22 Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 41) SimTraffic LOS A A B A A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. *339 25 *329 100 *344 25 *339 100 SimTraffic 95th Queue 66 58 139 81 66 26 49 28 Queue Block Time(%) 17 5 3 15 50 4th St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- 1' 4 E- 1' 4 <— TT> _ E- TT> Volume 54 111 86 40 164 32 125 1,4751 24 59 1,114 119 Phasing Perm Perm Perm Perm Prot Prot Synchro LOS F F B E E B F A D A B SimTraffic LOS 1 D B E D C r B D B B Storage/*Link Dist. *329 *329 150 *356 *356 100 200 *738 200 *338 SimTraffic 95th Queue 99 144 79 81 246 99 182 294 96 228 Queue Block Time(%) 1 20 1 2 1 70 6th St&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes <T 4 <1' 4 F 1'1'> E- 1'1s> Volume 10 2 70 2 2 5 84 1,609 12 19 1,121 101 Sign Control Stop Stop Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS F C F C B A C A A Storage/*Link Dist. *760 *760 *376 *376 100 200 *738 SimTraffic 95th Queue 61 79 27 27 80 33 261 Queue Block Time(%) 1 80 7th St&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- 'f 9 E- is E- 'P1` 9 E- ?T> Volume 106 132 229 208 172 99 288 1,500 203 75 1,052 66 Phasing pm+pt Perm pm+pt Perm Prot Perm Prot Synchro LOS F F B E F B D B A E C C SimTraffic LOS D E C E E B D B A E C C Storage/*Link Dist. *304 *304 *304 150 *354 *354 300 *438 300 150 *322 SimTraffic 95th Queue 155 196 205 275 327 96 1-' 381 104 17 Queue Block Time(%) 1 181 14 1 2 11 16III Westwood Professional Services Page 2 of 3 8/29/2011 Operational Analysis Results Monticello CBD Revitalization 2030 Build PM with Bridge Node Intersection I Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Overall 90 1-94 North Ramps&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes <T 4 TT TT> • Volume 247 2 557 166 1,434 1,323 166 Phasing custom Prot Synchro LOS E E D D A C SimTraffic LOS E D D B B C Storage/*Link Dist. *1,159 400 *729 *438 SimTraffic 95th Queue , 498 213 369 363 Queue Block Time(%) 3 95 1-94 EB Ramps&TH 25(Unsignalized) Lanes T.T. 4 T„"T 4 Volume 1,600 204 1,151 419 Sign Control Free Free Synchro LOS n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a SimTraffic LOS A A A A A Storage/*Link Dist. 125 5 SimTraffic 95th Queue 9 Queue Block Time(%) 100 1-94 South Ramp&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- <T 9 E. 9 1-1` 4 E- TT Volume 140 34 130 58 283 1,380 71 113 1,038 Phasing pm+pt Perm custom custom Perm Prot Synchro LOS D D B D D B A E A B SimTraffic LOS D D B D C B A D A B Storage/*Link Dist. 175 *1,084 175 *443 *443 *771 300 *167 *167 SimTraffic 95th Queue 118 118 83 66 211 257 36 161 101 Queue Block Time(%) 1 110 Chelsea Rd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- TT> F TT> F TT 4 E- TT 4 Volume 220 84 108 74 136 192 100 1,039 40 115 832 279 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Prot Perm Prot Perm • Synchro LOS D B D D F C A E B A C SimTraffic LOS D D D E E C A D B A C Storage/*Link Dist. *331 *331 200 *314 300 *2,646 300 400 *771 250 SimTraffic 95th Queue 231 116 92 164 133 303 39 156 211 58 Queue Block Time(%) 1 120 School Blvd&TH 25(Signalized--Cycle Length:130) Lanes E- T> E- T 9 F TT 4 E- TT 4 Volume 96 78 25 176 132 332 43 750 155 268 624 122 Phasing pm+pt pm+pt Perm Prot Perm Prot Perm Synchro LOS D E D E B E C A D A A C SimTraffic LOS D E D D B E C B E A A C Storage/*Link Dist. *318 *318 300 *392 200 300 *1,245 300 400 *2,646 300 SimTraffic 95th Queue 136 139 195 164 194 75 289 66 339 93 32 Queue Block Time(%) 1 1 III Westwood Professional Services Page 3 of 3 8/29/2011 ... ' 03 a) c,, ?-.•c - = CO -, ,..,, (1) °•• 7:3 - ro ? fl .!, 0 ,fi-a, ••., ..., ,,-... a- ___..e .--• -t);..., : 1 U) 0 r.: ri (7, V'`4;j :4:L1.*L'• ,: *.• 1:3 0 0 15 '144.-I,..:'' ''. - C (Li •Nd .... 5_) . 0 a) (i) CID si• ..0 U LI - IV 11. C‘76 0 U .... .re t) rt . a. 0 co 0 cc) co _J (5 a. c., 0- e, - -0.:- U) cri V - , ( I 1 i 1 , I -1. . \ • :.; ,,. ..__ . • ,..,,,. / 0 i • , I-4 l .4,7• 1-- / - Z i 3 i' i 0 2l ,; i':_'\.1 11 z ... ii, Igo , , .,....... er CC .....-. Z CO "ripr i Cr , •-' . ••:,/ r 1 0 „,-, NN41 , ''' ,' t ' , I .:-..... 1 j 11 1/4e'4Z i-Pi.`" ......1..).so . ff - t/// ,'"';'''''',.',.. )1 tr—v:Tillt 4 1 --- ---...-,c--;,„._. / / 12 ***f...... it/ , .., ...„...._ , -„,.,,,,........_46,,,... ,,, r"• ,!, I 4(4 / / .. , 4 ,-,,, ii) 'sii:3, ", • ! •''''', ! '^--..1---. :;'..-...!.'-'' ' :' ' -/.• i e'''l ) 17-1 ! ••••1 .''./''''. . :i 1 '• if,'„ —: I i •'..,-., .€1....t : , .,,,,, ',7-. ''''.1• ;,./\. ro.i \ •\ •.p.,.. ' / • P. i (.. 411_,3• 7,-1-*"T .. 1 , l if .., , Vi I, A — i 4" ; f 1, 1/// tortgi ' • * "%. . \ .0' ft,,,,:::,, is r (i) , .-., - -- , \ ,(--.. ) 1 C y .> u O N !n z 03 = to N 00� O. VS co5 Q Cr; �= z A t C— < 0 s _ CO r _ cn y r o = �a « L. CD mflIt 0 UiL i1![z ..i4o p . ,i,1 _ ...i COC V v H E U E Y t Y_ co Y Q Q W ; L L. \ 3, s N a r w! Q !It'll ( o ar Li. a. 0 0 tik O N i I o Q L - 2 A o -' H tti.P.I4- ! ♦ k. ♦ v. ': 4 .••.. •t�*♦1111ii 8 ♦♦ • • F— ., sre //,..,/ 4F+(o r,'! ♦ 9 •`.. e / o t �'��� .. y� • . '• ! Y A !Ct �-�• rt . a LIJ ''^^ U vl n b,� • ; O as f� •.- ` ` t .i a a * f.i f . • ' il ar : -a+A -* 01 i .� , rie/e♦ � >-f-- / LL e O _ IX Iss ., ie- -1, j) *--ta,.." i 7,,,,., . • tit ails �� ��• i ~"s • 0 ria► • ♦♦ o r ! �.� if i t±:, ri bre t 4.�.a 1 a 4 r- e. i ...de *g / Ili X• , • , 1->.: (S 6 fu („ �J. ci 5� ,O,,... �� Ja r •C , G . ,M„.:, „., ...x 0 0 Ii/ , t <1, - -.4,. ,,-1:: § .• ci)(.,.t:,, . , ., T I, O ;! O 9,. Y z1 t MOW • Line , .,1 ,:,_- • The future vision for Monticello provides the foundation for the Compre- Chapter Contents hensive Plan (the vision statement appears in Chapter 1). The Land Use Plan, in turn, provides the framework for how land will be used to help Future Growth......»..:»..»........ 3-2 achieve the future vision for Monticello.The Land Use Plan seeks to rein Growth Policies.. ..�. . .3-2' force desirable land use patterns, identify places where change is needed and guide the form and location of future growth. Land Use Plan Map.--.-3-3 The Land Use Plan for Monticello was shaped by a variety of factors, Land Use Categories .....3-3 Places to Lives ......3-5 including: Places to Work--...-.. ........3-1Q„s I, Community input gathered through public workshops and Task Force Places to Shop................_._3-13 Downtown.......... ... ..3-13', discussions. Mixed Use......_................ ...3-14 I. The existing built and natural environment in Monticello. Places to Recreate........... 3-15 I. The vision for Monticello's future. Places for Community..........3-15 • • Urban Reserve............. 3-15; ► Factors described in the Community Context chapter of the Plan. Interchange Planning Area.3-16;; ► Systems plans for transportation,sanitary sewer and water supply. Private,Infrastructure...._....-3-16 Greenway;.. ..... . ..»....3-16 This represents a departure in form from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. Focus Areas .......»...»... 3 16 The 1996 Plan included the land use plan as part of a broader Develop- Northwest Monticello . . 3-16 ment Framework section. The 1996 Plan described Monticello's land use Downtown Focus Area........3-19=` plan by general district of the community as a means of attending to the ;' South Central Focus Area...3-22-- - unique issues in each district. The 2008 Update of the Comprehensive '' East Focus Area....................3-23 Plan establishes a separate land use chapter consisting of the following components: ► A section on Future Growth describes the implications of future resi- dent growth and the amount of growth anticipated by the Plan. I. The Land Use Plan Map(see Figure 3-2)shows the land uses assigned to each parcel of land. ► Land Use Categories further explain the Land Use Plan by describing the land uses depicted in the Map. This section includes land use poli- cies describe the objectives that Monticello seeks to achieve through the implementation of the Land Use Plan and the supporting elements of the Comprehensive Plan. ► Focus Areas provide a more detailed discussion of characteristics, III goals and policies for key areas of the community. 2008 Comprehensive Pian Land Use ! 3-1 Future Growth more growth than is reasonable. The chart in Figure • 3-1 shows the projection of future residential growth In looking to the future,Monticello must not just con- assumed in the Comprehensive Plan. sider the qualities of the future community, but also the nature of growth. Assumptions about the amount and pace of future growth are important parts of the Figure 3-1:Growth Trends and Projections foundation for the Comprehensive Plan. Growth has several important implications for the Comprehensive 300 Plan: 256 250 242 223 22 ► Growth projections are used to plan for the capacity 2 260 of municipal utility systems. 67 150 150 150 150 150 1501501��Actual O. Growth projections are used to create and manage 150 136 -et-.projected finance plans for capital improvements. 100 ► The school system uses growth projections to 77 50 70 forecast enrollments and to plan for programs and 50 0 30 facilities. 0 ► Market studies use growth projections to analyze 455 ry001 ��e ro°� rye ,e ,e• �O�a ry0�e 10,E 10ti0 the potential for locating or expanding businesses in Monticello. ► The characteristics of growth influence the amount The projections assumes that the rate of growth slowly of land needed to support this development. rises over the next five years and continues at a level of 190 units per year from 2012 to 2020. This amount falls 0. Growth adds trips to the local street system. below the 229 units/year average for 2001 through 2005. • ► Assumptions about growth influence the policies This rate of growth is intended to reflect several factors. and actions needed to implement the Compre Monticello will remain a desirable place to live,attract- hensive Plan. ing both builders and residents. Housing market condi- For these reasons,it is essential that the Comprehensive tions will improve from the weaknesses experienced in Plan state assumptions of the nature of future growth. 2006 and 2007. A combination of market conditions, A challenge in forecasting future residential develop- local policy objectives, and changing demographics ment is that the Comprehensive Plan influences, but may reduce the potential for achieving and sustain- does not control, the factors that determine where ing higher rates of residential growth. Slower future people live. These factors include: growth reflects the belief that achieving the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan,in particular seeking more ► Quality of life. move up housing,will result in less development than ► Access to employment. in previous years. ► Availability of desired housing and neighborhood options. Growth Policies ► Affordability. 1. The City will consistently review recent develop- Competition from other places in the region. ment trends and update growth projections to serve as a basis for public and private planning. Given these uncertainties, the Comprehensive Plan 2. Over the life of this Comprehensive Plan, growth seeks a balance between optimism and prudence. will occur within the boundaries of the current For many reasons, the Plan should not significantly municipal boundaries and the Orderly Annexation understate the growth potential of Monticello. The Area. balancing force lies with the implications of assuming • D r'' " City of Monticello k. 3. Future development should be guided to locations The ability to use the Comprehensive Plan as an effec- • that utilize existing infrastructure and locations tive land use management tool requires a definition of that facilitate the construction of street and utility each land use. These definitions provide a common systems that meet the objectives of the Compre- understanding of the basic characteristics of each cat- hensive Plan. egory used in the Land Use Plan. 4. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate action by Monticello to annex or extend utility systems to The 1996 Plan relies on three basic categories of private land use:residential,commercial and industrial. Each property immediately north of the Mississippi Riv- er. Development in this area will place additional of these categories is further divided into subcategories traffic on STH 25 (particularly in the Downtown that distinguish between the character,type and inten- area) and channel investment away from other sity of development desired in different locations. parts of the City,especially the Downtown. The 2008 update of the Comprehensive Plan uses a dif- ferent approach to achieve similar land use patterns. Land Use Plan Map The Land Use Plan map depicts series of"places" for private development: Places to Live, Places to Shop, The Land Use Plan Map (shown in Figure 3-2) shows Places to Work,and Downtown. This approach is based the desired land use for all property in Monticello and on the following rationale: the Orderly Annexation Area The land use plan de- picted in this map builds on the previous community ► These broad categories more clearly illustrate the planning in Monticello. pattern of development and the plan for future growth. The Comprehensive Plan uses the Land Use Plan to ► Although residential land uses vary by type and define the broad land use patterns in Monticello. The density,they share many public objectives. III Land Use Plan seeks to: 0. This approach makes a more enduring compre ► Organize the community in a sustainable man- hensive plan. The Plan can guide an area for the ner. appropriate land use without the need to predict ► Make efficient use of municipal utility systems and future community needs and market forces. facilitate the orderly and financially feasible expan- ► The Plan relies on policies, land use regulations, sion of these systems. performance standards and public actions to pro- ▪ Provide the capacity for the type of growth desired vide a more detailed guide for land use and devel by the community. opment. This approach conveys more flexibility and control to the City Council and the Planning The Land Use Plan Map is only one piece of the land Commission. use plan for Monticello. The other parts of the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan work with this map to explain the intent and objectives for future land Role of Zoning Regulations use. Further,this map lays the foundation for land use Zoning regulations play a critical role in implementing land use plans in controls that are used by the City to implement the Monticello.State Law gives zoning regulations priority over theComprehensive Comprehensive Plan. Plan. If land uses are different,zoning regulations control the use of land. Zoning regulations are particularly important in the application of the land use categories in the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The"places to"land Land Use Categories use categories set forth a broad and flexible land use pattern for Monticello. Zoning regulations(and other land use controls)will be used to determine the The Land Use Plan Map uses a set of specific categories appropriate location for each form of development and other regulations on to guide land use in Monticello. One element missing the use of land,consistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan. from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan was a description of the land use categories shown in the Land Use Plan. • 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use I 3-3 .. . .. „,.n,.-- ._ar..actua m v,,,,_.,-,-, ..,r.,,z a. . .n_ , ,..,,, -.- , , . MON Figure 3-2:Land Use Plan Map III 1 0___ o _s� — 1 .$ r /`I i ~7%--�-'-7 t.- m / "'? 1 / a o r / I Qz. Z a a o U c Jfl a I = .rte ....e a_m y r 4 ' m 0 0 0 `p y p. w _. a ? (9 _ v C ¢ C-g 2I c ! !C i/ ,..v? �A,,, a</ r... ,. F,, w w m v , o ` v c T/ �. rmm /, `,_ ...,.... LA, c a a a a a o f c $ _ E2 a' s so_ a ti_ w a a 2 O - v--'F . ; i I�' 1'A11c29 is -- C : `� x j l 1r' , / i fir,r/! _ 1�0 �■ /j,.4 / �. "' .,,. `vv. -.'�, �., ♦ N" 1 `♦ r: if I "......"-. !�� , i' .I. 1 I t /_ ,_/• ; • - 1 4 , <,,, __, ,_,....., / 0 , • �.�.. / .11. // 7, ,i . r ' t 1 a , ,...:___17:7i.,,,I 1 -- glikit, . 7 r / - ■ II '• . • A �'t f l m E 1 f It .il r..��\ G ; .,• • -o rr. V� o f .._, — _ r L. »,.. __..! ,r , 3-4 I Land Use City of Monticello L. • Figure 3-3:Land Use Plan-Places to Live -._- ' \ it \• \ + ~11 � ` \ ...77 .... ......,... tar � . • • If JC 1 e- -� s •' 1. $Aellarf i„, 1 - ... Sa,. ocq \ - 1` "1-oaf., :. . . N__, . > _ - -- 1 ----- 1 • r 4110 a ww • .. :—. .'. it Vivi Ir . + N. N. The remainder of this section describes the categories When someone says"house"the most common image used in the Comprehensive Plan in greater detail. is a single family detached dwelling. This housing style is characterized by several features. There is a one-to- Places to Live one relationship between house and parcel of land-the The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create and sustain housing unit is located on a single parcel. The house is quality places for people to live in Monticello(see Figure not physically attached to another housing unit. The 3-3). This category designates areas where housing is housing is designed for occupancy by a single family the primary use of land. The emphasis behind Places to unit. The typical neighborhood in Monticello is made Live is to help ensure that Monticello offers a full range up exclusively of single family detached homes. of housing choices,while preserving and enhancing the The primary variables become the design of the sub- quality of neighborhoods. Although a single land use division,the size of the lot and the size and style of the category, Places to Live does not suggest housing is a dwelling. Many older neighborhoods in Monticello homogenous commodity or that any type of housing (north of Interstate 94)were built on a traditional grid is desirable or allowed in any location. street system. Over the past thirty years,development patterns have moved to a new suburban curvilinear III 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-5 pattern,characterized by curvilinear street layout with Higher density residential land uses should be located the use of cul-de-sacs. where the setting can accommodate the taller buildings 411 and additional traffic. A variety of factors, including consumer preference and housing cost, have increased the construction of Policies-Places to Live attached housing in recent years. Duplexes,twin homes The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the following quads and townhomes are common examples of this objectives for residential land use in Monticello: housing style. Although the specific form changes, there are several common characteristics. Each hous- 1. Provide a range of housing choices that fit all stages ing unit is designed for occupancy by a single family. of a person's life-cycle(see below). The housing units are physically attached to each other 2. Support development in areas that best matches the in a horizontal orientation. overall objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Develop quality neighborhoods that create a sense Places to Live will include some neighborhoods de- signed to offer a mixture of housing types and densities. of connection to the community and inspire sus Mixed residential neighborhoods create a pattern of tamed investment. The Comprehensive Plan seeks that combines single-family detached housing with a to maintain the quality and integrity of existing mixture of attached housing types.Using good design neighborhoods by encouraging the maintenance of and planning, these mixed residential neighborhoods property and reinvestment into the existing housing stock. Changes in housing type should be allowed can achieve a higher density without compromising only to facilitate necessary redevelopment. the overall integrity of the low-density residential pat- tern. 4. Create neighborhoods that allow residents to maintain a connection to the natural environment This integration strengthens neighborhoods by increas- and open spaces. ing housing choice and affordability beyond what is 5. Seek quality over quantity in residential growth. possible by today's rules and regulations.It also avoids Achieving the objectives for quality housing and • large and separate concentrations of attached housing. neighborhoods may reduce the overall rate of It enhances opportunities to organize development in growth. a manner that preserves natural features. 6. Reserve areas with high amenities for "move up" housing as desired in the vision statement. These A complete housing stock includes higher density residential areas that consist of multi-family housing amenities may include forested areas, wetland complexes, adjacency to parks and greenways. types such as apartments and condominiums. In the near term,the Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate Some of the City's policy objectives require further expanding the existing supply of higher density hous- explanation. ing. It is likely that Monticello will need additional Life Cycle Housing higher density housing to: Housing is not a simple"one size fits all"commodity. ► Provide housing suited to the needs of an aging Monticello's housing stock varies by type, age, style population. and price. The Community Context chapter of the ► Facilitate redevelopment in the Downtown or in Comprehensive Plan describes the characteristics of other appropriate locations of the community. the housing stock based on the 2000 Census and recent ► Provide housing needed to attract the work force building permit trends. required to achieve economic development goals of the City. The concept of life cycle housing recognizes that hous- ing needs change over the course of a person's life(see Figure 3-4). Young adults may not have the income capacity to own the typical single family home. This • 3-6 I Land Use City of Monticello segment of the population often seeks rental housing. • Families move through different sizes,styles and prices of housing as family size and income changes over time. Figure 3-4:Life Cycle of Housing Supply With aging,people may desire smaller homes with less maintenance. Eventually,the elderly transition to hous- ing associated with options for direct care. As noted,� 1 1 + in the Vision Statement, Monticello's population will continue to become more diverse. This diversity will Ill 101 11=1 11 1.11. a be seen in age,race,culture and wealth. These factors vax1r-7 E X11 ` t will influence the housing needs of Monticello. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes these differences "'* •,,', and seeks to create a balanced housing supply that - -- , encourages people to move to and stay in Monticello. i This balance may not be achieved solely by market . ,taga it. forces guided by this Land Use Plan. Actions by the City maybe needed to promote the creation of housing in underserved segments of the market. , r' r.cit'.vNeighborhood Design wt r " �_" A priority for the community is diversification of the I r,---- housing stock by providing more "move up" housing. r _�;, �, - In this context, the term "move up" housing refers to ,�; ::. ,_.• ' ` .' " " ;--,,, larger homes with more amenities in structure and � � x= ', setting. This type of housing may not be exclusively single-family detached or low density. Attached forms of housing with medium or high densities may meet the "/P' . AO objectives for move up housing in the appropriate loca- --:-/---.'r dt tions. In this way,the objectives for move up housing " fit'-' " :: l __ • and life cycle housing are compatible and supportive. _ i.7.'. -.., +► - i� LI ri 4 `gOV While every community wants a high quality housing w„vy , stock, this issue has particular importance in Mon- ..,;4.- on- ;4. ticello. It is a key to retaining population. Without cilh'. lisP� ,-l. ' a broader variety of housing options, families may '�� • encouraged to leave Monticello to meet their need for -ti= °' f�. r _` a larger home.It is a factor in economic development. ;:,,,,:,,,,i_ 1�2': One facet of attracting and retaining professional jobs "�""' ; i I .i 1 r f is to provide desirable housing alternatives. 6F * . 1. '''-laIt must be recognized that creating move up housing requires more than policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for achiev- ing the desired results. The desired outcomes require private investment. This investment occurs when demand exists or the City can provide an incentive to IDattract investment. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use I 3-7 Part of attracting move up housing comes from cre- ating great neighborhoods – places that will attract Figure 3-5:Relationship Between Development and III and sustain the housing options sought by the City. Natural Features Parkway Neighborhoods are the building block of Places to Live in Monticello. The goal of the Comprehensive Plan is 'fxr ' to create and maintain attractive, safe and functional <: neighborhoods. The following policies help to achieve "" C 4= `'4 µ �-J `� v �1othis objective: 1 1. Neighborhoods should incorporate the natural ,r .�� ~� characteristics of the setting. Trees, terrain, '+�. '`,� drainageways, and other natural features provide –?� 1– - ti �`:� character to neighborhoods. 1 y,. 2. Housing should be oriented to the local street, 1 1 `\', minimizing access and noise conflicts with collec _ for streets. 3. The City will use public improvements to enhance Figure 3-6:Relationship Between Development and the appearance and character of a neighborhood. Natural Features Trail Corridor Some examples of improvements that define an area include streets with curb and gutter, trees in . the public boulevard, street lighting systems, and storm water ponding. -x. -,", ` -. ,-.. r 4. Sidewalks, trails, and bikeways will connect the \--x.,----,ter neighborhood to other parts of the community. III ....--___ --- .... ....... 5. Every neighborhood should have reasonable access _ .. _ . to a public park as a place for residents to gather -" ' -��(i' - -, 'a` and play. i. ii , 1 All of these elements work together to create a desirable --- ----' — '' and sustainable place to live. Balancing the Built and Natural Environments vincing arguments in favor of open space designation The natural amenities of the growth areas (west and and preservation:' Balancing the built and natural south) in Monticello should serve as a catalyst for environments should provide a catalyst to the types of residential development. The proposed regional park development desired by the City and in the expansion (YMCA property)offers the dual assets of natural fea- of the property tax base. tures and recreational opportunities. Lakes,wetlands and other natural amenities exist throughout the or- In attempting to meet residential development objec deny annexation area. tives,the City should not lose sight of long-term public benefit from access to these same natural areas. The Studies have shown that parks and open space have a original development of Monticello provides an ex- positive economic effect on adjacent development. An cellent illustration. The majority of the riverfront in article published by the National Park and Recreation Monticello is controlled by private property. Public Association states that "recent analyses suggest that access to the River comes at points provided by public open spaces may have substantial positive impacts on parks. surrounding property values and hence, the property tax base, providing open space advocates with con- • 3-8 I Land Use City of Monticello iFigure 3-7:Example of Conservation Design Development # OPEN SPACE DESIGN NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD - s.a - - -"- i 'r Total Housing Umts 90 * Pastures Zvi' t t Equestrian Facility ,� -1/415:J. # rt.-I( Semi-Custom,Si"g,,.:amity Homes ' r _ _ Lot Width:82'lknirnum - ? Wetlands Enhancements 't 4. f, Lot Size 9 900 to 16,000 Sq.FL +�.+"1'. - Conservation Easements '�r- ----77111141r1 `7 a - e1 House Sq.Ft:2.400 to 4,900 Sq.Ft. r; - Central Park t i4�`"`- Price Point Packages:5450 000 to ,+• , _ - 27 Acre Park South of Lake xo -- $650,000 . ! .. r a I7 e lar " s' ! It NEIGHBORHOOD FEATURES \• . NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD w .1.,-........::,. '' - —!1. .� Tota/Housing Unrts 66 \ 11 Central Park i't � Cusrom Luxury T.vin Homes , v i : `, - Northeast Neighborhood Green s. -y+f • } %,,;,,f1 "T Lor Width 45'x90 Tw+ntwme - el! ;„^:',-' South Neighborhood Green w o, , Lot Size:4 050 Sq.FL 11. 1 ra�a_ ,_ , Association Dock and Park i 1 t�,�.4 d` House 54.Fr.:2.800 to 3.800 Sq.Ft. S .:,;• f.�' Price Point Packages:S-175 OM to :,, ' flit I 11.<;;I.CI 417,74 ,,,„„ 4.,.. mov-r.re4 , • 1 • I,.- f 4 ....0.. - t --m...i _ l. ri,:i.''1''''4''";:'-":,::'-;„ -. ";4";'1'4'',1.4.y,V1,.' . - _ ._:A= i., .. 'Ie .._ia.y ,...__.. - ~ A well known example of balancing public use with the edge of the natural area. Access to the trail between private development is the Minneapolis chain of lakes lots should come at reasonable intervals. and Minnehaha Creek. Public streets (parkways) and There are a variety of real world examples of how Min- trails separate neighborhoods from the natural features, nesota cities have used conservation design strategies preserving public use and access. These neighbor hoods are some of the most desirable in the region, to promote high quality development and preserve the demonstrating that public use and private benefit are natural environment. The illustrations in Figure 3-7 shows elements of the Chevalle development in Chaska. not mutually exclusive. Using open space design and rural residential cluster The figures below show two options for integrating development techniques,HKGi's concept plan provides housing, natural features and public use. Figure 3-5 for a variety of housing options while preserving a ma- is the parkway concept. An attractive street forms the jority of the area as permanent open space, including edge between the park(or natural area) and the hous- public and common open spaces. Amenities would ing. A multi-use trail follows the street while homes include access to protected open spaces (lakeshore, face the street and draw on the attractiveness of both woods,meadows,pastures,wetlands),walking/biking the parkway and the natural amenities. trails,equestrian trails and facilities,common outdoor structures and an environmental learning center. The The alternative is to use a trail corridor to provide public experience of other cities and developments can guide access to these areas(see Figure 3-6). The trail follows future planning and decision making in Monticello. III 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use I 3-9 tier-U2:z«Y:Y.a4 E+.Hl.:tiMe«:"i'iib'uCVI^s9YZA:5:Y}a3nTfl+l)cti.5ffi."a'f4'�`4"asd9a*:�.s.�NJ...L} :.::::w SL'M. R m.titiw:k'iF.�C9.aSt�YY:4«S.RC..i14.Y Y6YXCJ9S:.'^.P#ec.2¢rkvlvWi3[ 3'B.LK�.'aaMxhtti:'as^CK�H96h! Attractive Places Economics also influences property maintenance. The greater the portion of income devoted to basic housing • Attractive physical appearance is one of the most costs (mortgage/rent, taxes, utilities), the less money common attributes of Places to Live in Monticello. available for maintenance activities. Maintenance Attractiveness is a combination of design, construe can be deferred, but not avoided. If left unchecked, tion and maintenance. These characteristics apply to this cycle of avoided maintenance produces negative buildings and sites. Attractiveness is relevant for both effects. private and public property. Attractiveness reflects individual pride in property as well as an overall sense Safe Places of community quality. Safety is frequently identified as the most desired The City may use a variety of regulatory tools to influ- characteristic of Places to Live. Several aspects of the ence the potential for attractive neighborhoods: Comprehensive Plan and city government influence ► Building codes and additional regulations to pro safe neighborhoods. mote quality construction. 1. The City will encourage existing neighborhoods ► Subdivision regulations control the initial configu- and develop new neighborhoods where people ration of lots. are involved in the community,interact with their 0. Zoning regulations establish limitations on the size neighbors and support each other. of lots,placement of the house on a lot,relationship 2. The City will design,build and maintain a system of structure size to lot area, and building height. of streets that collects traffic from neighborhoods, ► Nuisance ordinances enable the City to prevent and allows movement within Monticello to jobs,shop ping and other destinations and minimizes traffic correct undesirable uses of property. that"cuts through"neighborhoods on local streets ► Other City regulations control other ancillary uses seeking other destinations. of residential property. 3. The City will provide, directly or by contract,ser- • Maintenance of property is a factor in sustaining quality vices needed to protect people and property. neighborhoods. The tenure(form of ownership)influ- 4. The City will support the Land Use Plan with a ences the responsibility for housing maintenance. The water supply that provides clean water at pressures owner-occupant of a single family detached home is needed to support fire suppression. solely responsible for the maintenance of building and 5. The City will protect the natural environment grounds. If this same home is rented, maintenance by requiring new development to connect to the responsibilities are often shared between tenant and sanitary sewer system and by adequately treating owner. This relationship may include a third party all municipal wastewater. property manager retained by the owner to perform 6. The City will provide water that is safe to drink by maintenance duties. Owners of attached housing may protecting water supply sources. act collectively through a homeowner's association. In multiple family rental housing, the tenants have no Places to Work direct responsibility for property maintenance. This This land use is primarily intended for industrial de- discussion does not imply a preference,but is intended velopment. Places to Work seeks to provide locations solely to highlight the differences. This understanding for the retention,expansion and creation of businesses becomes relevant when public action is needed to ad that provide jobs for Monticello residents and expan- dress a failure of the private maintenance approach. sion and diversification of the property tax base. In Nuisance ordinances are one tool used by the City order to be a center of employment with a wide range to address failures in private maintenance and use of of job opportunities, it is critical that Monticello property. preserve sufficient land for Places to Work over the next twenty-five years. These land uses can be one of • 3-10 I Land Use City of Monticello • Figure 3-8:Land Use Plan-Places to Work •,-.. .-.' ''' ''1#' .4' , \\. l',\\,,,.„,... •*,.a. : . .4. ''''.IN .... N 'tc...... knLbr 1 XI, ti II 25 ::.y .1%, r i rpt j •! i� 'i ``.\.` —14- Al...1 ..•1130,1, -- .. .'.-..., ' .4y` 1 !i i\ II I } tt_1 IJ ;It-4; ,a i • = ! IIS. i 11 i ;_ j „ , ,____ . ' •., } —J ! _ r}� ♦ {.a i j 7 4,y., 1-;. 4__ �`�\., , t a0� 1 `. I «i .--t-1)- ... . �-i ...r`J \.`i.... 6,L..f 4 .+ 0 0.25 0.5 1 ■ I Miles ~4." J t �^ ` 1. the most challenging to locate because of its need for ► Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for convenient transportation access and influence on people to work and live in Monticello. surrounding land uses.In planning for future Places to ► Promoting wage levels that provide incomes need- Work,the Comprehensive Plan considers the goals of ed to purchase decent housing,support local busi- the community; what type of industrial development nesses and support local government services. is sought;and what factors should be considered when ► Take advantage of opportunities to attract corpo- locating an industrial land use. rate headquarters/campuses and businesses that In planning for sustaining existing businesses and at specialize in biosciences and technology. tracting new development,it is necessary to understand ► Encouraging the retention and expansion of exist- why Places to Work are important to Monticello. The ing businesses in Monticello. objectives for this land use include: ► Expanding and diversifying the property tax base. III 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use ( 3-11 1>rr'iY'TY-e#`u6!:R�»:at�.9C3�WE.:isJ�'Y,9.4.tiJ. -deb - "r_aYSSwvaa',v.^.".�S�Cia�Y9U4S'.+t'3C.t 4aY'tiM'i3a.vNWY.§Y�sT�•."t4taa:R�W". Figure 3-9:Land Use Plan-Places to Shop • -1- _� i _ ilI 1 , _ fi:c�Lt,r: `+ - moi -\ i1 �11,� t, `., 4. 1 IY `� '..` .YAC :':ry` `� 1 .Y � � -�\", N� �'� -,7 r. t- i fr. - 1 i V.....1 I - - ..... ,--- z\ .;r7_"__ , -----. 1 1 se.1; $;—\' --J . 106 •4 -----g \.s. ---1 r 0 �`, 1 1 . J—r J +® j •Z‘\ *0 I.I :`ti �` 0 0.25 0.5 1 •+�►� 1, `�_ �. 1 — i Miles -Mi r. •r•� ,' \ 10,0 ti,�,,-,. In SNR,SL.,b,,,,e CO�,0,..\\'..ght - '� `•-.` Cou ,'. ,a,l,.Il&AuxoI1+ NmnnL,+1.2011 F { 0 4ti, • • Policies-Places to Work search and development,corporate headquarters, 1. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to des- business office,wholesale showrooms,and related ignate and preserve a supply of land for Places to uses. Work that meets current and future needs. 4. The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that 2. Consistent with the vision for the future of Mon- Places to Work should provide locations for other ticello,the Land Use Plan promotes the establish- general industrial development in the areas of ment of business campus settings that provide a manufacturing,processing,warehousing,distribu- high level of amenities, including architectural tion and related businesses. controls, landscaping, preservation of natural 5. Places to Work may include non-industrial busi- features, storage enclosed within buildings, and nesses that provide necessary support to the un other features. The zoning ordinance,subdivision derlying development objectives of this land use. regulations and other land use controls will also be Examples of supporting land uses include lodging, used to create and maintain the desired business office supplies and repair services. campus settings. 3. Places to Work supports the City's desire to attract businesses oriented to bioscience, technology, re- • 3-12 1 i'''" Us, City of Monticello 0 Additional public objectives and strategies for Places :71= ,.,34, w ,zr , , to Work can be found in the Economic Development s ) 1 ,,,r chapter. f,, a * p it - m:t s' , Places to Shop 311 • � l � � Places to Shopdesignate locations that are or can be l 11 - - ` developed with businesses involved with the sale of +‘1111 iti '- ';.'.,'‘..t. `�- ds and services. Places to Shopmayinclude offices i '"�""' -- ,,. R- ;- goods - • for service businesses. Places to Shop guides land uses �.` + r i:i that are both local and regional in nature. -..__ _ {— " Policies-Places to Shop The Comprehensive Plan describes issues,plans and policies related to the Downtown in several sections In guiding land uses for Places to Shop, the Compre- of the Plan. hensive Plan seeks to: 1. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to attract and retain Downtown businesses that provide goods and services needed Downtown is a unique commercial district that is part by Monticello residents. of Monticello's heritage and identity. It is,however,no 2. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to capture the op- longer possible for downtown to be Monticello's cen- portunity for commercial development that serves tral business district. The mass of current and future a broader region. Places to Shop with a regional commercial development south of Interstate 94 along orientation should be located where the traffic does TH 25 and in east Monticello along interstate 94 have not disadvantage travel within Monticello. replaced the downtown area as primary shopping dis- 3.• Commercial development will be used to expand tricts. The future success of downtown requires it to and diversify the local property tax base and as an be a place unlike any other in Monticello. element of a diverse supply of local jobs. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the vision 4. Places to Shop will be located on property with ac- and objectives described in the 1997 Downtown and cess to the street capacity needed to support traffic Riverfront Plan. Downtown is intended to be a mix from these businesses. of inter-related and mutually supportive land uses. 5. Each parcel should supply an adequate supply of Businesses involved with the sale of goods and services parking that makes it convenient to obtain the should be the focus of Downtown land use. Residential goods and services. development facilities reinvestment and places poten- 6. Building materials, facades and signage should tial customers in the Downtown area. Civic uses draw combine with public improvements to create an in people from across the community. attractive setting. During the planning process,the potential for allowing 7. Site design must give consideration to defining edg- commercial activity to extend easterly out of the Down- es and providing buffering or separation between town along Broadway was discussed. The Compre the commercial parcel and adjacent residential hensive Plan consciously defines—as the eastern edge uses. of Downtown for two basic reasons: (1) Downtown These policies help to create sustainable locations for should be successful and sustainable before new areas Places to Shop in a manner that enhances Monticello. of competition are created;and(2)The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain and enhance the integrity of residential neighborhoods east of Downtown. • 2008 Comprehensive Pian land Use I 3-13 More than any other land use category,Downtown has Office)should be located in the Downtown area as strong connections to other parts of the Comprehen- a means to bring people into the Downtown. sive Plan. The following parts of the Comprehensive 6. Downtown should emphasize connections with Plan also address community desires and plans for the the Mississippi River that are accessible by the Downtown area: public. ► The Land Use chapter contains a specific focus 7. Downtown should be a pedestrian-oriented place area on Downtown. The focus area contains a in a manner that cannot be matched by other corn- more detailed discussion of the issues facing the mercial districts. Downtown and potential public actions needed to 8. Downtown should have an adequate supply of free address these issues. parking for customers distributed throughout the ► The operation of the street system is a critical fac- area. tor for the future of Downtown. The Transporta- 9. The City will facilitate private investment in tion chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (and the Downtown and, if necessary, use its redevelop- related Transportation Plan) influence the ability ment powers to remove barriers to desired private of residents to travel to Downtown and the options investment. for mitigating the impacts of traffic on Highway 25 and other Downtown streets. All of these policies work together to attract people to Downtown and to enhance the potential for a successful ► The Parks chapter of the Comprehensive Plan provides for parks in the Downtown and the trail business environment. systems that allow people to reach Downtown on foot or bicycle. Amendment to Comprehensive Plan/1997 Downtown Revitalization Plan ► The Economic Development chapter lays the foun- Resolution 2010-049,adopted 7/12/10: dation for public actions and investments that will be needed to achieve the desired outcomes. At the intersection of Broadway and Pine Streets, • parking lots may be constructed only when all of the Policies-Downtown following conditions exist: 1. Downtown is a special and unique part of Mon- ticello. It merits particular attention in the Corn- limit om ► Applicable traffic safety and access requirements prehensive Plan and in future efforts to achieve limit the ability to comply with building location community plans and objectives. standards of this Plan. 2. Downtown is intended to be an inter-connected ► At least fifty (50) percent of either the Broadway and supportive collection of land uses. The primary or Pine Street frontage is occupied by a building function of Downtown is as a commercial district. (non-parking area). Other land uses should support and enhance the ► An alternative vertical element is located at the overall objectives for Downtown. street corner which, as determined by City Of- 3. Wherever possible,street fronts should be reserved ficials, establishes an architecturally compatible for businesses. corner presence. Such elements may include, but not be limited to public art, interpretive signage, 4. Housing in the downtown can facilitate necessary architectural business signs and architecturally redevelopment and bring potential customers di- appropriate lighting. rectly into the area. Housing may be free-standing or in shared buildings with street level commercial Mixed Use uses. The Mixed Use is a transition area between the Down- 5. Downtown is the civic center of Monticello. To town and the hopsital campus. It has been createdin the degree possible, unique public facilities (such recogonition of the unique nature of this area. The area as the Community Center,the Library and the Post serves two functions. It is the edge between long-term • 3-14 I Land Use City of Monticello • residential neighborhoods and a major tranportation The City's plans and policies for parks,trails and open corridor (Broadway Street). It is also a link between space can be found in the Parks chapter of the Corn- the Downtown, the hospital campus and the east in- prehensive Plan terchange retail area. Places for Community The primary goal of this land use is to preserve and Places for Community consist of public and semi-public enhance housing in this part of Monticello. Any non-residential development should be designed to land uses. Public uses include all governmental facili minimize the impacts on and conflicts with adjacent ties (city, county,state and federal) and schools. This neighborhoods. category also applies to churches,cemeteries,hospitals, and other institutional uses. Policies-Mixed Use. It is important to note that these land uses relate only 1. Development should not have direct access to to existing land uses. The Comprehensive Plan does Broadway street. Access should come from side not guide the location of new churches,schools,public street. buildings and other institutional land uses. Places for 2. Non-residential development should be limited to Community will be needed in the Northwest area as small retail,service and office businesses. The scale, it develops. character and site design should be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. These uses are typically allowed in residential areas and 3. All non-residential development will be oriented governed by zoning regulations. These institutional to Broadway Street and not to 3rd Street or River uses(such as schools and churches)are important parts Street. of the fabric of the community,but require guidance to ensure a proper fit with its residential surroundings. 4. Commercial development compatible with the 411 Downtown should be encouraged to locate there. New institutional use should be allowed in residential 5. More intense housing and commercial uses maybe areas under certain conditions. These conditions allowed if directly related to the hospital. should address the aspects of the use that conflict with desired characteristics of residential neighborhood. Places to Recreate Criteria for locating an institutional use in a residential Places to Recreate consist of public parks and private land use area include: recreation facilities. The land uses are essential ele- 1. Size. Large buildings and site areas can disrupt ments of the quality of life in Monticello. The Parks neighborhood cohesiveness. Use in lower density and Trails chapter of the Comprehensive describes the residential areas should not be more than [to be current park and trail system and the future plan to determined] square feet in lot area. maintain and enhance this system. 2. Parking. Parking may spill on to neighborhood The Comprehensive Plan is only one aspect of manag streets without adequate on-site facilities. The ing the land use for public parks and private recreation parking needs will vary with the use of the facility. Each facility should provide adequate on-site or facilities. The City's zoning regulations place these reasonable off-site shared parking based on the use locations into a zoning district. Often,the purpose of of the facility. the zoning district is to guide private development,such as housing. Under current State Law, zoning regula 3. Traffic. Institutional uses should be oriented to tions"trump"the Land Use Plan and govern the use of designated collector or arterial streets. land. With the potential for the redevelopment of golf 4. Lighting and signage. Site lighting and signage courses, it is important the Comprehensive Plan and needs may resemble commercial uses. These site other land use controls work in concert to achieve the factors should be managed to fit the character of desired outcomes. the surrounding residential development. • 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use I 3-15 Urban Reserve vate open space.Development would not be prohibited • The Urban Reserve contains all property in the Orderly within the greenway but would be reasonably restricted Annexation Area that it not shown for development in to ensure that development is carefully integrated with the near term in this Plan. The objective is to encourage the natural environment. rural and agricultural uses,preventing barriers to future The Greenway is intended to shape development pat- development opportunities. It is anticipated that the terns in a manner that is sensitive to the existing en- City will grow into portions of the Urban Reserve as vironment and harmonious with the landscape. The planned land use areas become fully developed and ca- Greenway creates opportunities for a continuous trail pacity for future growth in needed. The Urban Reserve corridor connecting neighborhoods with large parks is not simply a holding area for future development. and open spaces. A trail within this corridor is intended Parts of the Urban Reserve are likely to be preserved to be fully accessible to the general public. as natural resource areas or for agricultural purposes. Future planning will consider the locations in the Urban The following are the City's goals for the Greenway: Reserve best suited for development. 1. To provide (where possible) a continuous green corridor connecting large community parks and Interchange Planning Area open spaces to neighborhoods, shopping areas, The Interchange Planning Area encompasses undevel- schools and places to work. oped land in the northwest part of Monticello around 2. To connect people to significant places. the site of a potential west interchange with Interstate 3. To protect the community's natural resources 94. The purpose of this land use is to preserve the area (trees,ponds,wetlands,slopes,etc). for future development and prevent the creation of development barriers. 4. To create environmentally sensitive development and design. If built, the area should be planned to support a mix- 5. To provide opportunities for corridors for wildlife • ture of commercial, employment and residential land movement and ecological connections between uses. The interchange location and the routes of future natural areas. connecting roads are solely for illustration. Future land use issues in this area are discussed in the Focus Area for Northwest Monticello. Focus Areas For certain parts of Monticello, the intentions of the Private Infrastructure Comprehensive Plan cannot be adequately described This category applies to Xcel Energy's power plant and solely with the land use map and the related category railroad right-of-way. This category recognizes the descriptions. The following Focus Areas provide a more unique role of the power plant in Monticello. detailed examination of the plans and issues in key loca- tions that will shape the future of Monticello. Greenway The Land Use Plan Map shows a"potential greenway" Northwest Monticello ringing the western and southern edges of Monticello. This focus area includes the entire northwest corner The Greenway is intended to provide an environmental of the community. The land use objectives in this area corridor that connects large community parks and open include: spaces to neighborhoods,schools,shopping areas and places to work.They serve to protect environmentally 1. Encourage development in this part of the corn munity to utilize infrastructure investments and sensitive areas such as natural habitat, wetlands, tree to provide the capacity to develop in high amenity canopy, and drainage ways. Land within this corridor areas. could be comprised of a combination of public and pri- 3-16 I land Use City of Monticello • Figure 3-10:Land Use Plan Northwest Monticello street system,including plans for the construction of a highway interchange. The remainder of this section describes the land use >S A issues and objectives for northwest Monticello in ro _�`� ' . greater detail. _�.• '\ West Interchange - ` `. , A new interchange with Interstate 94 is a critical vari- ..._ J.; 4�\ � ` able in the future development of this area. While , Plan recognizes the potential for � .�. � the Comprehensiveg "+ " - 1 't a future interchange,in 2008 it is only a concept. It is � Q r not part of the State's plans for future highway improve- , 44 .1' "s`- ,,,, ments for this district. - • This interchange could be a valuable part of the long- .11 1 t1 . '1 term transportation plan for Monticello if it is part of '§§1. `- ,.� ,.�_:� „l l - .- a new river crossing that removes traffic from Highway .. =v,..,. � ■ ; ' �.� 25. Without the bridge,the primary benefit is to pro- First ;:. .\:-,� . vide access to this area and expand the development Lmu,a Fe ■ r, -�. r— ;{ opportunities. "" � '- eAiitz,i . The Land Use Plan assumes that the interchange is a future possibility. For this reason, property adjacent 02. Provide for a variety of housing alternatives based on the natural features and the surrounding land to the interstate has been placed into a combination of Places to Live, Work and Shop. The Plan seeks to uses. Areas with high natural amenities or proxim- ity to the planned regional park should be reserved prevent development from limiting the location of for move up housing. the interchange (or block it) and to preserve the area around the interchange for future commercial,indus- 3. Expansion of existing Places to Work in a manner trial and residential development. Without the access that creates more"head of household"jobs. provided by the interchange, commercial, industrial 4. Preserve and promote public use of natural areas, and residential development should not be anticipated including the establishment of greenway corri- in this area. dors. Ideally, the City will pursue additional investigations 5. Identify and preserve key street corridors. following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Preserve areas for future Places to Shop and Places These investigations should be designed to resolve some to Work around a future highway interchange, if of the unanswered questions related to the interchange. such an interchange proves viable. These questions include: The Comprehensive Plan envisions that growth will ex- I. Where should the interchange be located? tend westward from existing development. The initial What is the potential for a new river bridge con high amenity residential development is expected to nection? occur along the eastern perimeter of the new regional I. park (YMCA Camp Manitou). No Places to Live are How would the interchange be funded and what are the financial and land use implications for the planned with the boundaries of this park. Future development will be influenced by the capacity of the City. What time frame should be used in planning for III the improvements? 2003 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-17 Figure 3-11:Community Connections to Regional Park III 1 Existing I i "•` t \, Natural ` eft To Mississippi River �r Land!`' St-,,,21 )NN,..N, •f21 Potential Parkways { Potential 1 �/ Greenway r �� .i. r y Corridor Xi' I�.-_; <:\-,-.\--NTo Mississippi River f i /. f ,,-------- NI YMCA ,� / Regional \ `*O '// Park t % '. ` 7 . ci. ^'f l j„ .'ZII4, ` J Existing 1 �/ r l . �'.�, Green III / Corridor Potential e i Greenway P Corridor 25 1, fr. Existing�,_- ` Natural~ ------C nd The answers to these questions provide invaluable guid- The area around this park is guided for future Places ance to future land use and transportation in Monti- to Live. No residential development should be al- cello. The area included in future planning should not lowed within the park. The amenity of this land and be limited to the property in the Interchange Planning the regional park provide an excellent setting(around Area land use category. An interchange and the sup- the perimeter of the park) for some of the "upscale" porting street system has future land use implications neighborhoods and housing desired by the City. for a broader area. In planning for this park, it is important to look be- Regional Park yond the boundaries of the park and to its context in Another critical factor in the future of the Northwest the broader community. The illustration in Figure Area is the future of the YMCA camp. The City and 3 11 highlights several key community development Wright County are in negotiations with the Minneapo- lis YMCA to acquire the 1,200-acre Camp Manitou. ► The City must create connections between the park The Comprehensive Plan anticipates that the Camp and other sections of Monticello. will be converted into a regional park. 11111 3-18 I Land Use City cf Monticello • ► Building streets in a"parkway"design emphasizes the desired qualities of a regional park and of the i 7 .• f surroundingPlaces to Live and Work. ,-,, , ► The park is a critical piece in creating a"greenway" " Yf system that links to the Mississippi River and may, 'a , Y .,: .e. ' , �_ over time, ring the community. - ',; ""`.e.„...„, _____;*: " t Industrial Growth �-+.�. •- ..r- ...4,-;.,,,,,,,t,,,,,,,, ger 7+re.,.k#ffi p`97 H R .may ;4td. The Northwest area is a critical location for current and e�, '* future industrial development. The Monticello Busi- -- — r- ness Center, located south of Chelsea Road and west ... � of 90th Street,has already started to be developed as a : �..,,,_„��, high amenity environment with protective covenantsw that address building materials,loading docks,outdoor 451, 0‘:.i.-,,,,,p,-.- :� . . �`i t .� r� ' .. storage,and landscaping.In order to provide sufficient !t : ,, "' "+ ' r land for Business Campus uses over the next 25 years, 1, ,: ‘: s' ..4.fl the Comprehensive Plan extends this land use south to . -- ;'":;,,r ` s. the planned expansion of School Boulevard. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to enhance the existing commercial core along Broadway by building It is important to recognize that activity generated by strong connections with the riverfront and the civic/retail district on the south end of Walnut Street business development can create conflicts with resi- Golf Course dential development. The Comprehensive Plan seeks 41, to create both high quality business parks and residen- tial In 2006, the Silver Springs Golf Course was part of a tial neighborhoods in this area. Careful site planning development proposal (Jefferson at Monticello) that and development management will be needed to meet would have redeveloped this property mixing golf and housing. The development did not proceed beyond the these objectives. environmental review. School Boulevard Extension The Comprehensive Plan shows the area as Places to The Northwest Area serves as a good example of the Recreate based on the continued use as a golf course. need to coordination land use and transportation plan- This designation does not preclude a future proposal ning. An extension of School Boulevard is needed to and Comprehensive Plan amendment for residential provide access to the area and to connect development development. It is likely,however,that this scale of new to the rest of the community. The route of this roadway development will require the access provided by a new should be identified and preserved as development highway interchange. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to occurs. fill in other development areas and make effective use School Boulevard has several other Comprehensive of other infrastructure investments before extending Plan implications: utilities for redevelopment of the golf course. ► This major collector street will influence the nature Downtown Focus Area of adjacent land use. Downtown Monticello needs special attention in the I. Streetscape improvements would help to define Comprehensive Plan. Following the last Comprehen- the high quality character desired by the City as a sive Plan update,the community undertook a separate gateway to the regional park and to new neighbor- downtown planning process. This process resulted in hoods. the 1997 Downtown and Riverfront Plan. This Plan ► The street is a means for bringing trail connections emphasizes the importance that the community places IIIto the park. on Downtown. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 13-19 Figure 3-12: 1997 Downtown Plan-Land Use III `ter Apd."---4 s. h a 7 . /...i `` z.\,%..v ' *:,:- },.' -. 7'-,,,//74)4\ ` ��Yif,. moi., . `vW....e...-*'tf.. % t 1 ,J/ rpt L r -�i e ‘i,‘ \\14;t: /i ‘ •::: . ' 1711. 1411 , , .."‹....Wg ' "44 r i *if sNXt,' '44'1..1, �+s.t��� -:t . o Jjffjf IN /7 4/' � � - .IC�Mi Ji ,' f`'. .• _. � - Atri j� (3 tE7:t t'4?'" i. 4.4.'"C / 1j/ ! �/ . rrt t r ff i f + t / a ; / Vyi.#! j E 1 11 a 111 rJHill 1 �. i di/ tl,,,, #ra.ate ,....er-- " - .--.„ . 1�..+G nt.Vit 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 1 j< Ell V '�,r• H 1 I I; I LJ I I III 1 _ iii The 1997 Downtown Plan envisioned land use in eleven districts,each with varying targets for use and Transitional-Mixofsmall office personal and business services,multi-family residential and single character: family homes. Riverfront-Specialty retail,eating establishments,lodging,entertainment,multifamily residential, Neiohborhood—Predominantly single family horns following existing neighborhood patterns. office;upper level residential or office;two or three story by i/dings;river orientation;emphasis on Industrial—Cargill Kitchen Solutions operations only;transition to Cividlnstitutional,Walnut or public areas surrounding buildings(rather than parking lots). Transitional if Cargill Kitchen Solutions ceases operation. ()roadway:Downtown-Small and mid-sized retail,specialty retail,personal and business services, Parks and Open Space—Parks,cemeteries,outdoor public spaces and gathering spaces.Civic/ eating establishments,lodging,entertainment and office;upper level residentml or office;iwo story Institutional-Municipal and county facilities(except maintenance operations),public meeting spaces, buildings;orientation to Broadway. community activity spaces,educational facilities,churches,outdoor gathering spaces. Broadway:East and West-Singe family residential,strong emphasis on restoration of existing older Civic/institutional-Municipal and county facilities(except maintenance operations),public meeting homes. spaces,community activity spaces.educational facilities,churches,outdoor gathering spaces. Walnut-Small and mid-sized retail,personal and business services,eating establishments and office, upper level residential or office;two story buildings encouraged;orientation to Walnut Street. Pine-Mid-sized retail and office;two story buildings encouraged;orientation to Pine Street. Seventh Street-Larger scale retail and service,auto-oriented retail and service,drive through restaurants,lodging;orientation of Seventh Street. • 3-20 I Land Use City Cl Monticello .04 • ,.y .:; . t., 1 t; • ► "Big box" and retail development continue to oc- �. •. ":, - . cur in other parts of Monticello. These businesses ,,% t. s r,,. directly compete with the Downtown and attract .,...4)...64' .;;‘ - . , , smaller businesses(that might otherwise consider t • .:i `` - ;`. a Downtown location) to adjacent parcels. r i-' �u*4y -5' • �� . ' I ` y`+ ► These challenges influenced the recommendations } • in the 1997 Downtown Plan. Neither Broadway .• "No.4 ' .�..�, Street nor Highway 25 can serve as an effective "main street" or Downtown focal point for Mon- _ �"` ticello. For this reason, the Plan recommended . *' - - ,,, ' flipping the orientation of future development to :' : ,.. ,, 4 PP g "1- - t,-2,„z46-6----,-;-0 ,, rk Walnut Street. Walnut had the capacity to create more the qualities found on a downtown main street. More importantly,Walnut Street provides The current end of Walnut Street is a barrier to improving connections between Downtown and the a "bridge" between the traditional downtown/ riverfront. riverfront and the highway oriented commercial continues to rely on the 1997 Downtown and Riverfront uses to the south. Plan as a guide for public and private actions in the Some actions have taken place in accordance with the Downtown area. 1997 Plan. The Community Center complex stayed The 1997 Plan shows that a vision and a plan are not in Downtown and anchors the south end of Walnut enough to create the type of Downtown desired by Street. Combined with the Library,the area has civic the community. While some actions have occurred destination that attract people from all areas of the • pursuant to the 1997 Plan, much of its vision remains community. The commercial development east of the unfulfilled. The Comprehensive Plan will not,however, Community Center shows how new buildings can bring create any actions that will immediately transform storefronts to the street. the Downtown environment and achieve community There are also examples of missed opportunities. The objectives. Revitalizing and sustaining Downtown old library was replaced with a bank. This site seeks Monticello requires a collaborative effort of the City, visibility from Highway 25. The parking lot and not the businesses, property owners and other stakeholders. building is oriented to Walnut Street. Such sites cre- Planning for the future of the Downtown must recog- ate gaps and impair the ability to connect the existing nize the practical realities facing commercial develop Downtown core with the south end. ment in Downtown: 0. The configuration and traffic volumes of Highway Downtown Strategies 25 significantly reduce opportunities for direct ac- Given current plans and conditions, the Comprehen- cess from the Highway to adjacent properties. sive Plan recommends the following strategies for ► Traffic volumes on Highway 25 will continue to Downtown. increase. Greater volumes and congestion act as an 1. The Downtown land use area should be an area impediment for people living south of I-94 coming running from the River to 7th Street. It is bound on to Downtown. the east by Cedar Street and on the west by Locust ► There is no controlled intersection on Highway Street. 25 between Broadway and 7th Street. The lack 2. Land use in the Downtown should be a mix of retail, of a controlled intersection combined with traffic service, office, civic and residential development. volumes make pedestrian connections between Although an industrial land use, Cargill Kitchen Downtown and residential areas to the east very difficult. Solutions is an important and ongoing part of III Downtown. Change in land use should only occur 2008 Comprehensive Plan L'.''� Lse 1 3-21 if Cargill Kitchen Solutions decides to leave this 110 location. At such time, it would be desired not to Figure 3-13:Land Use Plan-South Central perpetuate industrial use at this location. 3. With continued traffic along Highway 25,it is essen- r 1 ' ;:',3-- - tial to work to establishastrong link along Walnut 1 LrStreet between the Community Center,businesses _ _ ` �--% _ — – t ' \ --1 on Broadway and the River. The objective is to r/ a ti establish strong connections between all of the �/ a ``-•. factors that attract people to the Downtown. �� ~��� 4. To help move towards the creation of a new"main p 1 a street" all new development on Walnut Street y _ _ �.____ should have storefronts oriented to Walnut Street. ~; '. This development may be single story commercial 1 ,, rrtx, or multi-level mixed use. 5. Orienting storefronts to Walnut Street is only one connections. Existing crossing points Broadway element of making the street more attractive for and 7`h Street should be enhanced. pedestrians. The City should also explore other 9. Downtown would benefit from stronger connec- ways to improve the pedestrian and bicycle experi- tions with the riverfront. Downtown is one of the ence along Walnut Street. few locations in Monticello that allows meaning- 6. It is essential not to allow Walnut Street to become ful public access to the Mississippi River. This asset should be enhanced as a means of attracting a bypass route for Highway 25. As congestion increases on Highway 25, there is an impetus to people to Downtown. West Bridge Park lies in the seek other routes. Walnut Street is an attractive Downtown area, but does not feel like an active cut-through option. The orientation of buildings, part of Downtown. One possible improvement III on street parking,boulevard trees,and curb"bump is a connection with Walnut Street. Currently, outs" are examples of means to calm traffic and Walnut Street terminates south of River Street and is separated by a grade change. The potential for discourage cut through movements. trail and/or street connection should be evaluated. 7. Housing is intended to supplement and support, Community events and activities in West Bridge but not replace, commercial development in the Park also build the connection between the com- Downtown. All housing in the Downtown area munity, Downtown and the River. (as identified in the Comprehensive Plan) should be multiple family housing. Land is a limited 10. Access to the Downtown would be improved by commodity in the Downtown and should not be making trail and/or bike lane improvements along River Street to provide another means of reaching consumed by single-story housing. Housing should only be allowed above street level on Broadway and Downtown and take advantage of the controlled Walnut Street. Housing should be encouraged on intersection with Highway 25. the edges of the Downtown, in locations needing South Central Focus Area redevelopment and not viable for commercial uses. Continued residential growth to the south is an impor- tant element of the Comprehensive Plan. This growth 8. The Downtown benefits from strong connections with adjacent neighborhoods. These neighbor achieves several objectives: hoods provide an important customer base for It helps to facilitate the expansion of the sanitary Downtown businesses. A vibrant Downtown en sewer system in conjunction with the reconstruc- hances these areas as places to live. Improved pe- tion of Fallon Avenue. This sanitary sewer capacity destrian connections,particularly across Highway is needed to support future industrial growth area 25, are needed to strengthen and maintain these along Highway 25. III 3-22 I Land Use City of Monticello . 0.- Traffic congestion on Highway 25 that increases the Figure 3 14:Land Use Plan East Focus Area need to channel use to the east interchange. ► The ve ege ma - ` ..—_ i agementneed issuestosol (Ditchstormwat33) inr thisand drainage area. Solvinn- g -� _� drainage issues allows eastward expansion along . . '' . _ __v(,�_. ,r I , County Road 18. * ` 11-7,7A +:71; Y&+ 1 1 Future growth in the east should continue to fill in the Il '. R—` development area within the Orderly Annexation Area „' •- —=- ' ( —- = -- on the east side of Monticello. The natural features in - these areas allow for higher amenity neighborhoods. '��.` -_ -^__• This growth can occur with new collector/arterial street corridors. • t I. These areas encourage growth in areas that could use the new eastern interchange with I-94 rather than Highway 25. ► These areas provide appropriate locations for con- tinued growth in entry-level single family homes and medium density housing types. These Places to Live are important elements of maintaining an adequately diverse housing stock. • ► Orderly expansion to the south moves development towards area of higher natural amenity. Areas along the southern edge of the Orderly Annexation Area provide another location for potential "move up" housing. A key to development in this focus area is the construc- tion of the Fallon Avenue bridge. The bridge leads to the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue and the related ex- pansion of municipal sanitary sewer and water systems. Future development will be limited without additional utility capacity. East Focus Area The Comprehensive Plan places greater priority on growth to the west and south. Development should be directed to areas that most effectively achieve the objectives of this Plan. Several factors could cause the City to encourage future residential development in the East Focus Area: ► Increased overall housing demand that exceeds the capacity to support growth in other areas. III 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-23 • EXHIBIT "B" Attach Final Comprehensive Plan Amendment Text 1 • Additional public objectives and strategies for Places ,11,0*;,'''':.; • to Work can be found in the Economic Development „ 1 ' chapter. . - - Places to ShopI {. Places to Shop designate locations that are or can be ; --4.- . developed with businesses involved with the sale of 1:4 goods and services. Places to Shop may include offi ces : ” """"'•_ _ — `: ' - for service businesses. Places to Shop guides land uses • = , ' =:ter, .1�■ that are both local and regional in nature. --- i Policies -Places to Shop The Comprehensive Plan describes issues,plans and policies related to the Downtown in several In guiding land uses for Places to Shop, the Compre sectionsofthePlan. hensive Plan seeks to: Downtown 1. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to attract and retain Downtown is a unique commercial district that is part businesses that provide goods and services needed of Monticello's heritage and identity. It is, however, no by Monticello residents. longer possible for downtown to be Monticello's cen- 2. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to capture the op- tral business district. The mass of current and future portunity for commercial development that serves commercial development south of Interstate 94 along a broader region. Places to Shop with a regional TH 25 and in east Monticello along interstate 94 have orientation should be located where the traffic does replaced the downtown area as primary shopping dis- not disadvantage travel within Monticello. tricts. The future success of downtown requires it to 1111 3. Commercial development will be used to expand be a place unlike any other in Monticello. and diversify the local property tax base and as an The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the Vision, element of a diverse supply of local jobs. Guiding Principles and Goals objective) described in 4. Places to Shop will be located on property with ac- the 2011 Embracing Downtown 1997 Downtown and cess to the street capacity needed to support traffic Riverfront Plan. Downtown is intended to be a mix from these businesses. of inter-related and mutually supportive land uses. 5. Each parcel should supply an adequate supply of Businesses involved with the sale of goods and services parking that makes it convenient to obtain the should be the focus of Downtown land use. Residential goods and services. development facilities reinvestment and places poten- 6. Building materials, facades and signage should tial customers in the Downtown area. Civic uses draw combine with public improvements to create an in people from across the community. attractive setting. During the planning process, the potential for allowing 7. Site design must give consideration to defining edg- commercial activity to extend easterly out of the Down- es and providing buffering or separation between town along Broadway was discussed. The Compre- the commercial parcel and adjacent residential hensive Plan consciously defines Cedar Street as the uses. eastern edge of Downtown for two basic reasons: (1) These policies help to create sustainable locations for Downtown should be successful and sustainable Places to Shop in a manner that enhances Monticello. before new areas of competition are created; and(2)The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain and enhance the integrity of residential neighborhoods east of Downtown. • 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 13.13 More than any other land use category, Downtown has 5. A shared understanding of realistic market strong connections to other parts of the Comprehen- potential is the foundation for design and • sive Plan. Therefore, the City has adopted the 2011 generation of a healthy business mix. Embracing Downtown Plan as its guiding planning Whereveree4131e,street fronts should , _.,,rve document for the Downtown. The following parts of the Comprehensive Plan also address community desires for businesses. and plans for the Downtown area: 6. A safe, attractive human scale environment and entrepreneurial businesses that actively emphasize - The Land Use chapter contains a specific focus personal customer service will differentiate area on Downtown. The focus area contains a downtown from other shopping districts. more detailed discussion of the issues facing the 7• Property values can be enhanced if property owners Downtown and potential public actions needed to address these issues. and the City share a vision for downtown and actively seek to cultivate a safe, appealing - The operation of the street system is a critical environment and attractive business mix. factor for the future of Downtown. The Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plans 8. Housing in the downtown can facilitate necessary (and the related Transportation Plan) and the redevelopment and bring potential customers di- rectly into the area. Housing may be free-standing Transportation chapter of the Embracing or in shared buildings with street level commercial Downtown Plan, influence the ability of residents to travel to Downtown and the options for uses. mitigating the impacts of traffic on Highway 25 and 9. Downtown is the civic center of Monticello. To other Downtown streets. the degree possible, unique public facilities (such - The Parks chapter of the Comprehensive as the Community Center,the Library and the Post Plan provides for parks in the Downtown and the Office)should be located in the Downtown area trail systems that allow people to reach Downtown as a means to bring people into the Downtown. on foot or bicycle. 10. Downtown should emphasize connections with 411 The Economic Development chapter and the the Mississippi River that are accessible by the Financial Implementation chapter of the public. Embracing Downtown Plan lay the foundation for 11. Downtown should be a pedestrian-oriented place public actions and investments that will be needed in a manner that cannot be matched by other com- to achieve the desired outcomes. mercial districts. Policies/Guiding Principles— Downtown 12. Downtown should have an adequate supply of free 1. Downtown is a special and unique part of Mon- parking for customers distributed throughout the ticello. It merits particular attention in the Coin- area. prehensive Plan and in future efforts to achieve 13. The City and business community must work community plans and objectives. actively with MnDOT to ensure safe local access 2. Downtown is intended to be an inter-connected to business districts. and supportive collection of land uses. The primary 14. -- ' • ' ' . - . ' . - • - --. •- function of Downtown is as a commercial district. essary, use its redevelop Other land uses should support and enhance the overall objectives for Downtown. investment. 3. The City will build on core assets of greater Downtown Monticello as identified in the All of these policies work together to attract people to Embracing Downtown Plan. Downtown and to enhance the potential for a successful business environment. 4. A shared vision among property owners,business owners,and the City is the foundation for effective team work and long term success. �_ • 3-14 Land Use City of Monticello 111111111141111111111111111111111111 the Comprehensive Plan extends this land use south to • the planned expansion of School Boulevard. - � It is important to recognize that activity generated by business development can create conflicts with resi- ..a' dential development. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create both high quality business parks and residen- tial neighborhoods in this area. Careful site planning ;t %.. ;,,,.. and development management will be needed to meet these objectives. School Boulevard Extension - ) The Northwest Area serves as a good example of the need to coordination land use and transportation plan- ning. An extension of School Boulevard is needed to provide access to the area and to connect development • to the rest of the community. The route of this roadway ! '} '410 41 should be identified and preserved as development =" ; .,. occurs. The Compte enstire Plan scdob enhalce the existing amnucialcore alxg& ybyboldig strong connections with the rneifont and the civic/retail district on the south end of Walnut School Boulevard has several other Comprehensive Street Plan implications: of other infrastructure investments before extending This major collector street will influence the nature utilities for redevelopment of the golf course. 1111 of adjacent land use. - Streetscape improvements would help to define Downtown Focus Area the high quality character desired by the City as a Downtown Monticello needs special attention in the gateway to the regional park and to new neighbor- Comprehensive Plan. Following the last =2008 hoods. Comprehensive Plan update,the community undertook a - The street is a means for bringing trail connections separate downtown planning process. This process to the park. resulted in the 1997 Downtown and Rivcrfront 2011 Embracing Downtown Plan. This Plan emphasizes the Golf Course importance that the community places on Downtown. In 2006, the Silver Springs Golf Course was part of a The 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update continues to rely development proposal (Jefferson at Monticello) that on the 1997 Downtown and Riverfront Plan relies on the would have redeveloped this property mixing golf and Embracing Downtown Plan as a guide for public and housing. Th e development did not proceed beyond the private actions in the Downtown area. environmental review. The 1997 Plan shows that a vision and a plan are not Th e Comprehensive Plan shows the area as Places to cnough to create the type of Downtown desired by Recreate based on the continued use as a golf course. the community. While some actions have occurred - •• • •- This designation does notpreclude a future proposal - g P P .. .. - - - and Comprehensive Plan amendment for residential unfulfilled. The Comprehensive Plan will not development. It is likely, however, that this scale of new create any actions that will immediately transform development will require the access provided by a new -- - - ' - :-: - -' highway interchange. Th e Comprehensive Plan seeks to objectives. Revitalizing and sustaining Downtown fill in other development areas and make effective use Monticello requires a collaborative effort of the City, • 3.21 I Land Use City of Monticello businesses, property owners and other stakeholders. building is oriented to Walnut Street. Such sites crc 11111 Planning for the future of the Downtown must recog- ate gaps and impair the ability to connect the existing nize the practical realities facing commercial develop- Downtown core with the south end. ment in Downtown: Downtown Goals . The configuration and traffic volumes of Highway Given current plans and conditions, the Embracing 25 significantly reduce opportunities for direct ac- Downtown Plan and the Comprehensive Plan cess from the Highway to adjacent properties. recommends the following goals for Downtown. Traffic volumes on Highway 25 will continue to Concepts for downtown redevelopment should increase. Greater volumes and congestion act as an provide solutions to problems and issues identified impediment for people living south of I-94 coming in the research and analysis of downtown conditions to Downtown. that are directed by the stated goals for Land Use, . There is no controlled intersection on Highway Transportation, and Design and Image. The 25 between Broadway and 7th Street. The lack preferred solutions should be those that best meet of a controlled intersection combined with traffic these goals. volumes make pedestrian connections between Downtown and residential areas to the east very 1. The Downtown land usc area should be an area difficult. running from the River to 7th Street. It is bound on . "Big box" and retail development continue to oc- the cast by Cedar Street and on the west by Locust cur in other parts of Monticello. These businesses Street. directly compete with the Downtown and attract 2. Land use in the Downtown should be a mix of retail, smaller businesses (that might otherwise consider a Downtown location) to adjacent parcels. service, office, civic and residential development. Although an industrial land use, Cargill Kitchen These challenges influenced the recommendations Solutions is an important and ongoing part of 4111 in the 1997 Downtown Plan. Neither Broadway Downtown. Change in land usc should only occur Street nor Highway 25 can serve as an effective if Cargill Kitchen Solutions decides to leave this "main street" or Downtown focal point for Mon location. At such time, it would be desired not to flipping the orientation of future development to perpetuate industrial use at this location. "" • . ••• • - 3. Wit' nti ued traffic along Highway 25, it is more the qualities found on a downtown main essential to work to establish a strong link along street. More importantly, Walnut Street provides Walnut Street between the Community Center, a "bridge" between the traditional downtown/ businesses on Broadway and the River. The objec riverfront and the highway oriented commercial Live is to establish strong connections between all of uses to the south. the factors that attract people to the Downtown. Some actions have taken place in accordance with the 4. To help move towards the creation of a new "main 1997 Plan. The Community Center complex stayed street" all new development on Walnut Street in Downtown and anchors the south end of Walnut should have storefronts oriented to Walnut Street. Street. Combined with the Library, the arca has civic This development may be single story commercial destination that attract people from all areas of the or multi level mixed use. community. The commercial development cast of the 5• e 2—- •.b = . • - '' -• - -- • • - Community Center shows how new buildings can bring clement of making the street more attractive for storefronts to the street. ways to improve the pedestrian and bicycle experi There arc also examples of missed opportunities. The once along Walnut Street. old library was replaced with a bank. This site seeks 6. It is essential not to allow Walnut Street to become visibility from Highway 25. Th c parking lot and not the a bypass route for Highway 25. As congestion • 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3.22 1 • increases on Highway 25, there is an impetus to 11. Housing is intended to supplement and support, seek other routes. Walnut Street is an attractive cut through option. The orientation of buildings, .- .. .. :. ... . .. . .. . . . . . . LAND USE -. " • : - . • . • - . - 1. Diversify land use in the downtown; supplement discourage cut through movements. retail and service uses with other activities that generate traffic. • -:.-'- - .- -- :: . - : . • : -: 2. Encourage redevelopment of old and obsolete (as identified in the Comprehensive Plan) should structures; encourage consolidation of small parcels be multiple family housing. Land is a limited with multiple ownerships. commodity in the Downtown and should not be 3. Balance parking and land use to ensure availability consumed by single story housing. Housing should of adequate parking at all times. only be allowed above street level on Broadway and -• b •• - .• _ - 4. Encourage mixed use but don't make it a the edges of the Downtown, in locations needing requirement or prerequisite for development or redevelopment and not viable for commercial redevelopment. uses. 5. Discourage residential as a free-standing land use 8. The Downtown benefits from strong connections within the core downtown area. with adjacent neighborhoods. These neighbor 6. Establish physical connections between the core hoods provide an important customer base for downtown area and the riverfront and park. Downtown businesses. A vibrant Downtown en hanccs these areas as places to live. Improved pc 7. Encourage land uses that serve as evening and destrian connections, particularly across Highway weekend attractions to the downtown area. 25, arc needed to strengthen and maintain these 8. Expand facilities and parking adjacent to III connections. Existing crossing points Broadway Expanddge Park to help create an anchor attraction and 7 Street should be enhanced. at the north end of Walnut Street. 9. Downtown would benefit from stronger connee TRANSPORTATION dons with the riverfront. Downtown is one of the 1. Acknowledge that TH-25 will be limited in terms few locations in Monticello that allows meaning of providing direct property access. ful public access to the Mississippi River. This asset should be enhanced as a mens of attracting 2. Develop circulation patterns that utilize local streets people to Downtown. West Bridge Park lies in the for individual site access. Downtown area, but does not feel like an active 3. Recognize TH-25 as a barrier between the east and part of Downtown. One possible improvement west parts of the historic downtown core areas Walnut Street terminates south of River Street and extending to either side of the TH-25 corridor. is separated by a grade change. The potential for 4. Consider developing in districts to reduce the need trail and/or street connection should be evaluated. or desire to cross Highway 25 between 7th street Community events and activities in West Bridge and the river crossing. Park also build the connection between the corn munity,Downtown and the River. 5. Strengthen pedestrian ties throughout downtown including connections to other parts of the City to 10.Access to the Downtown would be improved by the south,west,and east. Downplay Highway 25 as making trail and/or bike lane improvements along a corridor for pedestrian movement. River Street to provide another mens of reaching Downtown and take advantage of the controlled intersection with Highway 25. 111 3.23 I Land Use City of Monticello 1 6. Improve pedestrian connections between Broadway Figure 3-12—1997 Downtown Plan—Land Use Street and the riverfront Park area to allow the park to serve as an attraction that brings people into the to be deleted and replaced with downtown area. 2011 Embracing Downtown—Downtown 7. Improve access to the Mississippi River to expand on Framework Plan recreational opportunities. 8. Explore creation of a fourth signalized intersection on Highway 25 between 7th Street and Broadway Street to improve access to areas with development and redevelopment potential on either side of the Highway 25 corridor. DOWNTOWN DESIGN AND IMAGE 1. Encourage design standards that elevate the quality of downtown development without creating undue hardships for property and building owners. 2. Acknowledge that the historic"Main Street"buildings and developments along Broadway Street are functionally obsolete for many tenants and users in today's automobile and convenience-driven marketplace. 3. The public realm of streets,boulevards and sidewalks represents the best opportunity to create an interim • image for downtown as it redevelops. 4. The TH-25 and Broadway corridors should be softened with streetscape and landscape features to offset the effects of high traffic volumes,and to help establish an identity for the CCD. 5. Development should orient toward the intersection of TH-25 with Broadway to take advantage of high traffic volumes in the TH-25 corridor. 6. New development in the TH-25 corridor should be scaled to allow visibility to development up to a block or more away from TH-25. 7. New buildings in the TH-25 and Broadway corridors should be located to allow for eventual widening of the corridor right-of-way and roadway. 8. To the extent possible,buildings should occupy street frontages and should front on public sidewalks with connections to a continuous"downtown"sidewalk pedestrian system. 9. Proposed uses should have adequate parking(private or public) within easy and convenient walking distance. 10. The downtown plan should provide strategically located public gathering spaces to bring people together to experience a sense of community that is • associated with downtown. 2003 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 3.24 Planning Commission Agenda: 12/06/11 1 10. Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance as related to Permitted and Conditional Uses in the B-3 (Highway Business) District. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is asked to consider expanding the number of permitted and conditionally permitted (CUP) principal uses allowed in the B-3 (Highway Business) District. In the recent update of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, the City elected to keep two higher-intensity commercial districts, the B-3 (Highway Business) and B-4 (Regional Business) Districts. Under the previous Zoning Ordinance, these two districts allowed for many of the same commercial and service uses, and were distinguished primarily by allowance of auto-oriented uses only in the B-3 District. For example, both allowed general retail and restaurant uses, but uses such as Vehicle Sales & Rental and Major Auto-Repair were confined to the B-3 District. As the Planning Commission considered the allowable uses in the two districts during the recent code update, the consensus was to continue to allow auto-oriented uses in very specifically zoned locations adjacent to arterial or collector roadways. The B-3 Districts are then located in geographically conducive areas for auto-oriented activities, and are also (for the most part) ideally situated given the potential for noise, glare, outdoor storage, etc. created by such uses. In turn, the more “standard” commercial uses such as retail, restaurants and office were completely left out of the B-3 District in the new ordinance. This decision was likely based on the need to mitigate potentially negative impacts caused by the auto-related uses on other commercial uses and to create two more highly differentiated commercial districts. The 2011 Zoning Ordinance states the following purpose for the B-3 District: The purpose of the B-3 (highway business) district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. The 2011 ordinance defines the B-4 District purpose as: The purpose of the B-4 (regional business) district is to provide for the establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or region. Planning Commission Agenda: 12/06/11 2 However, lack of inclusion of the more traditional commercial uses in the B-3 District has created two problematic conditions. 1. A number of use non-conformities have been created in the existing B-3 Districts. 2. The need for convenience retail and service-oriented commercial uses exists for the B-3 District; but these uses are no longer allowed (either as permitted or conditional) in the B-3 District. For these reasons, staff is requesting that Planning Commission consider amending the basic purpose statement of the B-3 District to include general commercial activities, as well as amendments to the Chapter 5 Use Table to allow the expansion of additional commercial uses into the B-3 District. Proposed Amended B-3 Purpose Statement: The purpose of the B-3 (highway business) district is to provide for and limit limited commercial and service activities and provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. Principle Uses Proposed for Inclusion in the B-3: Staff is also proposing that the City consider allowing the following commercial/business activities within the B-3 District. These uses are recommended based on their compatibility with the nature of the B-3 District. Permitted: Consistent and compatible with B-3 business/commercial uses  Business Support Services (such as copy services, parcel services)  Personal Services (such as salons and nail spas)  Restaurants  Retail Commercial  Specialty Eating Establishments (delis, coffee shops) Conditional: Requires additional review for compatibility  Office  Financial Institutions  Entertainment/Recreation Outdoor Commercial (such as go-kart tracks, mini-golf) Staff has reviewed the use-specific standards for each of the proposed additional conditional and permitted uses above. These standards are outlined in Chapter 3, Section 5.2. At this time, staff does not believe that any additional changes to individual standards are needed, although feedback from the Planning Commission in this area would be welcomed. Staff has also reviewed the Accessory Use Table relative to this proposed expansion of principal uses in the B-3 and is recommending no changes to the table. Staff believes Planning Commission Agenda: 12/06/11 3 that the current Accessory Use table adequately supports the existing and proposed allowable principal uses. The Accessory Use Table and definitions section of the zoning ordinance are provided for reference in Planning Commission’s consideration. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend approval of Ordinance #539, amendments to Monticello Zoning Ordinance as proposed, based on a finding that the proposed amendments are consistent with the intent of the Purpose Statements of Monticello Zoning Ordinance. 3. Motion to recommend approve of Ordinance #539, subject to the following changes as proposed by the Planning Commission, based on a finding that the proposed amendments are consistent with the intent of the Purpose Statements of Monticello Zoning Ordinance: 3. Motion to recommend denial of Ordinance #539, based on a finding to be made by the Planning Commission. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends alternative 1 above, subject to Planning Commission’s comments. Staff has found that the proposed amendments are consistent with the intent of the Purpose Statements of Monticello Zoning Ordinance and represent needed clarifications or corrections to the ordinance. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 3, Section 5(E) B. Monticello Zoning Ordinance - Excerpt, Chapter 3, Section 5(F) C. Monticello Zoning Ordinance – Table 5-1, Uses by District D. Monticello Zoning Ordinance – Table 5-4, Accessory Uses by District E. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 8, Definitions F. Official Zoning Map of the City of Monticello G. Ordinance #539 CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.5 Business Base Zoning Districts Subsection (E) B-3: Highway Business District City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 107 (E) B-3: Highway Business District Section 3.5 (E) B-3 Highway Business District The purpose of the ―B-3‖ highway business district is to provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. Base Lot Area  No minimum Base Lot Width  Minimum = 100 ft. Typical B-3 Building Types Typical B-3 Lot Configuration CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.5 Business Base Zoning Districts Subsection (E) B-3: Highway Business District Page 108 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance TABLE 3-12: B-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRED YARDS (in feet) Max Height (stories / feet) Max Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Max Impervious (% of gross lot area) Front Interior Side Street Side Rear All Uses 30 10 20 30 2 stories 30 feet [1] (Reserved) (Reserved) [1]: Multi-story buildings may be allowed as a conditional use pursuant to Section 2.4(D) contingent upon strict adherence to fire safety code provisions as specified by the International Building Code as adopted in Title 4, Chapter 1 of the Monticello City Code. Accessory Structures  See Section 5.3(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures. Other Regulations to Consult (not all inclusive)  Section 3.3, Common District Requirements  Section 3.5(B), Standards Applicable to All Business Base Zoning Districts  Section 4.1, Landscaping and Screening Standards  Section 4.5, Signs  Section 4.8, Off-Street Parking  Section 4.9, Off-Street Loading  Section 4.11, Building Materials CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.5 Business Base Zoning Districts Subsection (F) Regional Business District City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 109 (F) Regional Business District Section 3.5 (F) B-4 Regional Business District The purpose of the ―B-4‖ regional business district is to provide for the establishment of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or region. Base Lot Area  No minimum Base Lot Width  No Minimum Typical B-4 Building Types Typical B-4 Lot Configuration CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.5 Business Base Zoning Districts Subsection (F) Regional Business District Page 110 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance TABLE 3-13: B-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRED YARDS (in feet) Max Height (stories / feet) Max Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Max Impervious (% of gross lot area) Front Interior Side Street Side Rear All Uses 0 0 0 0 2 stories 30 feet [1] (Reserved) (Reserved) [1]: Multi-story buildings may be allowed as a conditional use pursuant to Section 2.4(D) contingent upon strict adherence to fire safety code provisions as specified by the International Building Code as adopted in Title 4, Chapter 1 of the Monticello City Code. Accessory Structures  See Section 5.3(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures. Other Regulations to Consult (not all inclusive)  Section 3.3, Common District Requirements  Section 3.5(B), Standards Applicable to All Business Base Zoning Districts  Section 4.1, Landscaping and Screening Standards  Section 4.5, Signs  Section 4.8, Off-Street Parking  Section 4.9, Off-Street Loading  Section 4.11, Building Materials CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.1 Use Table Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 261 TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts Additional Requirements A O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 Agricultural Uses Agriculture P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.2(B)(1) Agricultural Sales P 5.2(B)(2) Community Gardens P P P P P P P P P 5.2(B)(3) Stables C 5.2(B)(4) Residential Uses 5.2(C)(1) Attached Dwelling Types 5.2(C)(2)(a) - Duplex P 5.2(C)(2)(b) - Townhouse C P 5.2(C)(2)(c) - Multiple-Family C P C P 5.2(C)(2)(d) Detached Dwelling P P P P P P None Group Residential Facility, Single Family P P P P P 5.2(C)(3) Group Residential Facility, Multi-family P P 5.2(C)(3) Mobile & Manufactured Home / Home Park C C P C C 5.2(C)(4) Civic & Institutional Uses Active Park Facilities (public) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None Active Park Facilities (private) P P P P P P P 5.2(D)(1) Assisted Living Facilities C P C P C 5.2(D)(2) Cemeteries C C C C C C 5.2(D)(3) Clinics C P P P C None Essential Services P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None Hospitals C P P P C 5.2(D)(4) Nursing/Convalescent Home C C C C C C C C P P P 5.2(D)(5) Passenger Terminal C C C C C None Passive Parks and Open Space P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P None Public Buildings or Uses C C C C C C P C C P P P C P P 5.2(D)(6) Schools, K-12 C C C C P C I I 5.2(D)(7) Schools, Higher Education C C None Place of Public Assembly C C C C P C 5.2(D)(8) Utilities (major) C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.2(D)(9) CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.1 Use Table Subsection (A) Explanation of Use Table Structure Page 262 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts Additional Requirements A O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 Office Uses Offices P P P P P P P 5.2(E) Commercial Uses Adult Uses P P 3.7(J) Auction House C 5.2(F)(2) Auto Repair – Minor C C C P P 5.2(F)(3) Automotive Wash Facilities P C C 5.2(F)(4) Bed & Breakfasts C C C C C 5.2(F)(5) Boarding House C 5.2(F)(6) Business Support Services P P P P P none Communications/Broadcasting P P P P 5.2(F)(7) Convenience Stores C P P P 5.2(F)(8) Country Club C 5.2(F)(9) Day Care Centers C C P P P C 5.2(F)(10) Entertainment/Recreation, Indoor Commercial P P C C 5.2(F)(11) Entertainment/Recreation, Outdoor Commercial C C C C 5.2(F)(12) Financial Institution P P P 5.2(F)(13) Funeral Homes P P P 5.2(F)(14) Hotels or Motels C P C P 5.2(F)(15) Kennels (commercial) C 5.2(F)(16) Landscaping / Nursery Business P 5.2(F)(17) Personal Services C P P P 5.2(F)(18) Recreational Vehicle Camp Site C 5.2(F)(19) Repair Establishment C P P P P P 5.2(F)(20) Restaurants C P P C 5.2(F)(21) Retail Commercial Uses (other) P P P 5.2(F)(22) Specialty Eating Establishments C P P P 5.2(F)(23) Vehicle Fuel Sales C C C C 5.2(F)(24) Vehicle Sales and Rental C C 5.2(F)(25) Veterinary Facilities (Rural) C 5.2(F)(26) Veterinary Facilities (Neighborhood) C C C C 5.2(F)(26) Wholesale Sales P P P none CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.2 Use-Specific Standards Subsection (A) General Regulations Applicable to All Uses City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 263 TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts Additional Requirements A O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 Industrial Uses Auto Repair – Major C P P 5.2(G)(1) Bulk Fuel Sales and Storage P P 5.2(G)(2) Extraction of Materials I I I 5.2(G)(3) General Warehousing C C P P 5.2(G)(4) Heavy Manufacturing C 5.2(G)(5) Industrial Services C P 5.2(G)(9) Land Reclamation C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.2(G)(6) Light Manufacturing C P P P 5.2(G)(7) Machinery/Truck Repair & Sales P P 5.2(G)(9) Recycling and Salvage Center C C 5.2(G)(10) Self Storage Facilities P C P 5.2(G)(11) Truck or Freight Terminal C P P 5.2(G)(12) Waste Disposal & Incineration C 5.2(G)(13) Wrecker Services C P 5.2(G)(14) 5.2 Use-Specific Standards (A) General Regulations Applicable to All Uses (1) Combination Uses In commercial and industrial base zoning districts, combination uses may be allowed within the principal building with each use subject to all regulations in this ordinance. Table 3-1: Base Zoning Districts CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.3 Accessory Use Standards Subsection (C) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses Page 304 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (3) Table of Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures TABLE 5-4: ACCESSORY USES BY DISTRICT Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts Additional Requirements A O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P 5.3(D)(1) Accessory Building – minor (≤ 120 square feet) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(2) Accessory Building – major (> 120 square feet) P P P P P P C P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(3) Adult Use – accessory C 5.3(D)(4) Agricultural Buildings P 5.3(D)(5) Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(6) Boarder(s) P P P 5.3(D)(7) Commercial Canopies P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(8) Communication Antennas and Antenna Support Structures P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(9) Donation Drop-off Containers P P 5.3(D)(10) Drive-Through Services P P P C P P P 5.3(D)(11) Fences or Walls P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(12) Greenhouse/Conservatory (non-commercial) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(13) Heliports C C C C C 5.3(D)(14) Home Occupations P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(15) Indoor Food/Convenience Sales P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(16) Incidental Light Manufacturing P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(17) Off-street Loading Space P C P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(18) Off-street Parking P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(18) Open Sales P P P P P P C C C 5.3(D)(19) Operation and storage of agricultural vehicles, equipment, and machinery P 5.3(D)(20) Outdoor Sidewalk Sales & Display (businesses) P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(21) Outdoor Storage P P P P P P P P P C C C P P 5.3(D)(22) Park Facility Buildings & Structures (public) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(23) Retail Sales of Goods (as part of an office or industrial use) P P P P P P C C 5.3(D)(24) CHAPTER 5: USE STANDARDS Section 5.3 Accessory Use Standards Subsection (D) Additional Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 305 TABLE 5-4: ACCESSORY USES BY DISTRICT Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts Additional Requirements A O R A R 1 R 2 T N R 3 M H B 1 B 2 B 3 B 4 C C D I B C I 1 I 2 Satellite Dish Antenna P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(25) Shelters (Storm or Fallout) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(26) Sign(s) P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(27) Solar Energy System P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(28) Swimming Pool P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(29) Large Trash Handling and Recycling Collection Area P P P P P P P P P P P 5.3(D)(30) Wind Energy Conversion System, Commercial C C C C C 5.3(D)(31) Wind Energy Conversion System, Non-commercial C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 5.3(D)(32) (D) Additional Specific Standards for Certain Accessory Uses (1) Accessory Dwelling (a) Accessory dwelling units are permitted only on lots with single-family detached dwellings. (b) No more than one accessory dwelling unit per lot is permitted. (c) Detached accessory dwellings shall be architecturally compatible with the principal dwelling. (d) Occupants of accessory dwelling units are limited to the following: (i) Family members of the person occupying the principal structure. Family members include parents, children, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins of an occupant of the primary structure. (ii) Employee of the occupant of the principal structure whose employment is directed to the principal structure and/or the associated land area of the principal structure. (iii) Employee who provides medical and/or personal care services to an occupant of the primary structure. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 361 8.4 Definitions The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this ordinance, shall be interpreted as herein defined: ACCESSORY: A use, activity, structure, or part of a structure that is subordinate and incidental to the main activity or structure on the site. ACCESSORY BUILDING -- MAJOR: A building which is accessory to a principal structure and exceeds 120 square feet in size. ACCESSORY BUILDING -- MINOR: A building which is accessory to a principal structure and is equal to or less than 120 square feet in size. ADULT USES: Adult uses include adult bookstores, adult motion picture theatres, adult mini-motion picture theatres, adult massage parlors, adult steamroom/bathhouse/sauna facilities, adult companionship establishments, adult rap/conversation parlors, adult health/sport clubs, adult cabarets, adult novelty businesses, adult motion picture arcades, adult modeling studios, adult hotels/motels, adult body painting studios, and other premises, enterprises, establishments, businesses, or places open to some or all members of the public, at or in which there is an emphasis on the presentation, display, depiction, or description of "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas" which are capable of being seen by members of the public. Activities classified as obscene as defined by Minnesota Statute 5617.241 are not included. Specified Anatomical Areas: (A) Less than completely and opaquely covered human genitals, pubic region, buttock, anus, or female breast(s) below a point immediately above the top of the areola; and (B) Human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered. Specified Sexual Activities: (A) Actual or simulated sexual intercourse, oral copulation, anal intercourse, oral-anal copulation, bestiality, direct physical stimulation of unclothed genitals, flagellation or torture in the context of a sexual relationship, or the use of excretory functions in the context of sexual relationship, and any of the following sexually-oriented acts or conduct: anilingus, buggery, coprophagy, coprophilia, cunnilingus, fellatio, necrophilia, pederasty, pedophilia, piquerism, sapphism, zooerasty. (B) Clearly depicted human genitals in the state of sexual stimulation, arousal, or tumescence. (C) Use of human or animal ejaculation, sodomy, oral copulation, coitus, or masturbation. (D) Fondling or touching of nude human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, or female breast. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 362 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (E) Situations involving a person or persons, any of whom are nude, clad in undergarments, or in sexually revealing costumes; and who are engaged in activities involving the flagellation, torture, fettering, binding, or other physical restraint of any such persons. (F) Erotic or lewd touching, fondling, or other sexually-oriented contact with an animal by a human being. (G) Human excretion, urination, menstruation, vaginal, or anal irrigation. ADULT USE / ACCESSORY: The offering of goods and/or services which are classified as adult uses on a limited scale and which are incidental to the primary activity and goods and/or services offered by the establishment. Examples of such items include adult magazines, adult movies, adult novelties, and the like. ADULT USE / PRINCIPAL: The offering of goods and/or services which are classified as adult uses as a primary or sole activity of a business or establishment and include, but are not limited to, the following: (A) Adult Use Body Painting Studio - An establishment or business which provides the service of applying paint or other substance, whether transparent or non-transparent, to or on the body of a patron when such body is wholly or partially nude in terms of "specified anatomical areas." (B) Adult Use Bookstore - A building or portion of a building used for the barter, rental, or sale of items consisting of printed matter, pictures, slides, records, audio tape, videotape, or motion picture film if such building or portion of a building is not open to the public generally but only to one or more classes of the public excluding any minor by reason of age, or if a substantial or significant portion of such items are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on the depiction or description of "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." (C) Adult Use Cabaret - A building or portion of a building used for providing dancing or other live entertainment, if such building or portion of a building excludes minors by virtue of age, or if such dancing or other live entertainment is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on the presentation, display, depiction, or description of "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." (D) Adult Use Companionship Establishment - A companionship establishment which excludes minors by reason of age, or which provides the service of engaging in or listening to conversation, talk, or discussion between an employee of the establishment and a customer, if such service is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." (E) Adult Use Conversation/Rap Parlor - A conversation/rap parlor which excludes minors by reason of age, or which provides the service of engaging in or listening to conversation, talk, or discussion, if such service is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 363 (F) Adult Use Health/Sport Club - A health/sport club which excludes minors by reason of age, or if such club is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." (G) Adult Use Hotel/Motel - Adult hotel/motel means a hotel or motel from which minors are specifically excluded from patronage and wherein material is presented which is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting, describing, or relating to "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." (H) Adult Use Massage Parlor/Health Club - A massage parlor or health club which restricts minors by reason of age, and which provides the services of massage, if such service is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." (I) Adult Use Mini-Motion Picture Theatre - A building or portion of a building with a capacity for less than fifty (50) persons used for presenting material if such building or portion of a building as a prevailing practice excludes minors by virtue of age, or if such material is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas" for observation by patrons therein. (J) Adult Use Modeling Studio - An establishment whose major business is the provision to customers of figure models who are so provided with the intent of providing sexual stimulation or sexual gratification to such customers and who engage in "specified sexual activities" or display "specified anatomical areas" while being observed, painted, painted upon, sketched, drawn, sculptured, photographed, or otherwise depicted by such customers. (K) Adult Use Motion Picture Arcade - Any place to which the public is permitted or invited wherein coin or slug-operated or electronically, electrically, or mechanically controlled or operated still or motion picture machines, projectors, or other image- producing devices are maintained to show images to five or fewer persons per machine at any one time, and where the images so displayed are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on depicting or describing "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." (L) Adult Use Motion Picture Theatre - A building or portion of a building with a capacity of fifty (50) or more persons used for presenting material if such building or portion of a building as a prevailing practice excludes minors by virtue of age, or if such material is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas" for observation by patrons therein. (M) Adult Use Novelty Business - A business which has, as a principal activity, the sale of devices which stimulate human genitals or devices which are designed for sexual stimulation. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 364 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance (N) Adult Sauna - A sauna which excludes minors by reason of age, or which provides a steam bath or heat bathing room used for the purpose of bathing, relaxation, or reducing; utilizing steam or hot air as a cleaning, relaxing, or reducing agent, if the service provided by the sauna is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." (O) Adult Steam Room/Bathhouse Facility - A building or portion of a building used for providing a steam bath or heat bathing room used for the purpose of pleasure, bathing, relaxation, or reducing; utilizing steam or hot air as a cleaning, relaxing, or reducing agent, if such building or portion of a building restricts minors by reason of age or if the service provided by the steam room/bathhouse facility is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or "specified anatomical areas." AGRICULTURE: Those commonly associated with the growing of produce on farms. These include: field crop farming; pasture for hay; fruit growing; tree, plant, shrub, or flower nursery without building; truck gardening and livestock raising and feeding, but not including fur farms, commercial animal feed lots, and kennels. AGRICULTURAL BUILDING means a structure on agricultural zoned land designed, constructed, and used to house farm implements or agricultural produce or products used by the owner, lessee, or sub-lessee or their immediate families, their employees, and persons engaged in the pick up or delivery of agricultural produce or products grown or raised on the premises. The term ―agricultural building‖ shall not include dwellings. AGRICULTURAL SALES shall mean the retail sale of fresh fruits, vegetables, flowers, herbs, trees, or other agricultural, floricultural, or horticultural products. The operation may be indoors or outdoors, include pick-your-own or cut-your-own opportunities, and may involve the ancillary sale of items considered accessory to the agricultural products being sold or accessory sales of unprocessed foodstuffs; home processed food products such as jams, jellies, pickles, sauces; or baked goods and home-made handicrafts. The floor area devoted to the sale of accessory items shall not exceed 25 percent of the total floor area. No commercially packaged handicrafts or commercially processed or packaged foodstuffs shall be sold as accessory items. No activities other than the sale of goods as outlined above shall be allowed as part of the agricultural sales business. ALLEY: A public right-of-way less than thirty (30) feet in width which affords secondary access to abutting property. ANTENNA, TELECOMMUNICATION: A device used for the transmission and/or reception of wireless communications, arranged on an antenna support structure or building, and consisting of a wire, a set of wires, or electromagnetically reflective or conductive rods, elements, arrays, or surfaces. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 365 ANTENNA, RADIO, AND TELEVISION BROADCAST TRANSMISSION: An antenna used to transmit public or commercial broadcast radio or television programming. ANTENNA, PERSONAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE: An antenna used for the transmission and reception of wireless communication radio waves including cellular, personal communication service (PCS), enhanced specialized mobilized radio (ESMR), paging and similar services. ANTENNA, SATELLITE DISH: An antenna incorporating a reflective or conductive surface that is solid, open mesh, or bar configured and is in the shape of a shallow dish, cone, horn, or cornucopia. Such an antenna is used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and/or orbitally based transmission or receiving systems. This definition shall include, but not be limited to, what are commonly referred to as satellite earth stations, TVROs (television, receive only), and satellite microwave antennas. ANTENNA, SHORT-WAVE RADIO: An antenna used for the transmission and reception of radio waves used for federally licensed short-wave radio communications. ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE: Any freestanding pole, telescoping mast, tower, tripod, or other structure which supports an antenna and is not a building or attached to a building or structure. APARTMENT: A room or suite of rooms which is designed for, intended for, or occupied as a residence by a single family or an individual and is equipped with cooking facilities. Includes dwelling unit and efficiency unit. An apartment is offered only as a rented or leased residence, as distinguished from condominiums and townhouses, which allow for separate ownership. APPURTENANCE: The visible, functional, or ornamental objects accessory to, and part of a building, such as chimneys, fire escapes, open decks, stoops, steps, open porches, bay windows, roof overhangs, awnings, solar energy systems and similar features. ARTIFICIAL OBSTRUCTION: Means any obstruction which is not a natural obstruction (see Obstruction). AS-BUILT PLANS: Record drawings of as-constructed improvements. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 366 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY: A multiple-family structure that includes a special combination of housing, supportive services, personalized assistance, and health care designed to respond to the individual needs of people who need help with activities of daily living, but where the emphasis of the facility remains residential. Residents of assisted living facilities do not require hospitalization or skilled or intermediate nursing care associated with nursing home facilities, but do, because of their advanced age, require assistance or supervision in matters such as dressing, bathing, diet, financial management, evacuation of a residence in the event of an emergency, or medication prescribed for self-administration. ATTENTION GETTING DEVICE: Any device whose primary purpose is to attract public attention to a use of land (but which is not a building or the use of land itself), whether two or three dimensional, and whether through graphics, light, movement, shapes or other method. Such device may be either permanent or temporary, and would be regulated as a sign under the appropriate sections of this ordinance. AUCTION HOUSE: A building, area, or areas within a building used for the public sale of goods, wares, merchandise, or equipment to the highest bidder. AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE (ATM): A facility to provide banking and other electronic services that is operated by the customer. AUTOMOBILE REPAIR - MAJOR: General repair, rebuilding or reconditioning engines, motor vehicles or trailers; collision service, including body, frame, or fender straightening or repair; overall painting or paint job; vehicle steam cleaning. This business performs structural and cosmetic repairs to autos, light trucks, and equipment of 9,000 pounds GVW and less. Allowed: Body repair and painting, frame and/or unibody straightening and repair, glass replacement, sandblasting and/or steam cleaning, undercoating or rust proofing, upholstery work, washing, cleaning, and polishing. AUTOMOBILE REPAIR - MINOR: A business that performs mechanical and electrical repairs to autos, light trucks, and equipment 9,000 pounds GVW and less. Allowed activities include minor repairs, incidental body and fender work, minor painting and upholstering, tune ups and adjustments, replacement of parts (excluding body and frame), rebuilding of parts or components when installation is available, wheel alignment and balancing, tire repair, radiator repair, washing, cleaning, and polishing, but specifically excluding any operation specified or implied under the definition of "Automobile Repair - Major." AUTOMOTIVE WASH FACILITY: An area or structure equipped with automatic or self- service facilities for primarily washing automobiles. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 367 BANNERS AND PENNANTS: Attention-getting devices which resemble flags and are of a paper, cloth, or plastic-like consistency. BASEMENT: Means any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade (below ground level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground level. BED AND BREAKFAST: A private residence, generally a single-family residence, engaged in renting one or more dwelling rooms on a daily basis to tourists, vacationers, and business people, where provision of meals is limited to breakfast for guests only. BERM: An earthen mound designed to provide visual interest on a site, screen undesirable views, reduce noise, or fulfill other such purposes. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): Erosion and sediment control and water quality management practices that are the most effective and practicable means of controlling, preventing, and minimizing degradation of surface water, including avoidance of impacts, construction-phasing, minimizing the length of time soil areas are exposed, prohibitions, and other management practices published by state or designated area-wide planning agencies. BLUFF: A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): (A) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; (B) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the waterbody; (C) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and (D) The slope must drain toward the waterbody. BLUFF IMPACT ZONE: A bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff. BOARDER: A person who regularly receives lodging with or without meals at another’s home for pay or services BOARDING HOUSE: A building other than a hotel where, for compensation and by pre- arrangement for definite periods, meals or lodging and meals are provided to three (3) or more persons, not of the principal family therein, pursuant to previous arrangements and not to anyone who may apply, but not including a building providing these services for more than fifteen (15) persons. BUILDABLE AREA: The portion of a lot remaining after required yards have been provided. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 368 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance BUILDING: A structure with a roof, intended for shelter, housing, business, or enclosure. BUILDING, FRONT FAÇADE: A building elevation which fronts on a public street, public parking lot, private parking lot available to the general public, or pedestrian walk where customer access to a structure is available. BUILDING HEIGHT [see section 8.2(B)(5)] BUILDING LINE [see section 8.2(B)(3)] BUILDING, PRINCIPAL: A building in which is conducted the principal use of the lot. BULK FUEL STORAGE: The commercial storage of gasses and fuels in above ground containers. BUSINESS: Any establishment, occupation, employment, or enterprise where merchandise is manufactured, exhibited, or sold, or where services are offered for compensation. BUSINESS DAY: A day on which City Hall is open. BUSINESS SUPPORT SERVICES: Establishments that engage primarily in rendering services to businesses including but not limited to copy shops, printing services, package and postal services, photo processing, janitorial services, and similar operations. CALIPER: A horticultural method of measuring the diameter of a tree trunk for the purpose of determining size. The caliper inches of a tree shall be determined by measuring the tree’s diameter 4 feet, 6 inches from the ground. CANOPY: A roof-like cover, often of fabric, plastic, metal, or glass on a support, which provides shelter over a doorway. CANOPY TREE: A tree that has an expected height at maturity of 30 feet or more. CELLAR (see “BASEMENT”) CHANNEL: A natural or artificial depression of perceptible extent, with definite bed and banks to confine and conduct water either continuously or periodically. CEMETERY: Land used or intended to be used for burying the remains of human dead and dedicated for cemetery purposes, including mausoleums and mortuaries when operated in conjunction with and within the boundaries of the cemetery. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 369 CHURCH (see “PLACE OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY”) CITY ENGINEER: A person who has received training and is given authority by the City of Monticello to design, review, authorize, approve, inspect, and maintain erosion and sediment control plans and practices. The City Engineer is part of the Community Development Department. CIVIC INTEREST GROUP: A civic interest group is a non-governmental organization which has a public or quasi-public service purpose as its central function, but may include additional uses and activities related to its public function or provided to its membership. A civic interest group may or may not have a specific site location or building which it occupies whether owned or leased. Examples of such groups may include religious institutions, local or national service clubs and organizations, private museums, historical facilities or similar entities. CLEARING: Any activity that removes the vegetative surface cover. CLEAR-CUTTING: The removal of an entire stand of trees. CLINIC: A structure intended for providing medical and dental examinations and service available to the public. This service is provided without overnight care available. CHARITABLE, FRATERNAL, OR SOCIAL CLUB / LODGE (see “PLACE OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY”) COMBINATION USE: The combination of two principal uses. COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS AND ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURES (see “ANTENNA, TELECOMMUNICATION”) COMMUNICATIONS/BROADCASTING: Establishments primarily engaged in the provision of broadcasting and other information relay services accomplished through the use of electronic and telephonic mechanisms. Antennas, antenna support structures and satellite dishes are included in this definition. Typical uses include television studios, telecommunication service centers, telegraph service offices, or film and sound recording facilities. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: Those departments assigned by the City Manager to oversee the various aspects of development within the City. Such departments may include but are not limited to planning, building safety, and engineering. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 370 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance COMMUNITY GARDEN: A public or private facility for cultivation of fruits, flowers, vegetables or ornamental plants by more than one (1) person or group. CONDITIONAL USE: A permitted use that, because of special requirements or characteristics, may only be allowed in a particular zoning district after review by the City and granting of conditional use permit which imposes conditions deemed necessary to make the use compatible with other uses permitted in the same zone or vicinity. Conditional uses that cannot be adequately controlled through conditions shall be prohibited. Approved conditional uses and their conditions run with the land and are not specific to property owners. CONDOMINIUM: A form of property ownership providing for individual ownership of space in a structure together with an individual interest in the land or other parts of the structure in common with other owners. Residential condominium dwelling units are subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Condominium Law, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 515.01 to 515.29. CONSERVATION EASEMENT: A conservation easement is legal land preservation agreement between a landowner and a municipality or a qualified land protection organization. The easement confers the transfer of usage rights from one party to another. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY: A disturbance to the land that results in a change in the topography, or the existing soil cover (both vegetative and non-vegetative). Examples of construction activity may include clearing, grading, filling and excavating. CONSTRUCTION TRAILER: Trailers used as temporary offices to meet a short-term need while the permanent facilities are being expanded. A temporary use permit is required for such office trailers CONVENIENCE STORE: A retail store not more than 4,000 square feet in area that generally carries a reduced inventory of a variety of items such as dairy products, minor automobile related items, groceries, novelties, magazines, etc. A convenience store may be combined with vehicle fuel sales where permitted. COOPERATIVE (HOUSING): A multiple family attached dwelling owned and maintained by the residents. The entire structure and real property is under common ownership as contrasted to a condominium dwelling where individual units are under separate individual occupant ownership. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 371 COUNTRY CLUB: A membership club or business organized and operated primarily to provide recreational activities such as golf, swimming, tennis, and other outdoor recreation to its members and their guests which includes facilities such as a club house, banquet areas, locker rooms, and pro shop. COURT: An unoccupied open space other than a yard which is bounded on two (2) or more sides by the walls of the buildings. CREMATORY: A facility containing furnaces for the reduction of dead bodies to ashes by fire. DAY CARE - HOME: (see definitions for ―Group Residential Facility‖). DAY CARE CENTER: A service provided to the public in which children of school or preschool age are cared for during established business hours, and which does not qualify as a group residential facility. DECIDUOUS TREE: A tree that generally loses all of its leaves for part of the year. DECK: A horizontal, unenclosed platform with or without attached railings, seats, trellises, or other features, attached or functionally related to a principal use or site at any point extending above grade. DENSITY, BASE: The number of dwelling units allowed per net acre of land. DENSITY, MAXIMUM: The number of dwelling units potentially allowed per net acre of land if certain conditions are met through either performance standards or the planned unit development process. DEPARTMENT STORE [see “RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES (OTHER)”] DEPOSIT: Any rock, soil, gravel, sand, or other material deposited naturally or by man into a water body, watercourse, flood plain, or wetland. DEWATERING: The removal of water for construction activity; typically a discharge of appropriated surface or groundwater to dry and/or solidify a construction site. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources permits are required to be appropriated for dewatering, and if the water is found to be contaminated, may require other MPCA permits to be discharged. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 372 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance DISTRICT: An area delineated on the official zoning map that sets forth standards and guidelines for all development within the prescribed zoning district. DONATION DROP-OFF CONTAINER: A receptacle designed with a door, slot, or other opening that is intended to accept and store donated items. DRAINING: The removal of surface water or groundwater from land. DREDGING: To enlarge or clean out a water body, watercourse, or wetland. DRIPLINE: A vertical line that extends from the outermost branches of a tree’s canopy to the ground around the circumference of the tree. DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICE: A building opening, including windows, doors, or mechanical devices, through which occupants of a motor vehicle receive or obtain a product or service. DUMPSTER: A container that has a hooking mechanism that permits it to be raised and dumped into a sanitation truck or be hauled away for emptying. DUPLEX: A building designed as a single structure, containing two separate dwelling units, each of which is designed to be occupied as a separate permanent residence for one family. DWELLING: A building or portion thereof designated exclusively for residential occupancy, including one-family, two-family, and multiple family dwellings, but not including hotels, motels, and boarding houses. DWELLING, ACCESSORY UNIT: A dwelling unit, either within the same building as the single-family dwelling unit or in a detached building. Accessory dwelling units shall be developed in accordance with the standards set forth in this ordinance and only in those zoning districts where permitted. DWELLING, ATTACHED: A structure intended for occupancy by more than one family, including duplexes, townhomes, multi-family dwellings, apartments, and condominiums. Accessory dwelling units as defined and permitted by this ordinance are incidental to a principal dwelling unit and are not considered to be attached dwellings. DWELLING, DETACHED: A dwelling unit designed exclusively for occupancy by one (1) family. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 373 DWELLING, MULTIPLE FAMILY: A building designed with three (3) or more dwelling units exclusively for occupancy by three (3) or more families living independently of each other but sharing hallways and main entrances and exits. DWELLING UNIT: An area within a structure designed and constructed to be occupied by one family which includes permanent provisions for living, cooking, and sanitation. Dwelling unit does not include hotels, motels, group residential facilities, correctional facilities, nursing/convalescent home, rehabilitation centers, or other structures designed for transient residence. EFFICIENCY APARTMENT: A dwelling unit consisting of one (1) principal room exclusive of bathroom, hallway, closets, or dining alcove, and has limited provisions for cooking (kitchenette). ENTERTAINMENT, INDOOR COMMERCIAL: An establishment providing completely enclosed recreation or entertainment activities. Accessory uses may include the preparation and serving of food or the sale of equipment related to the enclosed uses. Included in this definition shall be bowling, roller skating or ice-skating, billiards, pool, motion picture theaters, and related amusements. This use does not include adult uses. ENTERTAINMENT, OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL: An establishment providing recreation or entertainment activities primarily occurring outdoors. Accessory uses may include the preparation and serving of food, the sale of equipment related to the outdoor uses, and complementary indoor entertainment facilities. Examples of outdoor commercial entertainment businesses include, but are not limited to, a golf driving range, sand volleyball courts, go-carts, or a miniature golf course. This use does not include projectile weapon ranges (archery or shooting),a stadium or a drive-in movie theater. ERECT: Activity of constructing, building, raising, assembling, placing, affixing, attaching, creating, painting, drawing or any other way of bringing into being or establishing. EROSION CONTROL: A measure that prevents erosion including but not limited to: soil stabilization practices, limited grading, mulch, temporary or permanent cover, and construction phasing. EROSION CONTROL INSPECTOR: A designated agent given authority by the City of Monticello to inspect and maintain erosion and sediment control practices. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 374 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance ESSENTIAL SERVICES: Public or private utility systems for gas, electricity, steam, sewer and water; voice, television, and digital communications systems; and waste disposal and recycling services. These services include underground, surface, and overhead systems and all accessories thereto such as poles, towers, wires, mains, drains, vaults, culverts, laterals, sewers, pipes, catch basins, water storage tanks, conduits, cables, fire alarm boxes, police call boxes, traffic signals, pumps, lift stations, hydrants, and other similar features necessary for the function of the essential service. Wireless radio frequency reception and transmission antennas and support structures shall not be considered an essential service. EXTRACTION OF MATERIALS: the development or extraction of a natural resource in excess of four hundred (400) cubic yards from its natural occurrences on affected land without processing. EXTRACTIVE USE: The use of land for surface or subsurface removal of sand, gravel, rock, industrial minerals, other nonmetallic minerals, and peat not regulated under Minnesota Statutes, sections 93.44 to 93.51. EVERGREEN TREE: A tree that retains some or most of its leaves or needles throughout the year. EXISTING TREE CANOPY: The crowns of all healthy self-supporting canopy trees with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of ten inches or greater and understory trees with a caliper size of four inches or greater at breast height. FAMILY: An individual or group that maintains a common household and use of common cooking and kitchen facilities and common entrances to a single dwelling unit, where the group consists of: (A) Two (2) or more persons each related to the other by blood, marriage, domestic partnership, adoption, legal guardianship (including foster children); or, (B) Not more than four (4) unrelated persons. FARMERS MARKET: An occasional or periodic market held in an open area or in a structure where groups of individual sellers offer for sale to the public such items as fresh produce, seasonal fruits, fresh flowers, arts and crafts items, and food and beverages (but not to include second-hand goods) dispensed from booths located on-site. FENCE: A tangible barrier constructed of any allowable material erected for the purpose of providing a boundary or as a means of protection, or to prevent uncontrolled access, or for decorative purposes (such as an ornamental gate or ornamental gates), or to screen from viewers in or on adjoining properties and streets, materials stored and operations conducted behind it CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 375 FILLING: The act of depositing any rock, soil, gravel, sand, or other material so as to change the natural grade of the land; and/or to fill or partly fill a water body, watercourse, or wetland. FINAL GRADE: Excavation or fill of material to final plan elevation. Final grade completed as part of individual site development. FINAL STABILIZATION: (A) All soil disturbing activities at the site have been completed and a uniform (e.g., evenly distributed, without large bare areas) perennial vegetative cover with a minimum density of 70% of approved vegetative cover for the area has been established on all unpaved areas and areas not covered by permanent structures, or equivalent permanent stabilization measures have been employed; (B) For individual lots in residential construction by either: (a) The homebuilder completing final stabilization as specified above, or (b) the homebuilder establishing temporary stabilization including perimeter controls for an individual lot prior to occupation of the home by the homeowner and information the homeowner of the need for, and benefits of, final stabilization. FINANCIAL INSTITUTION: An establishment that provides retail banking services, mortgage lending, or similar financial services to individuals and businesses. Financial institutions include those establishments engaged in the on-site circulation of cash money and check-cashing facilities, but shall not include bail bond brokers. Financial institutions may also provide Automated Teller Machine (ATM) services, located within a fully enclosed space or building, along an exterior building wall intended to serve walk-up customers only, or in a City authorized drive-thru lane. FINISHING STANDARD: Criterion established to control and limit the impacts generated by, or inherent in, uses of land or buildings. The term ―finishing standard‖ shall be synonymous with ―performance standard.‖ FLAG: Any fabric or similar lightweight material attached at one end of the material, usually to a staff or pole, so as to allow movement of the material by atmospheric changes and which contains distinctive colors, patterns, symbols, emblems, insignia, or other symbolic devices. FLOOD: A temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that results in the inundation of normally dry areas. FLOOD FREQUENCY: The frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be equalled or exceeded. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 376 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance FLOOD FRINGE: That portion of the flood plain outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term "floodway fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study for the City of Monticello. FLOOD PLAIN: The beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake, or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. FLOOD PROFILE: A graph or a longitudinal plot of water surface elevations of a flood event along a reach of a stream or river. FLOOD-PROOFING: A combination of structural provisions, changes, or adjustment to properties and structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages. FLOODWAY: The bed of wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining flood plain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge. FLOOR AREA [see section 8.2(B)(4)] FLOOR AREA - FININSHABLE: Area within a building—exclusive of mechanical, garage, or unfinished storage space—that could meet all requirements of ―finished floor area‖ after improvements are completed. FLOOR AREA - FINISHED: To qualify as finished floor area, the space shall be at or above the finished exterior grade, or in the case of lower levels, no less than 42 inches below such grade; must have heat; flooring such as carpet, vinyl, tile, wood or other similar floor covering; a ceiling and walls covered with gypsum board, plaster, or wood which is stained, painted or covered with other residential wall/ceiling covering prior to occupancy. Basements that are neither ―look out‖ or ―walk out‖ levels may be finished, but shall not be counted towards a minimum finished square footage calculation. FOREST LAND CONVERSION: The clear cutting of forested lands to prepare for a new land use other than reestablishment of a subsequent forest stand. FREEWAY CORRIDOR (SIGN) AREA: A special signing area encompassing land located within eight hundred (800) feet either side (north or south) of the centerline of Interstate 94, in addition to certain areas along Trunk Highway 25 south of Interstate 94 north of Dundas Road, East of Sandberg Road, and West of Cedar Street as shown on the City’s official Freeway Bonus Sign District Map. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 377 FUNERAL HOME: An establishment that provides human funeral services, including embalming and memorial services. Crematories are accessory uses to a funeral home. GARAGE: An attached or detached accessory structure for the purpose of parking vehicles. GARAGE SALE: The sale of miscellaneous used items commonly associated with residential use. Garage sales shall not be for the sale of primarily a single commodity. The term ―garage sale‖ includes ―sidewalk sale,‖ ―yard sale,‖ ―basement sale,‖ and ―estate sale.‖ GENERAL WAREHOUSING: Structures used for the storage or distribution of goods where there is no sale of items to retailers or the general public unless permitted as an accessory use to the warehouse. GRADING: Excavation or fill of material, including the resulting conditions thereof. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PERMIT : A permit issued by the municipality for the construction or alteration of the ground and for the improvements and structures for the control of erosion, runoff, and grading. Herein after referred to as ―Grading Permit‖. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLANS: A set of plans prepared by or under the direction of a licensed professional engineer. Plans are required to indicate the specific measures and sequencing to be used to control grading, sediment and erosion on a development site during and after construction as detailed in the City of Monticello ―Plan Requirements and Design Guidelines‖. GREENHOUSE/CONSERVATORY: A structure, primarily of glass, in which temperature and humidity can be controlled for the cultivation or protection of plants GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, SINGLE FAMILY: A state-licensed facility, public or private, which regularly provides a planned combination of living conditions, services, and resources for the treatment, rehabilitation, training, supervision, or care of persons residing on the premises which falls into one of the following categories: 1) a state licensed residential facility serving six or fewer persons; 2) registered housing with services establishment serving six or fewer persons; 3) a licensed day care facility serving 12 or fewer persons, or 4) a group family day care facility licensed to serve 14 or fewer children. This term does not include any type of residential or non-residential facility for persons convicted of crimes, or for persons accused of crimes who are diverted to the facility before conviction; nor does it include a residential facility whose primary purpose is to treat juveniles who have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated delinquent on the basis of conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 378 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Hoop Building GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, MULTIFAMILY: A state-licensed facility, public or private, which regularly provides a planned combination of living conditions, services, and resources for the treatment, rehabilitation, training, supervision, or care of persons residing on the premises which falls into one of the following categories: 1) a state licensed residential facility serving between seven (7) and sixteen (16) persons, or 2) a licensed day care facility serving between thirteen (13) and sixteen (16) persons. This term does not include any type of residential or non-residential facility for persons convicted of crimes, or for persons accused of crimes who are diverted to the facility before conviction; nor does it include a residential facility whose primary purpose is to treat juveniles who have violated criminal statutes relating to sex offenses or have been adjudicated delinquent on the basis of conduct in violation of criminal statutes relating to sex offenses. HELIPORT: An area used or intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters, and may include any or all of the areas of buildings appropriate to accomplish these functions HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE (see “HEAVY MANUFACTURING”) HIGH RISK TREE: Any tree with structural defects sufficient to render the tree or part of the tree likely to fail and cause damage to persons, property, or other significant vegetation, as determined by a qualified arborist or other tree professional. HOME OCCUPATION: An occupation carried on in a dwelling unit by the resident thereof; provided that the use is limited in extent and incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling unit for residential purposes and does not change the character thereof. HOOP BUILDING (see also “tarp garage”): A portable or permanently anchored structure defined mainly by a steel or PVC frame over which a cover made from plastic, tarp, or other similar type fabrics or materials is placed. HOSPITAL: A facility providing medical, psychiatric, or surgical services for sick or injured persons primarily on an inpatient basis, including ancillary facilities for outpatient and emergency treatment, diagnostic services, training, research, and administration, and services to patients, employees, or visitors. HOTEL or MOTEL: Hotel and Motel are considered to be synonymous uses. A hotel or motel means a building or group of buildings in which sleeping accommodations are offered to the public and intended primarily for rental for temporary occupation by persons on an overnight basis, not including bed and breakfast establishments or a rooming house. Such uses may include microwaves and refrigerators for each guest unit. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 379 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: The area of a lot occupied by a constructed hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil and causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities and at an increased rate of flow than prior to development. Examples include but are not limited to decks with one-fourth (1/4) inch spacing or less; decks with a surface underneath that is impervious; concrete patios; bituminous patios; landscaping rocks over plastic liners; courts (sport and tennis); sand boxes with liners; roofs; structures; paved driveways and other driveway surfaces (crushed bituminous, concrete, gravel, other rock, packed dirt, etc); landscape beds with linings; and concrete sidewalks. Exceptions include the following topics: wood decks with one-fourth (1/4) inch spacing or more with pervious material underneath the deck; driveway and sidewalks constructed of pavers provided proof of proper installation is provided; wood chip sidewalks; and retaining walls. INDOOR FOOD/CONVENIENCE SALES: A small retail establishment located within or associated with another use that offers for sale prepared food or convenience goods such as prepackaged food items, tobacco, periodicals, and other household goods. INDUSTRIAL SERVICES (GENERAL): Businesses that are engaged in the repair or servicing of industrial, business, or consumer machinery, equipment, products, or by-products; or providing other related services primarily for industrial businesses. Industrial service firms that service consumer goods do so by mainly providing centralized services for separate retail outlets. Also includes firms such as contractors and building maintenance services and similar establishments engaged in performance of services off-site. Few customers, especially the general public, come to the site. Accessory activities may include retail sales, offices, parking and storage. INTENSIVE VEGETATION CLEARING: The complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block. KENNEL (COMMERCIAL): A facility for the boarding, breeding, raising, grooming, selling, training or other animal husbandry activities for dogs, cats or other animals for financial or other compensation. LAND RECLAMATION: The reclaiming of land by the importation, depositing, or grading of soils in excess of 400 cubic yards so as to elevate the grade. LANDSCAPE STRIP, PERIMETER: Vegetative material associated with the perimeter landscaping required for a vehicular use area. LANDSCAPING / NURSERY BUSINESS: A retail business devoted to the growth, display, and/or sale of plants, shrubs, trees; and/or landscaping materials and services. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 380 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE: (see “MANUFACTURING, LIGHT”) LOT (OF RECORD): A parcel of land, whether subdivided or otherwise legally described, as of the effective date of this ordinance, or approved by the City as a lot subsequent to such date and which is occupied by or intended for occupancy by one (1) principal building or principal use together with any accessory buildings and such open spaces as required by this ordinance and having its principal frontage upon a street. LOT: Land occupied or to be occupied by a building and its accessory buildings, together with such open spaces as are required under the provisions of this zoning regulation, having not less than the minimum area required by this zoning ordinance for a building site in the district in which such lot is situated and having its principal frontage on a street or a proposed street approved by the Council.  LOT Related Definitions (e.g. lot depth, lot area, lot corner, etc): [see section 8.2(B)] LOT LINE: A property boundary line of any lot held in single or separate ownership, except that where any portion of the lot extends into the abutting street or alley, the lot line shall be deemed to be the street or alley right-of-way. MACHINERY/TRUCK REPAIR: This business performs mechanical, electrical, structural, and cosmetic repairs to trucks and heavy equipment. Allowed: Tune ups and adjustment, replacement of parts, rebuilding of parts or components when installation is available, body repair, collision service and painting, frame straightening and repair, steam cleaning and/or sandblasting, undercoating and rust proofing, radiator repair, tire repair, wheel alignment and balancing, washing, cleaning, and polishing. MANUFACTURED (MOBILE) HOME: A structure transportable in one or more sections which in the traveling mode is 8 body feet or more in width or 40 body feet or more in length, or, when erected on a side, is 760 or more square feet and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained in it, and which complies with the manufactured home building code (MN State Statute 327.31). MANUFACTURED HOME PARK: A contiguous parcel of land which has been developed for the placement of manufactured homes and is owned by an individual, firm, trust, partnership, public or private association, or corporation. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 381 MANUFACTURING, HEAVY: The manufacturing of products from raw or unprocessed materials, where the finished product may be combustible or explosive. This category shall also include any establishment or facility using large unscreened outdoor structures such as conveyor belt systems, cooling towers, cranes, storage silos, or similar equipment that cannot be integrated into the building design, or engaging in large-scale outdoor storage. Any industrial use that generates noise, odor, vibration, illumination, or particulate that may be offensive or obnoxious to adjacent land uses, or requires a significant amount of on-site hazardous chemical storage shall be classified under this land use. This use shall include any packaging of the product being manufactured on-site. Examples include but are not limited to the production of the following: large-scale food and beverage operations, lumber, milling, and planing facilities; aggregate, concrete and asphalt plants; foundries, forge shops, open air welding, and other intensive metal fabrication facilities; chemical blending, mixing, or production, and plastic processing and production. MANUFACTURING, LIGHT: The mechanical transformation of predominantly previously prepared materials into new products, including assembly of component parts and the creation of products for sale to the wholesale or retail markets or directly to consumers. Such uses are wholly confined within an enclosed building, do not include processing of hazardous gases and chemicals, and do not emit noxious noise, smoke, vapors, fumes, dust, glare, odor, or vibration. Examples include, but are not limited to: production or repair of small machines or electronic parts and equipment; woodworking and cabinet building; publishing and lithography; computer design and development; research, development, testing facilities and laboratories; apparel production; sign making; assembly of pre-fabricated parts, manufacture of electric, electronic, or optical instruments or devices; manufacture and assembly of artificial limbs, dentures, hearing aids, and surgical instruments or parts; manufacture, processing, and packing of food products or cosmetics; and manufacturing of components, jewelry, clothing, trimming decorations and any similar item. MARQUEE: Any permanent roof like structure projecting beyond a theater building or extending along and projecting beyond the wall of that building, generally designed and constructed to provide protection from the weather. MAXIMUM DENSITY: The number of dwelling units allowed per gross acre of land as controlled by an individual or joint ownership group. MEAN GROUND LEVEL: The elevation established for the purpose of regulating the number of stories and the height of buildings. Grade shall be the mean level of the finished surface of the ground adjacent to the exterior walls of the buildings. MULTIPLE-TENANT SITE: Any site which has more than one (1) tenant, and each tenant has a separate ground level exterior public entrance. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 382 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES): The program for issuing, modifying, revoking, reissuing, terminating, monitoring, and enforcing permits under the Clean Water Act (Sections 301, 318, 402, and 405) and United States Code of Federal Regulations Title 33, Sections 1317, 1328, 1342, and 1345. NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM: All land surface areas which by nature of their contour configuration, collect, store and channel surface water run-off. NATURAL OBSTRUCTION: Means any rock, tree, gravel, or analogous natural matter that is an obstruction and has been located within a water body, watercourse, or wetland by a non- human cause. NEXT AVAILABLE AGENDA: The next meeting at which an application can be heard by a reviewing body after consideration of the anticipated time for review and other items already scheduled for future agendas. The Community Development Department has full discretion to select the best future meeting date that will accommodate the administrative and official review of an item provided the overall timeframe for review will comply with all state mandated review deadlines. NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE OR BUILDING: A structure or building, the size, dimensions, or location of which was lawful prior to effective date of this ordinance as denoted in Section 1.4, or on the effective date of any amendment to this ordinance, but that fails by reason of such adoption or amendment to conform to the requirements of this ordinance. NONCONFORMING USE: Any use lawfully being made of any land, building, or structure not otherwise abandoned, existing on effective date of this ordinance as denoted in Section 1.4 or on the effective date of any amendment of this Ordinance, that does not comply with the use regulations of this Ordinance or the amendment. NURSING HOME (CONVALESCENT HOME): A facility that provides nursing services and custodial care generally on a 24-hour basis for two or more unrelated individuals who for reasons of illness, physical infirmity, or advanced age, require such services; but not including hospitals, clinics, sanitariums, or similar institutions. OBSTRUCTION (in relation to flood plains): Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory flood plain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. Section 1.4: Effective Date CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 383 OFFICE USE: An establishment primarily engaged in providing professional, financial, administrative, clerical, and similar services. OFF-STREET LOADING SPACE: A space accessible from the street, alley or way, in a building or on the lot, for the use of trucks while loading or unloading merchandise or materials. Such space shall be of such size as to accommodate one (1) truck of the type typically used in the particular business. OPACITY (OPAQUE): A measurement indicating the degree of obscuration of light or visibility. An object that is 100% opaque is impenetrable by light. OPEN SALES: Any open land used or occupied for the purpose of buying, selling, and/or renting merchandise and for the storing of same prior to sale. OPEN SPACE: An area on a lot not occupied by any structure or impervious surface. OPEN SPACE, USABLE: A required ground area or terrace area on a lot which is graded, developed, landscaped, and equipped and intended and maintained for either active or passive recreation or both, available and accessible to and usable by all persons occupying a dwelling unit or rooming unit on the lot and their guests. Such areas shall be grassed and landscaped or covered only for a recreational purpose. Roofs, driveways, and parking areas shall not constitute usable open space. ORDINARY HIGH WATER (new shoreland district code): The boundary of public waters which may include wetlands, and shall be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool. OUTDOOR STORAGE: The keeping, in an un-roofed area, of any goods, junk, material, merchandise, or vehicles in the same place for more than twenty-four (24) hours. This shall not include the display of vehicles for sale in a new or used car sales lot. Such activities may be the principal use of the land or as an accessory use to another principal use. OUTPATIENT CARE: Medical examination or service available to the public in a hospital. This service is provided without overnight care and shall be considered a separate, independent, principal use when combined or operated in conjunction with a hospital. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 384 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance PARAPET: A low wall which is located perpendicular to (extension of front wall) a roof of a building. PARK FACILITY, ACTIVE: A park or recreation facility that includes one or more of the following: buildings, lighting, ball fields, tennis courts, swimming pools, skate parks, golf courses, or other active sports facilities. Active park facilities will commonly include benches, picnic areas, trails, sidewalks, and other similar features. PARK FACILITY, PASSIVE: A park or recreational facility that does not include the construction of facilities, lighting, or development of ball fields or other active sports facilities. Passive parks may include benches, picnic areas, trails and sidewalks. PARKING: The act of keeping a passenger vehicle as defined herein on an approved parking space, properly surfaced, for a temporary period of time. PARKING BAY: The parking module consisting of one or two rows of parking spaces or stalls and the aisle from which motor vehicles enter and leave the spaces. PARKING ISLAND: Landscaped areas within parking lots used to separate parking areas and to soften the overall visual impact of a large parking area from adjacent properties. PARKING LOT DRIVE AISLE: A vehicular accessway located within an off-street parking or vehicular use area which serves individual parking stalls and driveways. PARKING SPACE/STALL: An area enclosed in the main building, in an accessory building, or unenclosed sufficient in size to store one (1) automobile which has adequate access to a public street or alley and permitting satisfactory ingress and egress of an automobile. PARKING STRUCTURE: A structure designed to accommodate vehicular parking spaces that are fully or partially enclosed or located on the deck surface of a building. This definition includes parking garages, decks, and ramp parking. PARKING, SURFACED: A parking space or storage space which is paved, or surfaced with crushed rock, such as Class V limestone, crushed or decomposed granite, ―con-bit‖, or landscaping rock of adequate durability to support the load parked or stored thereon. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 385 PARKING, UNSURFACED: A storage space which is covered by vegetation, such as grass or other landscaped cover, and which is mowed or trimmed to meet the City’s weed control regulations. Unsurfaced space may not include bare ground which may be subject to erosion, tracking of mud onto the roadway, or drainage of silt into a public drainage easement or waterway. PASSENGER TERMINAL: A place that receives and discharges passengers which generally includes facilities and equipment required for the operation. Examples include terminals for bus, taxi, railroad, shuttle van, or other similar vehicular services. This definition does not include bus stops or similar transfer points for passengers at which no facilities (excluding a bench or shelter) are provided. PAVED: A parking space or storage space which is surfaced with only the following materials: Asphalt, concrete, and natural or man-made paving stones such as brick, granite, or concrete pavers, provided such pavers have a flat surface area of no less than nine square inches. PERFORMANCE STANDARD: Criterion established to control and limit the impacts generated by, or inherent in, uses of land or buildings. The term ―performance standard‖ shall be synonymous with ―finishing standard.‖ PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROL: A barrier that prevents sediment from leaving a site by filtering sediment-laden runoff or diverting it to a sediment trap or basin. PERMANENT COVER: Final site stabilization. Examples include grass, gravel, asphalt, and concrete. PERMITTED USE: A use which may be lawfully established in a particular district or districts, provided it conforms with all requirements, regulations, and performance standards (if any) of such districts. PERMITTEE: Applicant for and recipient of an approved permit. PERSON: An individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, or organization of any kind. PERSONAL SERVICES: Establishments that primarily engage in providing services generally involving the care of the person or person’s possessions. Personal services may include but are not limited to: laundry and dry-cleaning services, barber shops, beauty salons, health and fitness studios, music schools, informational and instructional services, tanning salons, and portrait studios. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 386 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance PHASING (in relation to grading): Clearing a parcel of land in distinct phases, with the stabilization of each phase completed before the clearing of the next. PLACE OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY: An institution or facility that congregations of people regularly attend to participate in or hold meetings, workshops, lectures, civic activities, religious services, and other similar activities, including buildings in which such functions and activities are held. PLAN REQUIREMENTS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES: Manual detailing City specifications for all plan requirements. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: A type of development which may incorporate a variety of land uses planned and developed as a unit. The planned unit development is distinguished from the traditional subdivision process of development in that zoning standards such as density, setbacks, height limits, and minimum lot sizes may be altered by negotiation and agreement between the developer, the municipality, and the Commissioner of Natural Resources as may be required. PLANTING STRIP: Areas intended for the placement of vegetation within the interior of vehicular use areas or along street right-of-way edges, typically between the back of the curb and the inside edge of the sidewalk. PORTABLE CONTAINER: A large container designed and rented or leased for the temporary storage of commercial, industrial, or residential household goods that does not contain a foundation or wheels for movement. PRINCIPAL USE: The main use of land or buildings as distinguished from subordinate or accessory uses. PUBLIC BUILDING OR USE: Any facility, including but not limited to buildings and property that are leased or otherwise operated or funded by a governmental body or public entity. PUBLIC WATERS: Any waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.005, Subd. 15, 15a. REACH (in relation to flood plains): A hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a stream or river influenced by a natural or man -made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a stream or river between two consecutive bridge crossings would most typically constitute a reach. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 387 REAL ESTATE OFFICE/MOBILE SALES HOME: A dwelling temporarily used as a sales office for a residential development under construction for on-site sales RECREATIONAL VEHICLE CAMP SITE: A lot or parcel of land occupied or intended for occupancy by recreational vehicles for travel, recreational, or vacation usage for short periods of stay subject to the provisions of this ordinance. RECYCLING AND SALVAGE CENTER: A facility engaged solely in the storage, processing, resale, or reuse of recyclable and recovered materials. REGIONAL FLOOD: A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 100-year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Study. REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION: The regulatory flood protection elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway. REPAIR ESTABLISHMENT: An establishment primarily engaged in the provision of repair services for TV’s, bicycles, clocks, watches, shoes, guns, canvas products, appliances, and office equipment; including tailor; locksmith; and upholsterer. RESTAURANT : An establishment where meals or prepared food, including beverages and confections, are served to customers for consumption on or off the premises. Such a facility may include indoor and outdoor seating and/or drive through services. RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES (OTHER): Establishments primarily engaged in the sale of goods and materials to the general public not otherwise specifically defined in code. Retail commercial uses may include by are not limited to bookstores, antique stores, grocery stores and similar uses; but do not include sales from moveable motorized vehicles. ROOF: The exterior surface and its supporting structure on the top of a building or structure. The structural makeup of which conforms to the roof structures, roof construction and roof covering sections of the International Building Code. ROOT ZONE: The area inside the dripline of a tree that contains its roots. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 388 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance SCHOOL, K-12: A public or private school offering general, technical, or alternative instruction at the elementary, middle, or high school level that operates in buildings or structures on land leased or owned by the educational institution for administrative purposes. Such uses include classrooms, vocational training (including that of an industrial nature for instructional purposes only in middle or high schools), laboratories, auditoriums, libraries, cafeterias, after school care, athletic facilities, dormitories, and other facilities that further the educational mission of the institution. SCHOOL, HIGHER EDUCATION: A public or private non-profit institution for post- secondary education or a public or private school offering vocational or trade instruction to students. Such educational institutions operate in buildings or structures on land leased or owned by the educational institution for administrative purposes. Such uses include classrooms, vocational training (including that of an industrial nature for instructional purposes only), laboratories, auditoriums, libraries, cafeterias, after school care, athletic facilities, dormitories, and other facilities that further the educational mission of the institution. SCROLLING TEXT: A type of dynamic sign movement in which the letters or symbols move horizontally across the sign in a continuous scroll, permitting a viewer to observe the message over time. Scrolling shall not include flashing or other types of video movement. SEDIMENT CONTROL: Measures and methods employed to prevent sediment from leaving the site. SELF-STORAGE FACILITY: A building or group of buildings that contains equal or varying sizes of individual, compartmentalized, and controlled access stalls or lockers for the storage of residential or commercial customer’s goods or wares. SEMIPUBLIC USE: The use of land by a private, nonprofit organization to provide a public service that is ordinarily open to some persons outside the regular constituency of the organization. SENIOR HOUSING: A multiple-family structure, 80 percent of whose occupants shall be 65 years of age or over, or a multiple-family structure where each unit is occupied by at least one person who is 55 years of age or over and is retired. The facility may include common areas for the congregation of occupants for activities or meals. Senior housing shall typically consist of multiple-household attached dwellings, but may include detached dwelling units as part of a wholly owned and managed senior project. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 389 SENSITIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: The preservation and management of areas unsuitable for development in their natural state due to constraints such as shallow soils over groundwater or bedrock, highly erosive or expansive soils, steep slopes, susceptibility to flooding, or occurrence of flora or fauna in need of special protection. SETBACK: The horizontal distance between a structure and the lot lines of the lot on which it is located. SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM: a septic tank and soil absorption system or other individual or cluster type sewage treatment system. SEWER SYSTEM: Pipelines or conduits, pumping stations, and force main, and all other construction, devices, appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting sewage or industrial waste or other wastes to a point of ultimate disposal. SHADE TREE: A tree planted or valued chiefly for its shade from sunlight; this term usually applies to large trees with spreading canopies. SHELTER, FALLOUT: An accessory building specifically designed and used for the protection of life from radioactive fallout. SHELTER, STORM: An accessory building specifically designed and used for the protection of life from weather events. SHORE IMPACT ZONE: Land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. SHORELAND: Land located within the following distances from public water: (A) 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water mark of a lake, pond, or flowages. (B) Three hundred (300) feet from a river or stream, or the landward extent of a flood plain designated by ordinance on such river or stream, whichever is greater. The limits of shorelands may be reduced whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographic divides that extend landward from the waters for lesser distances and when approved by the commissioner. (C) The area included in the recreational land use districts for the Mississippi River as defined in Minnesota Regulations NR 2400-2420. SHRUB: A woody plant, smaller than a tree, consisting of several small stems emerging from the ground, or small branches near the ground. Shrubs may be deciduous or evergreen. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 390 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance SIDEWALK SALES & DISPLAY: Outdoor sale and display, conducted by the proprietor, of products normally sold inside a retail establishment. SIGN: Any letter, word or symbol, poster, picture, statuary, reading matter or representation in the nature of advertisement, announcement, message or visual communication, whether painted, posted, printed, affixed or constructed, including all associated brackets, braces, supports, wires and structures, which is displayed for informational or communicative purposes. SIGN FACE: The surface of the sign upon, against, or through which the message of the sign is exhibited. SIGN STRUCTURE: Any structure including the supports, uprights, bracing and framework which supports or is capable of supporting any sign. SIGN, ABANDONED: Any sign and/or its supporting sign structure which remains without a message or whose display surface remains blank for a period of one (1) year or more, or any sign which pertains to a time, event or purpose which no longer applies, shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Signs applicable to a business temporarily suspended because of a change in ownership or management of such business shall not be deemed abandoned unless the property remains vacant for a period of one (1) year or more. Any sign remaining after demolition of a principal structure shall be deemed to be abandoned. Where a sign has received a special permit or other City approval, such approval shall run with the principal use of the property, and such a sign shall be considered to be abandoned under this definition when it meets the conditions specified in this section, notwithstanding the prior special approval. SIGN, AREA IDENTIFICATION: A freestanding sign which identifies the name of a neighborhood, a residential subdivision, a multiple residential complex consisting of three (3) or more structures, a shopping center consisting of five (5) or more separate business concerns, an industrial area, an office complex consisting of three (3) or more structures, or any combination of the above located on contiguous property. SIGN, AWNING: A building sign or graphic printed on or in some fashion attached directly to the awning material. SIGN, AREA: A sign identifying a series of related parcels or uses, rather than a specific parcel or use. SIGN, BALLOON: A sign consisting of a bag made of lightweight material supported by helium, hot, or pressurized air which is greater than twenty-four (24) inches in diameter. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 391 Changeable Copy Sign Canopy Sign SIGN, BILLBOARD: See definition of Off Premises Sign. SIGN, BUILDING: Any sign attached or supported by any building. SIGN, CANOPY: Any sign that is part of or attached to a canopy, made of fabric, plastic, or structural protective cover over a door or entrance. A canopy sign is not a marquee and is different from service area canopy signs. SIGN, CHANGEABLE COPY: A sign or portion thereof that has a reader board for the display of text information in which each alphanumeric character, graphic or symbol is defined by objects not consisting of an illumination device and may be changed or rearranged manually or mechanically with characters, illustrations, letters or numbers that can be changed or rearranged without altering the face or surface of the sign structure. SIGN, CHANGEABLE COPY (ELECTRONIC): A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, non-pictorial text information in which each alphanumeric character, graphic, or symbol is defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations of light emitting diodes (LEDs), fiber optics, light bulbs or other illumination devices within the display area. Electronic changeable copy signs include computer programmable, microprocessor controlled electronic displays. Electronic changeable copy signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or objects. Electronic changeable copy signs do not include official signs. Electronic changeable copy signs may also be dynamic display signs if the definition of dynamic display sign is met. SIGN, DYNAMIC DISPLAY: Any characteristics of a sign that appear to have movement or that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign structure or any other component of the sign. This includes displays that incorporate technology or methods allowing the sign face to change the image without having to physically or mechanically replace the sign face or its components as well as any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking or animated display and any display that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, digital ink or any other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays. All dynamic displays are changeable copy signs, but not all changeable copy signs are dynamic displays. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 392 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Sign Height Monument Sign SIGN, ELECTRONIC GRAPHIC DISPLAY: A sign or portion thereof that displays electronic, static images, static graphics or static pictures, with or without text information, defined by a small number of matrix elements using different combinations of light emitting diodes (LEDs), fiber optics, light bulbs or other illumination devices within the display area where the message change sequence is accomplished immediately or by means of fade, repixalization or dissolve modes. Electronic graphic display signs include computer programmable, microprocessor controlled electronic or digital displays. Electronic graphic display signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or other objects. SIGN, FLASHING: A directly or indirectly illuminated sign or portion thereof that exhibits changing light or color effect by any means, so as to provide intermittent illumination that changes light intensity in sudden transitory bursts and creates the illusion of intermittent flashing light by streaming, graphic bursts showing movement, or any mode of lighting which resembles zooming, twinkling or sparkling. SIGN, FREESTANDING: Any sign which has supporting framework that is placed on, or anchored in, the ground and which is independent from any building or other structure. SIGN, HEIGHT OF: The height of the sign shall be computed as the vertical distance measured from the crown of the adjacent street surface at centerline to the top of the highest attached component of the sign. SIGN, IDENTIFICATION: Signs in all districts which identify the business or owner, or manager, or resident, and set forth the address of the premises where the sign is located and which contain no other material. SIGN, ILLUMINATED: Any sign which contains an element designed to emanate artificial light internally or externally. SIGN, MARQUEE: Any building sign painted, mounted, constructed or attached in any manner, on a marquee. SIGN, MONUMENT: Any freestanding sign with its sign face mounted on the ground or mounted on a base at least as wide as the sign and which has a total height not exceeding fourteen (14) feet. Marquee Sign CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 393 Pylon Signs Projecting Sign SIGN, MULTI-VISION: Any sign composed in whole or part of a series of vertical or horizontal slats or cylinders that are capable of being rotated at intervals so that partial rotation of the group of slats or cylinders produces a different image and when properly functioning allows on a single sign structure the display at any given time one (1) of two (2) or more images. SIGN, OFF PREMISES: A commercial speech sign which directs the attention of the public to a business, activity conducted, or product sold or offered at a location not on the same lot where such sign is located. For purposes of the Sign Ordinance, easements and other appurtenances shall be considered to be outside such lot and any sign located or proposed to be located in an easement or other appurtenance shall be considered an off premises sign. SIGN, OFFICIAL: Signs of a public noncommercial nature including public notification signs, safety signs, traffic signs, direction to public facilities when erected by or on behalf of a public official or employee in the performance of official duty – See also ―Public Sign‖. SIGN, POLE: See definition of Pylon Sign. SIGN, PORTABLE: Any sign which is manifestly designed to be transported, including by trailer or on its own wheels, even though the wheels of such sign may be removed and the remaining chassis or support is converted to another sign or attached temporarily or permanently to the ground since this characteristic is based on the design of such a sign. SIGN, PROJECTING: Any sign which is affixed to a building or wall in such a manner that its leading edge extends more than two (2) feet beyond the surface of such building or wall face. SIGN, PUBLIC: Any sign posted by a governmental agency of a public, non-commercial nature, to include signs indicating scenic or historical points of interest, memorial plaques, and the like, and signs for civic interest groups within the City of Monticello when signs are erected by or on order of a public officer or employee in the performance of official duty – See Also ―Official Sign‖. SIGN, PYLON: Any freestanding sign which has its supportive structure(s) anchored in the ground and which has a sign face elevated above ground level by pole(s) or beam(s) and with the area below the sign face open. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 394 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Sandwich Board Sign SIGN, ROOF: Any sign erected and constructed wholly on and above the roof of a building, supported by the roof structure, and extending vertically above the highest portion of the roof. SIGN, ROOF SIGN, INTEGRAL: Any building sign erected or constructed as an integral or essentially integral part of a normal roof structure of any design, so that no part of the sign extends vertically above the highest portion of the roof and so that no part of the sign is separated from the rest of the roof by a space of more than six (6) inches. SIGN, ROTATING SIGN: A sign or portion of a sign which turns about on an axis. SIGN, SANDWICH BOARD: A sign placed near the entrance of a business, usually on the public or private sidewalk, advertising particular aspects of the business goods or services. SIGN, SHIMMERING: A sign which reflects an oscillating sometimes distorted visual image. SIGN, SUSPENDED: Any building sign that is suspended from the underside of a horizontal plane surface and is connected to such surface. SIGN,TEMPORARY: Any sign which is erected or displayed for a specified period or time, including, but not limited to, banners, search lights, portable signs, streamers, pennants, inflatable devices. SIGN, TIME AND TEMPERATURE: A sign that displays only current time and temperature information. SIGN, VIDEO DISPLAY: A sign that changes its message or background in a manner or method of display characterized by motion or pictorial imagery, which may or may not include text and depicts action or a special effect to imitate movement, the presentation of pictorials or graphics displayed in a progression of frames that gives the illusion of motion, including, but not limited to, the illusion of moving objects, moving patterns or bands of light, or expanding or contracting shapes, not including electronic changeable copy signs. Video display signs include projected images or messages with these characteristics onto buildings or other objects. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 395 Window Signage SIGN, WALL: Any building sign attached parallel to, but within two (2) feet of a wall, painted on the wall surface of, or erected and confined within the limits of an outside wall of any building or structure, which is supported by such wall or building, and which displays only one (1) sign surface. SIGN, WINDOW: Any building sign, picture, symbol, or combination thereof, designed to communicate information about an activity, business, commodity, event, sale, or service, that is placed inside a window or upon the windowpanes or glass and is visible from the exterior of the window. SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC SITE: Any archaeological site, standing structure, or other property that meets the criteria for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places or is listed in the State Register of Historic Sites, or is determined to be an unplatted cemetery that falls under the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 307.08. A historic site meets these criteria if it is presently listed on either register or if it is determined to meet the qualifications for listing after review by the Minnesota state archaeologist or the director of the Minnesota Historical Society. All unplatted cemeteries are automatically considered to be significant historic sites. SPECIAL EVENT: An event which plans for or can reasonably expect to attract more than 100 persons at any one time such as cultural events, musical events, celebrations, festivals, fairs, carnivals, etc. SPEECH, COMMERCIAL: Speech advertising a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment. SPEECH, NON-COMMERCIAL: Dissemination of messages not classified as commercial speech which include, but are not limited to, messages concerning political, religious, social, ideological, public service and informational topics. SITE LANDSCAPING: Required vegetative material consisting of trees and shrubs that are placed on a development site to soften built edges and provide transitions. [See Section 4.1(H)] SHOPPING CENTER: An integrated grouping of commercial stores under single ownership or control. See also “RETAIL COMMERCIAL USES” SLOPE: Means the degree of deviation of surface from the horizontal, usually expressed in percent or degrees. SOLAR ENERGY: Radiant energy (direct, diffuse, and reflected) received from the sun. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 396 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM: A set of devices whose primary purpose is to collect solar energy and convert and store it for useful purposes including heating and cooling buildings or other energy-using processes, or to produce generated power by means of any combination of collecting, transferring, or converting solar-generated energy. SPECIALTY EATING ESTABLISHMENTS: Establishments selling specialty food items that normally do not constitute a full meal, including but not limited to: ice cream parlors, dessert cafes, snack shops, juice and coffee houses, and bakeries. STABILIZATION / STABILIZED: The exposed ground surface has been covered by appropriate materials such as mulch, staked sod, riprap, wood fiber blanket, or other material that prevents erosion from occurring. Grass seeding is not stabilization. STABLE: A building in which horses are sheltered; may be accessory to a residential or other use or a freestanding principal use. START OF CONSTRUCTION: The first land-disturbing activity associated with a development, including land preparation such as clearing, grading, excavation and filling; STEEP SLOPE: Land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site’s soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over 12 percent, as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, which are not bluffs. STORM WATER: Defined under Minn. R. 7077.0105, subp. 41(b), and includes precipitation runoff, storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and any other surface runoff and drainage. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM (SWPPP): A program for managing and reducing storm water discharge that includes erosion prevention measures and sediment controls that, when implemented, will decrease soil erosion on a parcel of land and decrease off-site nonpoint pollution. STORY: [see section 8.2(B)(5)] STREET FRONTAGE: [see section 8.2(B)(1)(f)] CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 397 Tarp Garage STRUCTURE: Anything constructed, installed, or portable, the use of which requires a location on a parcel of land. This includes a fixed or movable building which can be used for residential, business, commercial, or office purposes, either temporarily or permanently. "Structure" also includes, but is not limited to, swimming pools, tennis courts, signs, sheds, docks, and similar accessory construction. STRUCTURE, PUBLIC: A building or edifice of any kind which is owned or rented, and operated by a federal, state, or local government agency. SUBDIVISION: Any real estate, wherever located, improved or unimproved, which is divided or proposed to be divided for the purpose of sale or lease, including sales or leases of any timeshare interest, unit in a common interest community, or similar interest in real estate. SURFACE WATER OR WATERS: All streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, wetlands, reservoirs, springs, rivers, drainage systems, waterways, watercourses, and irrigation systems whether natural or artificial, public or private. SURFACE WATER-ORIENTED COMMERCIAL USE: the use of land for commercial purposes, where access to and use of a surface water feature is an integral part of the normal conductance of business. Marinas, resorts, and restaurants with transient docking facilities are examples of such use. SWIMMING POOL: A structure, whether above or below grade level, designed to hold water more than 24 inches deep to be used for recreational purposes TARP GARAGE: A portable or permanently anchored structure defined mainly by a steel or PVC frame over which a cover made from plastic, tarp, or other similar type fabrics or materials is placed. TATTOO, TATTOOING: Any method of placing designs, letters, scrolls, figures, symbols or any other mark upon, under or in the skin with ink or any other substance resulting in the coloration of the skin by the aid of needles or any other instruments which puncture any portion of the skin to any degree. TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER: Any structure that is designed and constructed primarily for the purpose of supporting one or more antennas. TEMPORARY MOBILE CELL SITE: Any mobile tower, pole, or structure located on a trailer, vehicle, or temporary platform intended primarily for the purpose of mounting an antenna or similar apparatus for personal wireless services, also commonly referred to as cellular on wheels (COW). CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 398 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance TOP OF BLUFF: The higher point of a 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. TOTAL SITE SIGNAGE: The maximum permitted combined area of all signs allowed on a specific lot. TOWNHOUSES: Structures housing three (3) or more dwelling units of not more than two (2) stories each and contiguous to each other only by the sharing of one (1) common wall, such structures to be of the town or row house type as contrasted to multiple family dwellings or apartments/condominiums. No single structure shall contain in excess of eight (8) dwelling units, and each dwelling unit shall have separate and individual front and rear entrance. TRASH HANDLING AND RECYLCING COLLECTION AREA: Areas designated for the accumulation, storage and pick-up of refuse and recyclable material associated with multi- family home sites, civic and institutional uses, office uses, commercial uses, and industrial uses. This definition does not include trash and recycling containers associated with single family dwellings, or townhome units which do not utilize a communal location for trash and recycling. TREE, CANOPY: A tree that has an expected height at maturity of 30 feet or more. TREE, ORNAMENTAL: A small tree that has high visual impact typically grown for the beauty of its foliage and flowers rather than its functional reasons. TREE, SPECIMEN: Any canopy tree with a DBH of 36 inches or more and any understory or ornamental tree with a DBH of 10 inches or more that is not exempted as a specimen tree by this ordinance. TREE, UNDERSTORY: A tree that has an expected height at maturity of no greater than 30 feet. TREE SAVE AREA: The area around a specimen tree that extends one linear foot around the tree’s dripline. TRASH HANDLING AND RECYCLING COLLECTION AREA: Areas containing large dumpsters or compactors used to temporarily store trash and recycling materials prior to a regularly scheduled pick up. Such facilities are typically associated with multi-family buildings of more than four units, commercial operations and industrial sites. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 399 TRUCK OR FREIGHT TERMINAL: A use where buses, trucks, and cargo are stored, where loading and unloading is carried on regularly, and where minor maintenance of these types of vehicles is performed. UNDERSTORY TREE: A tree that has an expected height at maturity of no greater than 30 feet. UPLAND: Means all lands at an elevation above the ordinary high water mark. USE: The purpose or activity for which the land or building thereon is designated, arranged, or intended, or for which it is occupied, utilized, or maintained, and shall include the performance of such activity as defined by the performance standards of this ordinance. UTILITIES – MAJOR: Major utilities shall include the following: (A) Public infrastructure services providing regional or community-wide service that entail the construction of new buildings or structures such as waste treatment plants, potable water treatment plants, solid waste facilities, and electrical substations; (B) Commercial wind energy conversion systems (public or private). VARIANCE: The waving by board action of the literal provisions of the zoning ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of physical circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. VEGETATION: Means the sum total of plant life in some area, or a plant community with distinguishable characteristics. VEGETATION, NATIVE: Any indigenous tree, shrub, ground cover or other plant adapted to the soil, climatic, and hydrographic conditions occurring on the site. VEHICLE, EMERGENCY: For the purpose of evaluating vehicles which may be parked in residential areas, the term emergency vehicle shall include ambulances, police and sheriff’s department vehicles, fire protection vehicles, emergency towing vehicles, and other law enforcement vehicles. VEHICLE, PASSENGER: A vehicle capable of moving under its own power which is licensed and operable for use on public roadways, and shall include the following vehicles: Passenger automobiles, pick-up trucks and sport-utility vehicles of less than 9,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, pick-up trucks and sport-utility vehicles of between 9,000 pounds and 13,000 pounds with no visible commercial messages, commuter vans of a capacity up to 16 persons, and motorcycles. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 400 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance VEHICLE, RECREATIONAL: (A) A vehicle that is used primarily for recreational or vacation purposes, and which is licensed and operable for use on public roadways, whether self-propelled, carried on, or towed behind a self-propelled vehicle. (B) Operable recreational equipment that is not licensed for used on the public roadway, but used off-road, such as all-terrain vehicles, boats, off-road motorcycles, race vehicles, snowmobiles, or similar equipment. Such equipment shall be properly licensed if the State of Minnesota provides for such licensing. (C) Licensed, operable trailers which may be used to tow recreational equipment, whether such trailers are loaded or unloaded, including utility trailers. Where a trailer is loaded with recreational equipment, such trailer and equipment shall be considered to be one (1) piece of equipment for the purposes of this section. VEHICLE, LARGE COMMERCIAL: A vehicle used for commercial purposes which is a semi-tractor and/or semi-trailer, dump truck, or any other commercial vehicle that does not qualify under the definition of a ―Small Commercial Vehicle‖. VEHICLE, SMALL COMMERCIAL: A vehicle used primarily for commercial purposes, including pick-up trucks and sport-utility vehicles larger than 9,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, but less than 13,000 pounds gross vehicle weight which display a commercial business message, and all other commercial vans or trucks, regardless of commercial message which are no greater than any of the following dimensions: 22 feet in length, 8 feet in height, and 8.5 feet in width. VEHICLE FUEL SALES: Buildings and premises where gasoline, oils and greases, batteries, tires and automobile accessories may be supplied and dispensed at retail (or in connection with a private operation where the general public is excluded from use of facilities), and where in addition, the following services may be rendered and sales made, and no other:  ―Automotive Repair – minor‖ as defined by this ordinance  Sales of cold drinks, packaged foods, tobacco, and similar convenience goods for filling station customers, as accessory and incidental to principal operation;  Provision of road maps and other informational material to customers; and  Provision of restroom facilities. Uses permissible at a vehicle fuel sales establishment do not include ―Automobile Repair – major‖ as defined by this ordinance, major mechanical and body work, straightening of body parts, painting, welding, storage of automobiles not in operating condition, or other work involving noise, glare, fumes, smoke or other characteristics to an extent greater than normally found in filling stations. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 401 VEHICLE SALES OR RENTAL: Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of new and used—in operating condition—automobiles, noncommercial trucks, motor homes, recreational vehicles or farm machinery; including incidental storage, maintenance, and servicing. VEHICLE STORAGE: The act of keeping a recreational or commercial vehicle as defined herein on a parcel in an eligible storage location for an extended period of time without regular use, and with proper surfacing or maintenance of the groundcover as required. VEHICULAR USE AREA LANDSCAPING, INTERIOR: Vegetative material, structures (walls or fences), berms, and associated ground cover located within the interior of a parking lot, or other vehicular use area for the purposes of providing visual relief and heat abatement. [See Section 4.1(F)] VEHICULAR USE AREA LANDSCAPING, PERIMETER: Vegetative material, structures (walls or fences), berms, and associated ground cover located around the perimeter of a parking lot, or other vehicular use area when such areas are adjacent to a street right-of-way or land in a residential district or residentially developed lands, used property for the purposes of screening the vehicular use area from off-site views. [See Section 4.1(F)] VETERINARY FACILITIES – RURAL: An establishment for licensed practitioners engaged in practicing veterinary medicine, dentistry, or surgery for all animals. VETERINARY FACILITIES – NEIGHBORHOOD: An establishment for licensed practitioners engaged in practicing veterinary medicine, dentistry, or surgery for small household pets only. VISIBLE: Capable of being seen by a person of normal visual acuity (whether legible or not) without visual aid. WALL: Any structure which defines the exterior boundaries or courts of a building or structure and which has a slope of sixty (60) degrees or greater with the horizontal plane. WASTE DISPOSAL & INCINERATION: A use which focuses on the disposal by abandonment, dumping, burial, burning, or other means and for whatever purpose, of garbage, sewage, trash, refuse, junk, discarded machinery, vehicles or parts thereof, or nontoxic waste material of any kind. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 402 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance WATER BODY: Means a body of water (lake, pond) in a depression of land or expanded part of a river, or an enclosed basin that holds water and surrounded by land. WATER-ORIENTED ACCESORY STRUCTURE OR FACILITY: a small, above ground building or other improvement, except stairways, fences, docks, and retaining walls, which, because of the relationship of its use to a surface water feature, reasonably needs to be located closer to public waters than the normal structure setback. Examples of such structures and facilities include boathouses, gazebos, screen houses, fish houses, pump houses, and detached decks. WATERCOURSE: Means a channel or depression through which water flows such as rivers, streams, or creeks and may flow year-round or intermittently. WATERSHED: The area drained by the natural and artificial drainage system bounded peripherally by a bridge or stretch of high land dividing drainage areas. WATERWAY: A channel that directs surface runoff to a watercourse or to the public storm drain. WAYSIDE STAND: A temporary structure or vehicle used for the seasonal retail sale of agricultural goods produced by the operator of the wayside stand; the stand being clearly a secondary use of the premises which does not change the character thereof. WETLANDS: (A) Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this ordinance, wetlands must: (1) Have a predominance of hydric soils; (2) Be inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions; and (3) Under normal circumstances, support a prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation. (B) "A wetland" or "the wetland" means a distinct hydrologic feature with characteristics of item A, surrounded by non-wetland and including all contiguous wetland types, except those connected solely by riverine wetlands. "Wetland area" means a portion of a wetland or the wetland. (C) Wetlands does not include public waters wetlands and public waters unless reclassified as wetlands by the commissioner under Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.201. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 403 (D) The wetland size is the area within its boundary. The boundary must be determined according to the United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (January 1987). The wetland type must be determined according to Wetlands of the United States, (1971 edition). Both documents are incorporated by reference under part 8420.0112, items A and B. The local government unit may seek the advice of the technical evaluation panel as to the wetland size and type. WETLANDS, EXCEPTIONAL QUALITY: Exceptional quality wetlands contain an abundance of different plant species with dominance evenly spread among several species. Such wetlands may support some rare or unusual plant species. Invasive or exotic plant species are either absent or limited to small areas where some disturbance has occurred. This higher level of plant species variety generally provides high wildlife habitat value and may also support rare wildlife species. The shorelines of exceptional quality wetlands are natural and unaffected by erosion. These wetlands exhibit n o evidence of significant man induced water level fluctuation. Exceptional quality wetlands provide excellent water quality protection, high aesthetic quality, and provide excellent opportunities for educational and scientific activities within the community. WETLANDS, HIGH QUALITY: High quality wetlands are still generally in their natural state and tend to show less evidence of adverse effects of surrounding land uses. Exotic and invasive plant species may be present and species dominance may not be eve nly distributed among several species, however, a minimum of twenty (20) different species can be found within the basin. There tends to be little evidence of water level fluctuation due to storms and their shorelines are stable with little evidence of ero sion. The combination of these factors result in these wetlands being judged as providing a greater level of water quality protection and significantly better wildlife habitat. They show little if any evidence of human influences and their greater levels of species variety, wildlife habitat and ecological stability results in higher aesthetic quality. These characteristics also offer opportunities for educational or scientific value to the community. WETLANDS, LOW QUALITY: Wetlands included in this catego ry have been substantially altered by agricultural or urban development that caused over nutrification, soil erosion, sedimentation and water quality degradation. As a result of these factors, these wetlands exhibit low levels of plant species and a relate d reduction in the quality of wildlife habitat. These wetlands may also tend to exhibit extreme water level fluctuations in response to storms and show evidence of shoreline erosion. While these wetlands do provide for water quality and serve an important role in protecting water quality downstream, the combination of these characteristics cause these wetlands to provide low levels of water quality protection and to have poor aesthetic quality. They often exhibit evidence of significant human influences and they are deemed to be of little educational or scientific value to the community. CHAPTER 8: RULES & DEFINITIONS Section 8.4 Definitions Subsection (B) Lots Page 404 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance WETLANDS, MEDIUM QUALITY: Medium quality wetlands have a slightly higher number of plant species present than low quality wetlands, often with small pockets of indigenous species within larger areas dominated by invasive or exotic species. Their relatively greater species variety results in slightly better wildlife habitat. They exhibit evidence of relatively less fluctuation in water level in response to storms and less evidence of shoreline erosion. As a result of these characteristics, these wetlands provide somewhat better water quality protection. They also exhibit relatively less evidence of human influences and therefore, tend to be of a higher aesthetic quality. These wetlands are still judged to be of limited educational or scientific value to the community. WETLAND BUFFER: An area of non-disturbed ground cover abutting a wetland left undisturbed to filter sediment, materials, and chemicals. WHOLESALE SALES: Establishments or places of business primarily engaged in selling merchandise to retailers; to industrial, commercial, institutional, or professional business users; or to other wholesalers. Wholesale establishment does not include contractor’s materials or office or retail sales of business supplies/office equipment. WILDLIFE: All free living animals. WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM (WECS): A wind-driven machine that converts wind energy into electrical power for the primary purpose of resale or off-site use WRECKER SERVICE: An establishment operated for the purpose of temporary storage on- site of no more than nine wrecked or inoperable vehicles for a period no longer than 90 days. If an establishment has 10 or more inoperable vehicles located on-site, stores inoperable vehicles for more than 90 days, stacks vehicles top to bottom, or portions of the vehicles are dismantled or removed for sale, it shall be considered a junkyard. YARD [see Section 8.2(B)(3)(a)]  YARD Related Definitions (e.g. front yard, corner yard, side yard, etc): [see section 8.2(B)(3)(a)(vii)] Cou nty Hwy 75 Chelsea Rd State Hwy 25 85th St NE 9 0 t h S t N E Linn St Pine St 7th St Sc h o o l B l v d Riverview Dr Cedar St W River St M a r v i n R d Jason Ave Dundas Rd W Broadway St Hart Blvd Country La Haug Ave NE Elm St W 4th St Fenning Ave NE Oakwook Dr Mall a rd La 95th St NE Fallon Ave NE Edmonson Ave NE Mississippi Dr 5th St C o u ntry C lu b R d Sandberg Rd P e l i c a n L a Fa lc o n D r Fenning Ave Walnut St Oak Ridge Dr Oriole La Club View Rd Broad way St Hillcrest Rd E River St Headman La M i l l Tr a i l L a Falcon Ave NE Wright St Benton St Elwood Rd Ramsey St 6th St River Mill Dr Wildwood Way Hilltop Dr Mi l l R u n R d Oak View La Farmstead Ave Ma r t i n D r 4th St E3rd St E Red Rock La Gillard Ave NE Maple St Fallon Dr Willow St View La E Grey Stone Ave Marvin Elwood Rd Fieldcrest Cir Fairway Dr Jason Ave NE Vine St Meadow La Jerry Liefert Dr Praire Rd Starling Dr Palm St Unknown or No Streetname Fallon Ave Golf Course Rd Falcon Ave Ke v i n L o n g l e y D r Craig La R e d O a k L a Front St 5th St W Thomas Park Dr Locust St M o c k i n g b i r d L a W 3rd St Eastwood Cir Briar Oaks Blvd F a r m s t e a d D r Henipin St E i d e r L a Dayton St Oak La River Forest Dr Meadow Oak Ave Kampa Cir O a k R i d g e C i r M i l l Ct River Ridge La Garrison AveOakview Ct Dundas Cir Kenneth La Otter Creek Rd Minnesota St Eagle Cir Crocus La M eado w O ak La Stone Ridge Dr Chestnut St 1 2 0 t h S t N E D arro w Ave N E Diamond Dr Pebble Brook Dr Widgeon La Washington St Bunker Cir H o m estead D r Thomas Cir E n d i c o t t T r Center Cir Oak View Cir Sandtrap Cir Country Cir Cheyen Ct O ld T e rrit o ral R d Tanager Cir Hillcrest Cir Osprey Ct A corn Cir Balboul Cir S w a ll o w C i r R i v e r s i d e C i r Meadow Oak Ct Matthew Cir E Oak Dr S t o n e R i d g e C i r Oakwood Dr Meadow Oak Ave NECounty H w y 75 Hart Blvd Marvin Rd Marvin Rd Wright St 90th St NE Cedar St Minnesota St $J U Z  P G  . P O U J D F M M P 0G G J D J B M  ; P O J O H  . B Q  .J T T J T T J Q Q J  8 J M E  4 D F O J D    3 F D  0 W F S M B Z  % J T U S J D U 07 & 3 - " :  % * 4 5 3 * $ 5 4 1F S G P S N B O D F  # B T F E  0 W F S M B Z  % J T U S J D U !!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! 4I P S F M B O E  % J T U S J D U 05 ) & 3 8B U F S -F H F O E " 0 3 " 3  5 / 3  3 1 6 % 3  . ) BA S E Z O N I N G D I S T R I C T S Re s i d e n t i a l D i s t r i c t s -- L o w R e s i d e n t i a l D e n s i t i e s -- M e d i u m R e s i d e n t i a l D e n s i t i e s -- H i g h R e s i d e n t i a l D e n s i t i e s #  #  #  #  $$ % *# $ *  *  Bu s i n e s s D i s t r i c t s In d u s t r i a l D i s t r i c t s 4Q F D J B M  6 T F  0 W F S M B Z  % J T U S J D U !!! !! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ORDINANCE NO. 539 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 – MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE RELATED TO SECTION 3.5 – BUSINESS BASE ZONING DISTRICTS AND TABLE 5.1 – USES BY DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO HEREBY ORDAINS: Section 1. Section 3.5(E) – B-3 (Highway Business), Title 10 - Zoning Ordinance Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: Delete the purpose statement and replace with the following: The purpose of the B-3 (highway business) district is to provide for limited commercial and service activities and provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. Section 2. Table 5.1 – Uses by District, Title 10 – Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended as follows: Table 5-1 shall be amended with the following additions for the B-3 zone: Permitted: under “Commercial Uses”  Business Support Services (such as copy services, parcel services)  Personal Services (such as salons and nail spas)  Restaurants  Retail Commercial  Specialty Eating Establishments (delis, coffee shops) Conditional: under “Office Uses”  Offices Conditional: under “Commercial Uses”  Financial Institutions  Entertainment/Recreation Outdoor Commercial (such as go-kart tracks, mini- golf) TABLE 5-1: USES BY DISTRICT Use Types “P” = Permitted “C” = Conditionally Permitted “I” = Interim Permitted Base Zoning Districts Additional Requireme nts A O R A R1 R 2 T N R3 M H B 1 B 2 B3 B4 CC D IB C I 1 I 2 Office Uses Offices P P C P P P P P 5.2(E) ORDINANCE NO. 539 Commercial Uses Adult Uses P P 3.7(J) Auction House C 5.2(F)(2) Auto Repair – Minor C C C P P 5.2(F)(3) Automotive Wash Facilities P C C 5.2(F)(4) Bed & Breakfasts C C C C C 5.2(F)(5) Boarding House C 5.2(F)(6) Business Support Services P P P P P P none Communications/Broad casting P P P P 5.2(F)(7) Convenience Stores C P P P 5.2(F)(8) Country Club C 5.2(F)(9) Day Care Centers C C P P P C 5.2(F)(10) Entertainment/Recreati on, Indoor Commercial P P C C 5.2(F)(11) Entertainment/Recreati on, Outdoor Commercial C C C C C 5.2(F)(12) Financial Institution P C P P 5.2(F)(13) Funeral Homes P P P 5.2(F)(14) Hotels or Motels C P C P 5.2(F)(15) Kennels (commercial) C 5.2(F)(16) Landscaping / Nursery Business P 5.2(F)(17) Personal Services C P P P P 5.2(F)(18) Recreational Vehicle Camp Site C 5.2(F)(19) Repair Establishment C P P P P P 5.2(F)(20) Restaurants C P P P C 5.2(F)(21) Retail Commercial Uses (other) P P P P 5.2(F)(22) Specialty Eating Establishments C P P P P 5.2(F)(23) Vehicle Fuel Sales C C C C 5.2(F)(24) Vehicle Sales and Rental C C 5.2(F)(25) Veterinary Facilities (Rural) C 5.2(F)(26) Veterinary Facilities (Neighborhood) C C C C 5.2(F)(26) Wholesale Sales P P P none ORDINANCE NO. 539 Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. Revisions will be made online after adoption by Council. Copies of the complete Zoning Ordinance are available online and at Monticello City Hall. ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 12th day of December, 2011. CITY OF MONTICELLO ____________________________ Clint Herbst, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Jeff O’Neill, City Administrator VOTING IN FAVOR: VOTING IN OPPOSITION: Planning Commission Agenda: 12/06/11 1 11. Community Development Director’s Report. (AS) Bertram Chain of Lakes The third phase acquisition closing is scheduled to occur on December 19th. The City Council and County Board approved the Third Addendum to the MOU, the Shared Use Agreement (which includes public boat launch access at Bertram Lake) and the Purchase Agreement the week of November 28th. The YMCA team has also been asked to develop a plan illustrating a potential layout and site use if the base YMCA day camp facilities were to be located on the north side of Bertram Lake. City and County staff, the Chair of the Bertram Chain of Lakes Advisory Council and reps from the YMCA met on site at Bertram to discuss north side relocation opportunities on December 1st. A concept plan for north side relocation will be brought forward to the Bertram Lakes Advisory Board in December. The plan will help the Advisory Council and negotiations team better define future shared use agreements. Development Cost Study At the last Planning Commission meeting, staff was asked to provide a copy of the recently prepared Development Cost Study. The City of Monticello participated this study, which was completed over the summer by the City of Ramsey. The study asked communities to provide information on development costs for various residential and industrial project scenarios. A final draft of the study is attached. Similar to an earlier study of Monticello’s building permit costs compared to surrounding communities, Council will note that Monticello is often near the bottom in terms of development costs when compared to other communities. Please contact me with any questions on the report. Consultant Appointment/Fees - Planning Every two years, the Council has asked staff to request proposals and rate information from consultant firms. For 2012, staff has requested rate information from both NAC and MFRA, both firms that the City has worked with on recent planning cases and projects. NAC rates remain flat for 2011 at $118 (City) /$142 (Private) per hour for the Principal Planner per hour and MFRA’s rates are set at $110 per hour. Consistent with practice for 2011, staff would like the flexibility to utilize both NAC and MFRA on an ad-hoc basis. This will allow planning staff the ability to work with both firms depending on workload, type of project, etc. *Staff will be requesting that the Commission provide direction in regard to making a formal recommendation regarding official appointment of City Planner as an add-on item to the regular December agenda. 2011 Development Costs Study APPENDIX Appendix A: Survey Breakdown Appendix B: Individual Questions/Answers Appendix 1 | Page Table 1 Municipalities 1.Blaine 2.Coon Rapids 3.Dayton 4.Medina 5.Elk River 6.Cambridge 7.Big Lake 8.St. Francis 9.Prior Lake 10.Monticello 11.Ramsey Section B: Development Fees Included sewer/water/storm water trunk fees, street light fees, future seal coating fees, park and trail dedication fees, storm water management fees etc. Section A: Project Specs Listed several project specifications (see next page). Section C: Other Development Fees Included topsoil, grass/sod, trees, shrubs, radon barrier, foundation drainage, etc. Section B: Building Permit Fees Includes several common building permit fees. Scenario: Development Each Development Scenario was listed at the top of each page including: Single Family, Townhome, Apartments, Industrial and Other Fees/Charges. Appendix A: Survey Breakdown Format: 11 cities completed the development costs survey (See Table 1). In order to make costs “apples-to-apples” the survey examined four specific development scenarios rather than asking general questions. The survey included five separate sections; the first four being the four development scenarios: (1) Residential Development (2) Townhome Development (3) Apartment Building Development (4) Industrial Development (5) Other Charges/Fees. Each of the four development scenarios included a set of specifications in which cities based their responses. Every city assesses costs differently; therefore, it was important to include as much specification as possible. The fifth section, “Other Charges/Fees,” covered utilities, application fees and engineering and inspection fees. Below is a visual break down of the survey: Appendix 2 | Page Scenarios: Below are the specifications for each given scenario. Based on these specifications cities responded to the “Development Cost Survey.” Scenario 1: Single Family Residential Development • 120 single family units • $165,000 valuation per unit • 10,800 sq ft per lot • 2,700 sq ft total impervious surface per unit (25%) • 2,000 sq ft building foot print per unit (18.5%) • 700 sq ft driveway foot print per unit (6.5%) • 1,296,000 total sq ft for all lots (29.75 acre total project size) • Project area is 100% developable • 80 feet of frontage per lot • 15 street signs needed • 32 standard development street lights needed • 15,000 sq. yds. of new street within development (for future seal coating charge) Scenario 2: Townhome Development • 8 town home units • $130,000 valuation per unit • 1 acre of land total (43,560 sq ft) • 10,568 sq ft total structure • 2,800 sq ft of total driveway • 30% impervious surface coverage (13,068 sq ft) • 8 SAC units • Project area is 100% developable • 2 street signs needed • 5 street lights needed • 350 feet of frontage total • One 1-1/2”irrigation pipe (needs water meter) • One 1-1/2” water pipe per unit needed (separate meters for each unit) • 500 sq. yds. of new street within development (for future seal coating charge) Scenario 3: Apartment Development • 120 apartment units • $10,800,000 total valuation ($90,000 per unit) • 8.8 acre lot size (383,328 sq ft) • 134,164 sq ft parking/drive/sidewalk (35%) • 76,665 sq ft building (20%) • 55% total impervious surface (210,830 sq ft) • 120 SAC units • Project area is 100% developable • 2 street signs needed • 4 street lights needed • 600 feet of frontage • $400,000 Plumbing valuation • $600,000 Mechanical valuation • One 2” irrigation pipe needed (needs meter) • One 4” water pipe needed (needs meter) • 1,000 sq. yds. of new street within development (for future seal coating charge) Scenario 4: Industrial Development • $2,500,000 valuation • 4 acre lot (174,240 sq ft) • 40,000 sq ft building (23% of lot) • 46,250 sq ft parking lot/driveway (26.5%) • 86,250 sq ft total pervious surface (49.5% ) • $70,000 mechanical valuation • $50,000 plumbing valuation • Project area is 100% developable • 7 SAC units • 2 street signs needed • 2 street lights needed • 360 feet of frontage • One 1-1/2” water pipe needed (needs meter) • One 1-1/2” irrigation pipe needed (needs meter) • 44300 KWH • 164 KW Demand (new development) • 500 sq. yds. of new street within development (for future seal coating charge) Appendix 3 | Page Appendix B: Individual Questions/Answers Results for the development costs survey are broken down into five separate scenarios: Within each scenario are four sections of answers (Section B-D). Each individual answer for the development costs study occupies one page. On the page will be a both a graphic and verbal display of answers. The verbal display depicts the actual answer received. When reviewing the results of this survey please consider the following: • When cities rely on the developer to install (DI) needed public infrastructure; or, when a city assesses (ASSD) the cost of public infrastructure to future property owners those nominal costs are not reflected in this survey. The actual nominal cost of development (for a developer) would be greater than stated. • Leaving an answer space blank, writing “zero,” writing the word “nothing,” writing an answer that doesn’t apply and not having a fee/cost are all considered the same answer (zero/NA). • People interpret identical questions differently; and, people answer identical questions differently (i.e. including a partial answer or common answer rather than a factual answer). • Cities may have not fully completed the survey; or, did not add in their unique development costs in which the survey failed to address. • Categories of costs were left out: fire suppression costs, irrigation requirements and several other development costs were not included in the survey. Appendix 4 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section B: Sewer Trunk City: Section B: Sewer Trunk Blaine Varies by area. $3,194 - $5,193 per acre. (4,193 average-used in survey) Coon Rapids Based on actual cost of construction. Previously assessed $4000/acre. Dayton $1,770 per unit. Medina $2,075.00 per unit Elk River Area specific assessment (area wide assessments, based on amount of developable land-adjusted for inflation) Cambridge $2,240/acre =$66,640 Big Lake $4,950 per acre St. Francis $,5070 per acre Prior Lake $4,920 per acre Monticello $1,223/unit Ramsey $1,318 per unit = $158,160 $124,742 $119,000 $212,400 $249,000 $66,640 $147,263 $150,981 $146,370 $146,760 $158,160 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 Sewer Trunk Appendix 5 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section B: Water Trunk City: Section B: Water Trunk Blaine Developer installed. City will cover over sizing costs. Coon Rapids Assessed when WM available $3,500/acre Dayton $300 per unit Medina $6,575.00 per unit Elk River Area specific assessment (area wide assessments, based on amount of developable land- adjusted for inflation) Cambridge $2,314/acre =$68,842 Big Lake $1,530 per acre St. Francis $1,320 per acre Prior Lake $3,040 per acre Monticello $907/unit Ramsey $2,308 per unit = $276,960 $104,125 $36,000 $789,000 $68,842 $45,518 $39,270 $90,440 $108,840 $276,960 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 Water Trunk Appendix 6 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section B: Storm Water Trunk City: Section B: Storm Water Trunk Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Assessed based on actual construction. Deferral based on actual construction. Dayton $5,510 per acre Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake $0 per acre if contained on site St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake $3,750 per unit Monticello $3,245/acre* Ramsey NO ANSWER $163,923 $450,000 $96,539 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 Storm Water Trunk Appendix 7 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section B: Storm Water Management City: Section B: Storm Water Management Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Storm water utility $10.50 per quarter. Dayton NO ANSWER Medina N/A, annual utility fees exist Elk River 196 in urban lot, 98 in rural lot Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake $0 St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $465 per unit = $55,800 $23,520 $55,800 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Storm Water Management Appendix 8 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section B: Park Dedication (cash) City: Section B: Park Dedication (cash) Blaine $2,435 per unit. Coon Rapids $2,000 per unit = $240,000. Dayton $4,775 per unit Medina 8% pre-value, minimum $3500/unit Elk River 436680 Cambridge $1,600/residential unit =$192,000 Big Lake $2,500 per unit St. Francis $2,500 per unit Prior Lake $3,750 per unit Monticello $757/unit Ramsey $2,475 per unit = 297,000 $292,200 $240,000 $573,000 $420,000 $436,680 $192,000 $300,000 $300,000 $450,000 $90,840 $297,000 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 Park Dedication Appendix 9 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section B: Trail Fees City: Section B: Trail Fees Blaine NA. Part of Park Dedication Fee. Coon Rapids Only required if adjacent to arterial or collector street ($20/LF) Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River Developer responsibility per plan Cambridge none Big Lake Included with Park Dedication St. Francis Installed by developer Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $600 per unit = $72,000 $72,000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 Trail Fees Appendix 10 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section B: Street/Traffic Signs City: Section B: Street/Traffic Signs Blaine Developer installed. Coon Rapids Street name signs paid by developer $200/each Dayton Developer Installed Medina N/A, Developer purchase and install Elk River Developer responsibility Cambridge $1,010 Big Lake $0 St. Francis Installed by developer Prior Lake Developer Installed Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $225 per sign = $3,375 $3,000 $1,010 $3,375 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Street/Traffic Signs Appendix 11 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section B: Street/Traffic Signs City: Section B: Future Seal Coating Blaine Actual cost, no set fee. Coon Rapids NA—paid by the City Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River 24000 Cambridge $6,000 Big Lake $0 St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $1.45 per square yard = $21,750 $24,000 $6,000 $21,750 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Future Seal Coating Appendix 12 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section B: Street Lights City: Section B: Street Lights Blaine Developer installed. Coon Rapids Developer pays actual cost. Dayton Installed by developer Medina N/A, Developer purchase and install Elk River 1400 + tax per light Cambridge $3,200 Big Lake $0 St. Francis Installed by developer Prior Lake Installed by developer Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $1,700 per light = $54,400 (Street Light 3 yr O&M, $294 per light = $9,408) $44,800 $3,200 $54,400 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Street Lights Appendix 13 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section B: Other Fees/Charges City: Section B: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids 20% cash escrow to guarantee payment of assessments based on established assessment for public improvements. Dayton NO ANSWER Medina Full reimburse for review costs Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake 125% LOC for Public Improvements St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake Street Trunk Fee: $4,920 x 29.75 acres = $146,370 Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey NO ANSWER City: Section B: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake Lot Corner/Iron Monuments=$500 per lot. Administration Escrow=$25,000 St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey NO ANSWER Appendix 14 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section C: Topsoil City: Section C: Top Soil Blaine Yes, 4” not more than 35% sand. Coon Rapids Yes, 4” no specification (all developments) Dayton Yes: 6” MN DOT Premium Medina No. Elk River Yes: 4” (black dirt, no specification) Cambridge 3 inches topsoil (all developments, no specification) Big Lake Yes: 4" topsoil (black dirt with no greater than 35% sand) St. Francis Yes: 3 inches (black dirt, no specification) Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello No. Ramsey Yes: 6" MNDOT premium 4 4 6 0 4 3 4 3 0 0 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Topsoil Appendix 15 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section C: Grass/Sod City: Section C: Grass/Sod Blaine Yes: full yard sod. Coon Rapids Yes: boulevard Dayton Yes: established cover Medina Yes: Whole Lot, sod (unless a water conserving seed mix is used) Elk River Yes. Established (not sod or seeding specification) Cambridge Yes: sod required or grass allowed if professionally hydro seeded and with sprinklers Big Lake Yes: Sod is required for SF lots; $2,000 escrow paid at time of building permit; $1,900 returned upon inspection St. Francis Yes: sod or seeding/sprinklers Prior Lake Yes: sod all front and side yards, seed back Monticello No. Ramsey Yes: boulevard, "established" cover elsewhere 10 1 Grass/Sod Yes No Appendix 16 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section C: Trees City: Section C: Trees Blaine Yes: 1 on boulevard, 1 in yard (2.5 inch caliper). Coon Rapids Yes: 1 street tree per lot Dayton Yes: 6” total diameter, minimum of 1.5” per tree Medina Yes: 2 per unit, 2” minimum Elk River Yes: two trees Cambridge Yes: two over-story deciduous per dwelling unit Big Lake Yes: 2 trees per SF lot to be located in front yard; included with $2,000 escrow St. Francis Yes: 2 shade trees Prior Lake Yes: 2 trees in each residential front yard (four for corner) Monticello Yes: 2 Trees required (four on corner lots). $200 escrow per tree. Ramsey Yes: 2 per home, 1" diameter minimum Appendix 17 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section C: Shrubs City: Section C: Shrubs Blaine No. Coon Rapids No. Dayton No. Medina No. Elk River No. Cambridge No. Big Lake Yes/No: Up to 50% of required trees can be substituted with shrubs; 3 shrubs=1 tree St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake No. Monticello No. Ramsey No. Appendix 18 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section C: Radon Barrier City: Section C: Radon Barrier Blaine No. Coon Rapids No. Dayton Yes: 4” of rock or radon mat. Medina No. Elk River Yes: Per Building Code Cambridge Yes: See MN Residential Energy Code Chapter 1322 Appendix F Big Lake Yes: 4" of rock St. Francis No. Prior Lake Yes: 8 inches Monticello No. Ramsey Yes: 4" of rock or radon mat 6 5 Radon Barrier Yes: No Appendix 19 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section C: Foundation Drainage City: Section C: Foundation Drainage Blaine No. Coon Rapids No. Dayton No. Medina Yes: Per Code Elk River Yes: Per Building Code Cambridge Yes: As required by IRC Section 405 Big Lake Yes: Tile to daylight or sump pump St. Francis No. Prior Lake Yes: coverage with geotech fabric material Monticello No. Ramsey No. 5 6 Foundation Drainage Yes No Appendix 20 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section C: Other Requirements City: Section C: Other Requirements Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton NO ANSWER Medina Lawn Irrigation cannot use municipal water; Irrigate out of storm water ponds Elk River Buffer requirements may apply, based on adjacent uses Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake Tree Preservation Plan required with Preliminary Plat-Protect a minimum of 40% of significant trees St. Francis Erosion Control (built into escrow) Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey NO ANSWER Appendix 21 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section D: Certificate of Occupancy City: Section D: Certificate of Occupancy Blaine $10 per unit Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge included in permit fee Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis Part of Permit Fee Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $4 per unit = $480 $1,200 $480 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Certificate of Occupancy Appendix 22 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section D: Builder License Verification City: Section D: Builder License Verification Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton $10 look up charge (assuming per unit) Medina NO ANSWER Elk River 5 (assuming per unit) Cambridge $5.00 per permit Big Lake 5 (assuming per unit) St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello 25 Ramsey $5 per unit = $600 $1,250 $600 $600 $600 $25 $600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Builder License Verification Appendix 23 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section D: Base Building Permit Fee City: Section D: Base Building Permit Fee Blaine $1,335 per unit Coon Rapids $1,369 per unit Dayton $2,390 per unit (includes internal plan review fee) Medina $1,212 per unit Elk River 1357.75 Cambridge $1,357.75 Big Lake 1,357.75 St. Francis $1,357.75 Prior Lake $1,443.50 Monticello $1,172.18 per unit Ramsey 03LMC Base, $1,446.75 per unit = $173,610 $160,200 $164,280 $286,800 $145,440 $162,930 $162,930 $162,930 $162,930 $173,220 $140,662 $173,610 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 Base Building Permit Fee Appendix 24 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section D: Internal Plan Review Fee City: Section D: Internal Plan Review Fee Blaine $260 per unit Coon Rapids $885.85 per unit Dayton “Part of Building Permit Fee” Medina $788 per unit Elk River 882.54 Cambridge $882.54 Big Lake 882.54 St. Francis 882.54 Prior Lake $938.28 Monticello $761.92 per unit Ramsey .65 of 03LMC, $940.39 per unit = $112,846.80 $27,600 $106,302 $94,560 $105,905 $105,905 $105,905 $105,905 $112,594 $91,430 $112,847 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 Internal Plan Review Fee Appendix 25 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section D: City Sewer Connection (Permit) City: Section D: City Sewer Connection (permit) Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $100 per unit Dayton $150 each Medina $100 per unit Elk River 65 +2000 bond (includes water connection permit) Cambridge $50.00 Big Lake 35 St. Francis $50 Prior Lake $25.50 Monticello $127.00 (for both: water & sewer) per unit (split for survey) Ramsey $75 per unit = $9,000 $12,000 $18,000 $12,000 $7,800 $6,000 $4,200 $6,000 $3,060 $7,620 $9,000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 City Sewer Connection (Permit) Appendix 26 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section D: City Water Connection (Permit) City: Section D: City Water Connection (permit) Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $100 per unit Dayton $150 each Medina $100 per unit Elk River Water and sewer connection together Cambridge $50.00 Big Lake 35 St. Francis $50 Prior Lake $25.50 Monticello $127.00 (for both: water & sewer) per unit (split for survey) Ramsey $75 per unit = $9,000 $12,000 $18,000 $12,000 $7,800 $6,000 $4,200 $6,000 $3,060 $7,620 $9,000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 City Water Connection (Permit) Appendix 27 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section D: Water Availability Charge (WAC) City: Section D: Water Availability Charge (WAC) Blaine $1,536 per unit Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton $665-$2,060 each (depending on location--the city has four separate service sources) Medina NO ANSWER Elk River 360,000 Cambridge $201 per REU Big Lake 3,250.00 St. Francis $4,200 per unit Prior Lake $900 Monticello $801.00 per unit Ramsey $1,701 per unit $184,320 $360,000 $24,120 $390,000 $504,000 $108,000 $96,120 $204,120 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 Water Availability Charge (WAC) Appendix 28 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section D: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) City: Section D: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Blaine $2,230 per unit Coon Rapids $2,230 per unit Dayton $2,675 each Medina $2,230 per unit (met council) Elk River 504,120 Cambridge $2,273 per REU Big Lake 4,855.00 St. Francis $3,000 per unit Prior Lake $600 Monticello $4,030.00 per unit Ramsey (METCOUNC) $2,230 per unit = $267,600 $267,600 $267,600 $321,000 $267,600 $504,120 $272,760 $582,600 $360,000 $72,000 $483,600 $267,600 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Appendix 29 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section D: SAC Handling Fee City: Section D: SAC Handling Fee Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $50 per unit Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $200 per unit = $24,000 $6,000 $24,000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 SAC Handling Fee Appendix 30 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section D: Water Meter/Horn City: Section D: Water Meter/Horn Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $300 per unit Dayton $301.79 each Medina $420 per unit Elk River 255.6 Cambridge typical sprinkled house $475 Big Lake 280 St. Francis $1,500 Prior Lake 5/8” meter--$610 Monticello $370.00 + tax per unit Ramsey $433.9 per unit = $52,068 $36,000 $36,215 $50,400 $30,672 $57,000 $33,600 $180,000 $73,200 $44,400 $52,068 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 180000 200000 Water Meter/Horn Appendix 31 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section D: Mechanical Permit City: Section D: Mechanical Permit Blaine $150 per unit Coon Rapids $194.58 per unit Dayton $200 each Medina $50 per piece of equipment (typically 4) Elk River 1.5% of mechanical value Cambridge $71 per dwelling Big Lake 55 St. Francis $50 Prior Lake $149.50 Monticello $45.00 + $9.00/fixture (assuming 27 fixtures per home) Ramsey $150 per unit = $18,000 $18,000 $23,350 $24,000 $24,000 $8,520 $6,600 $6,000 $17,940 $34,560 $18,000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 Mechanical Permit Appendix 32 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section D: Plumbing Permit City: Section D: Plumbing Permit Blaine $200 per unit Coon Rapids $139.50 per unit Dayton $200 each Medina $10 per plumbing fixture (assumed 22 per unit, 2640 total) Elk River 1.5% of plumbing value Cambridge $150 per dwelling Big Lake 85 St. Francis $50 minimum (per unit) Prior Lake $149.50 Monticello $45.00 + $9.00/fixture Ramsey $200 per unit = $24,000 $24,000 $16,740 $24,000 $26,400 $18,000 $10,200 $6,000 $17,940 $10,200 $24,000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Plumbing Permit Appendix 33 | Page Scenario 1: Single Family Home, Section D: Other Fees/Charges City: Section D: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Driveway $100 per unit. Dayton Landscape Escrow: $1,250 (per single family home, 1% of landscape cost for others) Medina Grading Escrow: $450 per unit Elk River Erosion 175 (per unit) Cambridge water treatment facility charge: $901 per REU ($108,120) Big Lake Landscape Escrow=$2,000; $1,900 refund St. Francis $75 fire place (per unit as needed) Prior Lake Water Tower Fee -- $1000 per unit for new residential Monticello Assessment search@ $25.00 Ramsey $100 erosion control escrow fee (non-returnable) City: Section D: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Electric Permit $132.50 per unit Dayton Curb Cut/Driveway $35 (per unit, or single charge per other development) Medina Driveway = $100 per unit Elk River State surcharge 82.50 Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake 3/4” Pressure Reducer $90, per unit charge (per unit) Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey NO ANSWER City: Section D: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake Refundable Builders deposit (charged w/building permit) --$1,500 per unit Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey NO ANSWER Appendix 34 | Page Scenario 1: Townhomes, Section B: Sewer Trunk City: Section B: Sewer Trunk Blaine Varies by area. $3,194 - $5,193 per acre (4,193 average-used in survey) Coon Rapids Based on actual cost of construction. Probably previously assessed $4000/acre Dayton $1,770 per unit Medina $2,075.00 per unit Elk River Area specific assessment (area wide assessments, based on amount of developable land-adjusted for inflation) Cambridge $2,240/acre Big Lake $4,950 per acre St. Francis $5,075 per acre Prior Lake $4,920 per acre Monticello $1,223/unit Ramsey $1,318 per unit = $10,544 $16,000 $14,160 $16,600 $2,240 $4,950 $5,075 $4,920 $9,784 $10,544 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 Sewer Trunk Appendix 35 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section B: Water Trunk City: Section B: Water Trunk Blaine Developer installed. City will cover over sizing costs. Coon Rapids Assessed when WM available $3,500/acre Dayton $300 Medina $6,575.00 per unit Elk River Area specific assessment (area wide assessments, based on amount of developable land- adjusted for inflation) Cambridge $2,314/acre Big Lake $1,530 per acre St. Francis $1,320 per acre Prior Lake $3,040 per acre Monticello $907/unit Ramsey $2,308 per unit = $18,464 $3,500 $2,400 $52,600 $2,314 $1,530 $1,320 $3,040 $907 $18,464 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Water Trunk Appendix 36 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section B: Storm Water Trunk City: Section B: Storm Water Trunk Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Assessed based on actual construction. Deferral based on actual construction. Dayton $5,510 per acre Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake $0 per acre if contained on site St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake $2,790 per acre Monticello $3,245/acre* Ramsey NO ANSWER $5,510 $2,790 $3,245 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 Storm Water Trunk Appendix 37 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section B: Storm Water Management City: Section B: Storm Water Management Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Storm water utility $10.50 per quarter. Dayton NO ANSWER Medina N/A, annual utility exists Elk River 1179 per acre Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake $0 St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $465 per unit = $3,720 $1,179 $29,760 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 Storm Water Management Appendix 38 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section B: Park Dedication (cash) City: Section B: Park Dedication (cash) Blaine $2,435 per unit Coon Rapids $2,000 per unit = $16,000 Dayton $4,775 per acre Medina 8% pre-value, minimum $3500/unit Elk River 29112 Cambridge $1,600 per residential unit = $12,800 Big Lake $2,500 per unit St. Francis $2,000 per unit Prior Lake $3,750 per unit Monticello $757/unit Ramsey $2,475 per unit = $19,800 $19,480 $16,000 $4,775 $28,000 $29,112 $12,800 $20,000 $16,000 $30,000 $6,056 $19,800 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 Park Dedication (cash) Appendix 39 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section B: Trail Fees City: Section B: Trail Fees Blaine Part of park dedication fee. Coon Rapids $20 linear foot (assuming 210) Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River Developer responsibility based on plan Cambridge none Big Lake Included with Park Dedication St. Francis Installed by developer Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $600 per unit = $4,800 $4,200 $4,800 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600 4700 4800 4900 Trail Fees Appendix 40 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section B: Trail Fees City: Section B: Street/Traffic Signs Blaine Developer installed. Coon Rapids Street name signs paid by developer $200/each Dayton NO ANSWER Medina N/A, Developer purchase and install Elk River Developer responsibility Cambridge $135 Big Lake $0 St. Francis Installed by developer Prior Lake Installed by developer Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $225 per sign = $450 (2 signs) $400 $270 $450 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Street/Traffic Signs Appendix 41 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section B: Future Seal Coating City: Section B: Future Seal Coating Blaine Actual cost, no set fee. Coon Rapids NA—paid by the City Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River 800 Cambridge $200 Big Lake $0 St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $1.45 per square yard = $725 $800 $200 $725 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Future Seal Coating Appendix 42 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section B: Street Lights City: Section B: Street Lights Blaine Developer installed. Coon Rapids Developer pays actual cost. Dayton Developer Installed Medina N/A, privately maintained Elk River 7455 (1400 + tax per light) Cambridge $500 Big Lake $0 St. Francis Installed by developer Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $1,700 per light = $8,500 (5 lights) $7,455 $500 $8,500 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Street Lights Appendix 43 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section B: Other Fees/Charges City: Section B: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids 20% cash escrow to guarantee payment of assessments based on established assessment for public improvements. Dayton NO ANSWER Medina Full reimburse for review costs Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake 125% LOC for Public Improvements. Lot Corner/Iron Monuments=$500 per lot. Administration Escrow=$25,000 St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello * Alternate ponding for use of regional ponds is $3,490/acre Ramsey Street Light 3 yr O&M, $294 per light = $1,470 Appendix 44 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section C: Top Soil City: Section C: Top Soil Blaine Yes: not more than 35% sand. Coon Rapids Yes, 4” no specification (all developments) Dayton Yes: 6” MN DOT Premium Medina No. Elk River Yes: 4” (black dirt, no specification) Cambridge 3 inches topsoil (all developments, no specification) Big Lake Yes: 4" topsoil (black dirt with no greater than 35% sand) St. Francis Yes: 3 inches (black dirt, no specification) Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello No. Ramsey Yes: 6" MNDOT premium 4 4 6 0 4 3 4 3 0 0 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Top Soil Appendix 45 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section C: Grass/Sod City: Section C: Grass/Sod Blaine Yes: full sod. Coon Rapids Yes: per approved landscape plan Dayton Yes: established cover Medina Yes: Whole Lot, sod (unless a water conserving seed mix is used) Elk River Yes. Established (not sod or seeding specification) Cambridge Yes: sod required or grass allowed if professionally hydro seeded and with sprinklers Big Lake Yes: Sod is required St. Francis Yes: sod or seeding w/sprinkler Prior Lake Yes: sod all front and side yards, seed year yard Monticello No. Ramsey Yes: Entire lot needs to be covered 10 1 Grass/Sod Yes No Appendix 46 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section C: Trees City: Section C: Trees Blaine Yes: 3 trees per unit (combination of over/conifer/oriental) Coon Rapids Yes: per approved landscape plan (3 per 120 perimeter feet) Dayton Yes: 6” total diameter, minimum 1.5” per tree Medina Yes: 2 over story, 1 ornamental tree per 120 feet of lot development perimeter Elk River Yes: Landscaping plan approved as part of development review, would include trees and shrubs. Cambridge Yes: 1 tree per 500 sq. ft. bldg. footprint or 1 tree per 40 ft. of site perimeter, whichever is greater Big Lake Yes: One (1) tree per unit (Tree Preservation Plan required with Preliminary Plat-Protect a minimum of 40% of significant trees) St. Francis Yes: landscaping plan required (tied to screening and lot characteristics) Prior Lake Yes: minimum 2 trees in each front yard (4 on corner lot) Monticello Yes: 2 trees req (4 on corner lots) at $200 escrow per tree Ramsey 9,147 square feet canopy cover (based on impervious surface--developers given a menu of tree options) Appendix 47 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section C: Shrubs City: Section C: Shrubs Blaine Yes: foundation planting required (case by case, typically the front) Coon Rapids Yes: per approved landscape plan Dayton No. Medina Yes: 1 per 40 feet development perimeter Elk River Yes: Landscaping plan approved as part of development review, would include trees and shrubs. Cambridge Yes: 1 shrub per 350 sq. ft. of total bldg footprint or 1 shrub per 75 ft. of site perimeter, whichever is greater Big Lake Yes: Up to 50% of required trees can be substituted with shrubs; 3 shrubs=1 tree St. Francis Yes: landscaping plan required Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello No. Ramsey Yes/No: included in "trees" section. Can be up to 25% of canopy cover. 8 3 Shrubs Yes No Appendix 48 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section C: Radon Barrier City: Section C: Radon Barrier Blaine No. Coon Rapids No. Dayton Yes: 4” rock or radon mat Medina No. Elk River Yes: Per Building Code Cambridge Yes: See MN Residential Energy Code Chapter 1322 Appendix F Big Lake Yes: 4" of rock St. Francis No. Prior Lake Yes: 8 inches Monticello No. Ramsey Yes: 4” of rock or radon mat 6 5 Radon Barrier Yes No Appendix 49 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section C: Foundation Drainage City: Section C: Foundation Drainage Blaine No. Coon Rapids No. Dayton No. Medina Yes: Per code Elk River Yes: Per Building Code Cambridge Yes: As required by IRC Section 405 Big Lake Tile to daylight or sump pump St. Francis No. Prior Lake Yes: Coverage with Geotech fabric material Monticello No. Ramsey No. 5 6 Foundation Drainage Yes No Appendix 50 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section C: Other Requirements City: Section C: Other Requirements Blaine Full irrigation (front, rear and side) Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton NO ANSWER Medina Lawn Irrigation cannot use municipal water; Irrigate out of storm water ponds Elk River Buffering requirements may apply Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake Irrigation Plan is required St. Francis Erosion Control (built into escrow) Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey NO ANSWER City: Section C: Other Requirements Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton NO ANSWER Medina Predominantly private roads in development Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey NO ANSWER Appendix 51 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section D: Certificate of Occupancy City: Section D: Certificate of Occupancy Blaine $10 per unit Coon Rapids $100 per unit Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge included in permit fee Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis Included in permit fee Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $4 per unit = $32 $80 $800 $32 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Certificate of Occupancy Appendix 52 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section D: Builder License Verification City: Section D: Builder License Verification Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton $10 look up (survey is assuming per unit) Medina NO ANSWER Elk River $5 (survey is assuming per unit) Cambridge $5 per permit Big Lake $5 (survey is assuming per unit) St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello $25.00 Ramsey $5 per unit = $40 $80 $40 $40 $40 $25 $40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Builder License Verification Appendix 53 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section D: Base Building Permit Fee City: Section D: Base Building Permit Fee Blaine $1,173 per unit Coon Rapids $1,173 per unit Dayton $10,298.93 total (includes internal plan review) Medina $1,037 per unit Elk River $1,161.75 Cambridge $1,161.75 per unit Big Lake 1,161.75 St. Francis $1,161.75 per unit Prior Lake $1,233.50 Monticello $1,231.58 Ramsey LMC base 03, $1,236.75 = $9,894 $9,384 $9,384 $10,299 $8,296 $9,294 $9,294 $9,294 $9,294 $9,852 $9,853 $9,894 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 Base Building Fee Appendix 54 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section D: Internal Plan Review Fee City: Section D: Internal Plan Review Fee Blaine $260 per unit Coon Rapids $762.45 per unit Dayton Part of “Base Building Permit Fee” Medina $675 per unit Elk River 755.14 Cambridge $755.14 per unit Big Lake 755.14 St. Francis $755.14 per unit Prior Lake $801.78 Monticello $800.53 Ramsey Unit 1 .65, Units 2-8 .25 of LMC = $2,968.22 $2,080 $6,100 $5,400 $6,041 $6,041 $6,041 $6,041 $6,414 $6,404 $2,968 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Internal Plan Revie Fee Appendix 55 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section D: City Sewer Connection (permit) City: Section D: City Sewer Connection (permit) Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $100 per unit Dayton $150 each Medina $100 per unit Elk River 65 + 2000 bond (includes water connection permit) Cambridge $50 Big Lake 35 St. Francis $50 Prior Lake 25.5 Monticello $127.00 (for both: water & sewer) per unit (split for survey) Ramsey $75 per unit = $600 $800 $1,200 $800 $520 $400 $280 $400 $204 $508 $600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 City Sewer Connection (Permit) Appendix 56 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section D: City Water Connection (permit) City: Section D: City Water Connection (permit) Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $100 per unit Dayton $150 each Medina $100 per unit Elk River Water and sewer together Cambridge $50 Big Lake 35 St. Francis $50 Prior Lake $25.50 Monticello $127.00 (for both: water & sewer) per unit (split for survey) Ramsey $75 per unit = $600 $800 $1,200 $800 $400 $280 $400 $204 $508 $600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 City Water Connection Permit Appendix 57 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section D: Water Availability Charge (WAC) City: Section D: Water Availability Charge (WAC) Blaine $1,536 per unit Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton $665-$2,060 each (depending on location--the city has four separate service sources) Medina NO ANSWER Elk River 24000 Cambridge $201 per REU Big Lake 1,950.00 St. Francis $4,200 (survey is assuming per unit) Prior Lake $900 Monticello $801.00 per unit Ramsey $1,701 per unit = $13,608 $12,288 $24,000 $1,608 $15,600 $33,600 $7,200 $6,408 $13,608 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 Water Availability Charge (WAC) Appendix 58 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section D: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) City: Section D: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Blaine $2,230 per unit Coon Rapids $2,230 per unit Dayton $2,675 each Medina $2,230 per unit (Met Council) Elk River 33608 (survey is assuming total) Cambridge $2,273 per REU Big Lake 2,913.00 St. Francis $3,000 Prior Lake $600 Monticello $4,030.00 per unit Ramsey (METCOUNC) $2,230 per unit = $17,840 $17,840 $17,840 $21,400 $17,840 $33,608 $18,184 $23,304 $24,000 $4,800 $32,240 $17,840 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 Sewer Availability Charege (SAC) Appendix 59 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section D: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) City: Section D: SAC Handling Fee Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $50 per unit Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $200 per unit = $1,600 $400 $1,600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Appendix 60 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section D: Water Meter/Horn City: Section D: Water Meter/Horn Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $300 per unit Dayton $301.79 each Medina $420 per unit Elk River 70 per unit, 860 for irrigation Cambridge with irrigation $475, without $282 Big Lake 280 St. Francis $1,500 (survey assuming per unit) Prior Lake 5/8” meter --$610.00 Monticello $370.00 + tax Ramsey $433.9 per unit = $3,471.2 $2,400 $2,414 $3,360 $560 $2,256 $2,240 $12,000 $4,880 $2,960 $3,464 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 Water Meter/Horn Appendix 61 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section D: Mechanical Permit City: Section D: Mechanical Permit Blaine $150 per unit Coon Rapids $168.40 per unit Dayton $200 each Medina $50 per piece of equipment (typically 4) Elk River 1.5% (survey assuming 8.5k value) Cambridge $71 per dwelling Big Lake 55 St. Francis $50 per unit Prior Lake $149.50 Monticello $45.00 + $9.00/fixture (survey assumed 2 fixtures) Ramsey $150 per unit = $1,200 $1,200 $1,347 $1,600 $1,600 $1,020 $568 $440 $400 $1,196 $512 $1,200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Mechanical Permit Appendix 62 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section D: City Water Connection (permit) City: Section D: Plumbing Permit Blaine $200 per unit Coon Rapids $124.75 per unit Dayton $200 each Medina $10 per fixture (survey assumed 22 fixtures per unit, 176 total) Elk River 1.5% (assuming 7k valuation) Cambridge $150 per dwelling Big Lake 85 St. Francis $50 minimum (per unit) Prior Lake $149.50 Monticello $45.00 + $9.00/fixture (survey assumed 4 fixtures) Ramsey $200 per unit = $1,600 $1,600 $998 $1,600 $1,760 $840 $1,200 $680 $400 $1,196 $648 $1,600 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Plumbing Permit Appendix 63 | Page Scenario 2: Townhomes, Section D: Other Fees/Charges City: Section D: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Electrical permit $130 per unit Dayton Landscape Escrow: $1,250 (per single family home, 1% of landscape cost for others) Medina Driveway = $100 per unit Elk River Erosion 175 (per unit) Cambridge water treatment facility charge: $901 per REU ($7,208) Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis $75 fire place (per unit as needed) Prior Lake Water Tower Fee -- $1000 per unit for new residential Monticello Assessment search @ $25.00 Ramsey $100 erosion control escrow fee (non-returnable) City: Section D: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Electrical permit $130 per unit Dayton Landscape Escrow: $1,250 (per single family home, 1% of landscape cost for others) Medina Driveway = $100 per unit Elk River Erosion 175 (per unit) Cambridge water treatment facility charge: $901 per REU ($7,208) Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis $75 fire place (per unit as needed) Prior Lake Water Tower Fee -- $1000 per unit for new residential Monticello Assessment search @ $25.00 Ramsey $100 erosion control escrow fee (non-returnable) City: Section D: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Driveway $100 per unit Dayton Curb Cut/Driveway $35 (per unit, or single charge per other development) Medina ESC inspect. - hourly reimbursed Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake 3/4” Pressure Reducer $90, per unit charge (per unit) Refundable Builders deposit (charged w/building permit) --$1,500 per unit Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey NO ANSWER Appendix 64 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section B: Sewer Trunk City: Section B: Sewer Trunk Blaine $3,194 to $5,143 per acre depending on the area. (4,193 average-used in survey) Coon Rapids Based on actual cost of construction. Probably previously assessed $4000/acre Dayton $1,770 per unit Medina $2,075 per unit Elk River Area specific assessment (area wide assessments, based on amount of developable land- adjusted for inflation) Cambridge $2,240/acre = $19,712 Big Lake $4,950 per acre St. Francis $5,075 per acre Prior Lake $4,920 per acre Monticello $1,223/unit Ramsey $1,318 per unit = $158,160 $35,200 $212,400 $249,000 $19,712 $43,560 $44,660 $43,296 $146,760 $158,160 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 Sewer Trunk Appendix 65 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section B: Water Trunk City: Section B: Water Trunk Blaine Developer installed. Coon Rapids Assessed when WM available $3,500/acre Dayton $300 per unit Medina $6,575 per unit Elk River Area specific assessment (area wide assessments, based on amount of developable land- adjusted for inflation) Cambridge $2,314/acre = $20,363 Big Lake $1,530 per acre St. Francis $1,320 per acre Prior Lake $3,040 per acre Monticello $907/unit Ramsey $2,308 per unit = $276,960 $30,800 $36,000 $789,000 $20,363 $13,464 $11,616 $26,752 $108,840 $276,960 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000 Water Trunk Appendix 66 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section B: Storm Water Trunk City: Section B: Storm Water Trunk Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Assessed based on actual construction. Deferral based on actual construction. Dayton $5,510 per acre Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge no fee Big Lake $0 per acre if contained on site St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake $4,600 per acre Monticello $3,245/acre* Ramsey NO ANSWER $48,488 $40,480 $28,556 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Storm Water Trunk Appendix 67 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section B: Storm Water Management City: Section B: Storm Water Management Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Storm water utility $10.50 per quarter. Dayton NO ANSWER Medina N/A, annual utility fee exists Elk River 10375.2 Cambridge utility fee different for each property Big Lake $0 St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $465 per unit = $55,800 $10,375 $55,800 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 Storm Water Management Appendix 68 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section B: Park Dedication (Cash) City: Section B: Park Dedication (cash) Blaine $2,435 per unit Coon Rapids $1,360 per unit = $163,200 Dayton $4,775 per acre Medina 8% pre-developed market value Elk River 436680 Cambridge $1,600 per residential unit = $192,000 Big Lake $2,500 per unit St. Francis $2,500 per unit Prior Lake $3,750 per unit Monticello $757/unit Ramsey $2,104 per unit = $252,480 $292,200 $163,200 $42,020 $49,280 $436,680 $192,000 $300,000 $300,000 $450,000 $90,840 $252,480 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000 500000 Park Dedication (Cash) Appendix 69 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section B: Trail Fees City: Section B: Trail Fees Blaine Included in park dedication fee Coon Rapids $20 per linear foot (600ft total assumed) Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River Developer responsibility per trail plan Cambridge none Big Lake Included with Park Dedication St. Francis Installed by developer Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $600 per unit = $72,000 $12,000 $72,000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 Trail Fees Appendix 70 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section B: Street/Traffic Lights City: Section B: Street/Traffic Signs Blaine Developer installed Coon Rapids Street name signs paid by developer $200/each Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River Developer responsibility Cambridge $135 Big Lake $0 St. Francis Installed by developer Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $225 per sign $400 $270 $450 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Street/Traffic Lights Appendix 71 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section B: Future Seal Coating City: Section B: Future Seal Coating Blaine Actual cost Coon Rapids NA—paid by the City Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River 1600 Cambridge $400 Big Lake $0 St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $1.45 per square yard = $1,450 $1,600 $400 $1,450 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Future Seal Coating Appendix 72 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section B: Street Lights City: Section B: Street Lights Blaine Developer Installed Coon Rapids Developer pays actual cost. Dayton Developer Installed Medina NO ANSWER Elk River 5964 Cambridge $400 Big Lake $0 St. Francis Installed by developer Prior Lake Installed by developer Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $1,700 per light = $6,800 $5,964 $400 $6,800 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Street Lights Appendix 73 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section B: Other Fees/Charges City: Section B: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids 20% cash escrow to guarantee payment of assessments based on established assessment for public improvements. Dayton NO ANSWER Medina Full reimburse for review costs Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake 125% LOC for Public Improvements + Landscaping. Lot Corner/Iron Monuments=$500 per lot. Administration Escrow=$25,000 St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello Alternate ponding for use of regional ponds is $3,490/acre Ramsey $100 erosion control escrow fee (non-returnable). Street Light 3 yr O&M, $294 per light = $1,176 Appendix 74 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section C: Top Soil City: Section C: Top Soil Blaine Yes: 4 inches. Not more that 35% sand. Coon Rapids Yes, 4” no specification (all developments) Dayton Yes: 6” MN DOT Premium Medina No. Elk River Yes: 4” (black dirt, no specification) Cambridge 3 inches topsoil (all developments, no specification) Big Lake Yes: 4" topsoil (black dirt with no greater than 35% sand) St. Francis Yes: 3 inches (black dirt, no specification) Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello No. Ramsey Yes: 6" MNDOT premium 4 4 6 0 4 3 4 3 0 0 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Top Soil Appendix 75 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section C: Grass/Sod City: Section C: Grass/Sod Blaine Yes: Full sod. Coon Rapids Yes: per approved landscape Dayton Yes: established cover Medina Yes: Whole Lot, sod (unless a water conserving seed mix is used) Elk River Yes. Established (not sod or seeding specification) Cambridge Yes: sod required or grass allowed if professionally hydro seeded and with sprinklers Big Lake Yes: Sod is required St. Francis Yes: sod or seed + sprinklers Prior Lake Yes: sod front and side yards, seed rear Monticello Yes: Entire lot needs sod Ramsey Yes: Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section C: Trees City: Section C: Trees Blaine Yes: Plan is based depending on the perimeter length Coon Rapids Yes: per approved landscape Dayton Yes: 6” total diameter, min 1.5” per tree Medina Yes: 2 over story + 1 ornamental tree per 120 feet lot development perimeter Elk River Yes: 1 tree per 40 feet of lot perimeter Cambridge Yes: 1 tree per 500 sq. ft. bldg. footprint or 1 tree per 40 ft. of site perimeter, whichever is greater Big Lake Yes: One (1) tree per unit. Tree Preservation Plan required with Preliminary Plat-Protect a minimum of 40% of significant trees St. Francis Yes: landscaping plan required (tied to screening and lot characteristics) Prior Lake Escrows to cover trees and grass/sod are taken for all development based on the landscaping estimate. Monticello Yes. LOC or cash escrow equal to 125% of estimated project landscaping cost Ramsey 94,874 square feet canopy cover (based on impervious surface--developers given a menu of tree options) Appendix 76 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section C: Shrubs City: Section C: Shrubs Blaine Yes. (based on site perimeter) Coon Rapids Yes: per approved landscape Dayton No. Medina Yes: 1 per 40 feet of development perimeter Elk River Yes: Landscaping plan approved as part of site review, include trees and s Cambridge Yes: 1 shrub per 350 sq. ft. of total bldg footprint or 1 shrub per 75 ft. of site perimeter, whichever is greater Big Lake Yes: Up to 50% of required trees can be substituted with shrubs; 3 shrubs=1 tree St. Francis Yes: landscaping plan required Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello No. Ramsey Yes/No: included in "trees" section. Can be up to 25% of canopy cover. 5 6 Shrubs Yes No Appendix 77 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section C: Radon Barrier City: Section C: Radon Barrier Blaine No. Coon Rapids No. Dayton Yes: 4” rock or radon mat. Medina No. Elk River Yes: per building code Cambridge No. Big Lake Yes: Radon barrier required for lowest floor on grade St. Francis No. Prior Lake Yes: 8 inches Monticello No. Ramsey 4” rock or radon mat 5 6 Radon Barrier Yes No Appendix 78 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section C: Foundation Drainage City: Section C: Foundation Drainage Blaine No. Coon Rapids No. Dayton No. Medina Yes: Per Code Elk River Yes: per building code Cambridge Yes: As designed by Engineer Big Lake Yes: Foundation drainage on a case by case basis St. Francis No. Prior Lake Yes: coverage with geotech fabric material Monticello No. Ramsey No. 5 6 Foundation Drainage Yes No Appendix 79 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section C: Other Requirements City: Section C: Other Requirements Blaine Full irrigation (front, rear and side) Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton NO ANSWER Medina Lawn Irrigation cannot use municipal water; Irrigate out of storm water ponds Elk River Lawn sprinklers required for apartment buildings Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake Irrigation Plan is required St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey NO ANSWER City: Section C: Other Requirements Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton NO ANSWER Medina Parking lot landscaping (8%) of interior of lot --to break up the parking lot Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey NO ANSWER Appendix 80 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section D: Certificate of Occupancy City: Section D: Certificate of Occupancy Blaine 10 per unit Coon Rapids $2,363.50 total Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge included in permit fee Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis Included in permit fee Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $4 per unit = $480 $1,200 $2,364 $480 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Certificate of Occupancy Appendix 81 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section D: Builder License Verification City: Section D: Builder License Verification Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton $10 look up Medina NO ANSWER Elk River $5 Cambridge no license required by state Big Lake $5 St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello $25.00 Ramsey NO ANSWER $10 $5 $5 $25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Builder License Verification Appendix 82 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section D: Base Building Permit Fee City: Section D: Base Building Permit Fee Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $47,270.00 Dayton $70,564.94 total (includes internal plan review) Medina $31,962 Elk River 41378.75 Cambridge $41,378.75 Big Lake 36,478.75 St. Francis $41,378.75 Prior Lake $45,145.25 Monticello $38,677.28 Ramsey LMC Bas 03, $981.75 per unit =$117,810 $47,270 $70,565 $31,932 $41,379 $41,379 $36,479 $41,379 $45,145 $38,677 $117,810 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 Base Building Permit Fee Appendix 83 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section D: Internal Plan Review Fee City: Section D: Internal Plan Review Fee Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $30,725.50 Dayton Included in “Base Building Permit Fee” Medina $20,775 Elk River 26896.19 Cambridge $26,896.19 Big Lake 23,716.19 St. Francis $31,034.06 Prior Lake $29,344.41 Monticello $25,140.23 Ramsey .65 LMC base, $638.14 per unit = $76,576.8 $30,726 $20,775 $26,896 $26,896 $23,716 $31,034 $29,344 $25,140 $76,577 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 Internal Plan Review Fee Appendix 84 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section D: City Sewer Connection (Permit) City: Section D: City Sewer Connection (permit) Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $100 Dayton $150 Medina Hourly inspection rate (along with other infrastructure inspections) for apt and commercial Elk River 65 + 2000 bond (includes water connection permit) Cambridge $50 Big Lake 50 St. Francis $50 per unit Prior Lake 1% of cost (of total project valuation) Monticello $65.00 Ramsey 2% of total valuation = $216,000 $12,000 $18,000 $7,800 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $108,000 $7,800 $216,000 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 City Sewer Connection (Permit) Appendix 85 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section D: City Water Connection (Permit) City: Section D: City Water Connection (permit) Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $100 Dayton $150 Medina Hourly inspection rate Elk River Water and Sewer in same permit Cambridge $50 Big Lake 50 St. Francis $50 per unit Prior Lake 1% of cost (of total project valuation) Monticello $55.00 Ramsey 2% of total valuation = $216,000 $12,000 $18,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $108,000 $6,600 $216,000 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 City Water Connection (Permit) Appendix 86 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section D: Water Availability Charge (WAC) City: Section D: Water Availability Charge (WAC) Blaine $1,536 per unit Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton $2660-$8,240 per acre (depending on location--the city has four separate service sources) Medina NO ANSWER Elk River $3,000 Cambridge $201 per REU Big Lake 234,000.00 St. Francis $4,200 per unit Prior Lake $108,000 ($900 per unit) Monticello Depends on line size to building Ramsey $1,701 per unit = $204,120 $184,320 $360,000 $24,120 $234,000 $504,000 $108,000 $204,120 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 Water Availability Charge (WAC) Appendix 87 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section D: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) City: Section D: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Blaine $2,230 per unit Coon Rapids $267,600 total Dayton $2,675 each Medina (METCOUNC) $2,230 per unit = $267,600 Elk River $4,201 Cambridge $2,273 per REU Big Lake 349,560.00 St. Francis $3,000 per unit Prior Lake $72,000 ($600 per unit) Monticello $483,600.00 Ramsey (METCOUNC) $2,230 per unit = $267,600 $267,600 $267,600 $321,000 $267,600 $504,120 $272,760 $349,560 $360,000 $72,000 $483,600 $267,600 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Appendix 88 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section D: SAC Handling Fee City: Section D: SAC Handling Fee Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $600 Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $200 per unit = $24,000 $72,000 $24,000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 SAC Handling Fee Appendix 89 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section D: Water Meter/Horn City: Section D: Water Meter/Horn Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $1,200.00 total Dayton $301.79 Medina $125 for transmitter, Developer purchase meter Elk River Water meter $3305. Irrigation $940 Cambridge 2" SR= $689, 4" --irrigate Omni= $3046 Big Lake Water meter furnished by plumber St. Francis $1,500 Prior Lake 2” - $925 Monticello Variable - see attached Ramsey TBD (will send in an updated version) $1,200 $302 $3,305 $689 $1,500 $925 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 Water Meter/Horn Appendix 90 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section D: Mechanical Permit City: Section D: Mechanical Permit Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $20,000 total Dayton $200 Medina $5,465 Elk River 1.5% (mechanical valuation) Cambridge $12,000 Big Lake 6,073.00 St. Francis $6,411.1 (based on value) Prior Lake $6,000 (1% of cost) Monticello $5,000 Ramsey 1% of mechanical valuation = $6,000 $20,000 $24,000 $5,465 $9,000 $12,000 $6,073 $6,411 $6,000 $5,000 $6,000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Mechanical Permit Appendix 91 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section D: Plumbing Permit City: Section D: Plumbing Permit Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $14,400 total Dayton $200 Medina $3,939 Elk River 1.5% (plumbing valuation) Cambridge $18,000 Big Lake 14,917.75 St. Francis $4,611.96 based on value Prior Lake $4,000 (1% of cost) Monticello $7,500 Ramsey 1% of plumbing valuation = $4,000 $14,400 $24,000 $3,939 $6,000 $18,000 $14,918 $4,612 $4,000 $7,500 $4,000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 Plubming Permit Appendix 92 | Page Scenario 3: Apartment Building, Section D: Other Fees/Charges City: Section D: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Electric Permit $15,600 Dayton Landscape Escrow: $1,250 (per single family home, 1% of landscape cost for others) Medina Erosion - Hourly inspection rate Elk River Erosion 175 (total, admin fee) Cambridge water treatment facility charge:$901 per REU (108,120) Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis Fire suppression (based on value, as needed) Prior Lake Water tower fee -- $120,000 ($1,000 per unit) Monticello Firelock box @ $171.00 Ramsey $100 erosion control escrow fee (non-returnable) City: Section D: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Parking Lot $1,852.00 Dayton Curb Cut/Driveway $35 (per unit, or single charge per other development) Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge Dual port radio $131 Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello Assessment search @ $100.00 Ramsey NO ANSWER City: Section D: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Storm Sewer $16,100 Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello Utility locate @ $50.00 and Excavation permit @$50.00 Ramsey NO ANSWER Appendix 93 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section B: Sewer Trunk City: Section B: Sewer Trunk Blaine $3,194 to $5,143 per acre depending on the area. (4,193 average-used in survey) Coon Rapids Based on actual cost of construction. Previously assessed $4000/acre Dayton $3,530 per acre Medina $2,075 per SAC unit = $14,525 Elk River Area specific assessment (area wide assessments, based on amount of developable land- adjusted for inflation) Cambridge $2,240/acre = $8,960 Big Lake $4,950 per acre St. Francis $5,075 per acre Prior Lake $3,040 per acre Monticello $3,065/acre Ramsey $3,965 per acre = $15,860 $16,000 $14,120 $14,525 $8,960 $19,800 $20,300 $12,160 $12,260 $15,860 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Sewer Trunk Appendix 94 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section B: Water Trunk City: Section B: Water Trunk Blaine Developer installed Coon Rapids Assessed when WM available $3,500/acre Dayton $1,200 per acre Medina $6,575 per SAC unit = $46,025 Elk River Area specific assessment (area wide assessments, based on amount of developable land- adjusted for inflation) Cambridge $2,314/acre = $9,256 Big Lake $1,530 per acre St. Francis $1,320 per acre Prior Lake $5,500 per acre Monticello $2,267/acre Ramsey $8,645 per acre = $34,580 $14,000 $4,800 $46,025 $9,256 $6,120 $5,280 $22,000 $9,068 $34,580 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 Water Trunk Appendix 95 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section B: Water Trunk City: Section B: Storm Water Trunk Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Assessed based on actual construction. Deferral based on actual construction. (cost applied elsewhere) Dayton $5,510 per acre Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake $0 per acre if contained on site St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake $5,780 per acre Monticello $3,245/acre* Ramsey NO ANSWER $22,040 $23,120 $12,980 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Storm Water Trunk Appendix 96 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section B: Storm Water Management City: Section B: Storm Water Management Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Storm water utility $10.50 per quarter. Dayton NO ANSWER Medina N/A, annual utility fee exists Elk River 4716 Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake $0 St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake Scenario 4 – Storm Water Management fee - $23,120 ($5,780 x 4.0 acres) Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $4,630 per acre = $18,520 $4,716 $23,120 $18,520 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Storm Water Management Appendix 97 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section B: Park Dedication (Cash) City: Section B: Park Dedication (cash) Blaine $4,870 per acre. Coon Rapids $4,000 per acre = $16,000 Dayton $9,200 per acre Medina 8% pre-develop market value (via conversation 25K) Elk River 9744 Cambridge $2,940 per acre or 10% of the development land Big Lake $0 for commercial/industrial development St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake $6,400 per acre Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $4,738 per acre = $18,952 $19,480 $16,000 $36,800 $25,000 $38,976 $11,760 $25,600 $18,952 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 Park Dedication Appendix 98 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section B: Trail Fees City: Section B: Trail Fees Blaine Included in park dedication fee Coon Rapids $20 per linear foot Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River Developer responsibility based on trail plan Cambridge none Big Lake $0 for commercial/industrial development St. Francis Installed by developer Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $1,090 per acre = $4,360 $7,200 $4,360 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Trail Fees Appendix 99 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section B: Street/Traffic Signs City: Section B: Street/Traffic Signs Blaine Developer installed. Coon Rapids Street name signs paid by developer $200/each Dayton Developer Installed Medina NO ANSWER Elk River Developer responsibility Cambridge $135 Big Lake $0 St. Francis Installed by developer Prior Lake $4,920 per acre Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $225 per sign = 450 $400 $270 $19,680 $450 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Street/Traffic Signs Appendix 100 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section B: Future Seal Coating City: Section B: Future Seal Coating Blaine Actual cost, no set fee. Coon Rapids NA—paid by the City Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River 800 Cambridge $200 Big Lake $0 St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $1.45 per square yard = $725 $800 $200 $725 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Future Seal Coating Appendix 101 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section B: Street Lights City: Section B: Street Lights Blaine Developer installed. Coon Rapids Developer pays actual cost. Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River 2982 Cambridge $200 Big Lake $0 St. Francis Installed by developer Prior Lake Installed by developer Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $1,700 per light = $3,400 $2,982 $200 $3,400 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Street Lights Appendix 102 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section B: Other Fees/Charges City: Section B: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids 20% cash escrow to guarantee payment of assessments based on established assessment for public improvements. Dayton NO ANSWER Medina Full reimburse for review costs Elk River 175 erosion Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake 125% LOC for Public Improvements + Landscaping. Lot Corner/Iron Monuments=$500 per lot. Administration Escrow=$25,000 St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello Alternate ponding fee for regional pond use is $8,176/acre. Street Light 3 yr O&M, $294 per light = $588 Ramsey $100 erosion control escrow fee (non-returnable) Appendix 103 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section C: Top Soil City: Section C: Top Soil Blaine Yes: 4 inches not more than 35% sand. Coon Rapids Yes, 4” no specification (all developments) Dayton Yes: 6” Premium MN DOT Medina No. Elk River Yes: 4” (black dirt, no specification) Cambridge 3 inches topsoil (all developments, no specification) Big Lake Yes: 4" topsoil (black dirt with no greater than 35% sand) St. Francis Yes: 3 inches (black dirt, no specification) Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello No. Ramsey Yes: 6" MNDOT premium 4 0 6 0 4 3 4 3 0 0 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Top Soil Appendix 104 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section C: Grass/Sod City: Section C: Grass/Sod Blaine Yes, sod in front yard—see balance. Coon Rapids Yes: per approved landscape Dayton Yes: established Medina Yes: Whole Lot, sod (unless a water conserving seed mix is used) Elk River Yes. Sod is required Cambridge Yes: sod required or grass allowed if professionally hydro seeded and with sprinklers Big Lake Yes: Sod is required St. Francis Yes: sod or sprinklers w/seed Prior Lake Yes: Escrows to cover trees and grass/sod are taken for all development based on the landscaping estimate. Monticello No. Ramsey No: entire lot needs to be established (not sod) 10 1 Grass/Sod Yes No Appendix 105 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section C: Trees City: Section C: Trees Blaine Yes: Plan is based depending on the perimeter length Coon Rapids Yes: per approved landscape Dayton Yes: negotiated Medina Yes: 2 over story and 1 ornamental per 100 feet of lot perimeter Elk River Yes. 1 tree per 40 feet of perimeter Cambridge Yes: 1 tree per 750 sq. ft. of bldg. or 1 tree per 45 ft. of site perimeter in I-2 district (1 tree per 1000 sq. ft. of total bldg. footprint or 1 tree per 50 ft. of site perimeter in I-3 district) Big Lake Yes: One(1) tree per 1,000 s.f. floor area or (1) tree per 50 lineal feet of site perimeter (Tree Preservation Plan required with Preliminary Plat-Protect a minimum of 40% of significant trees) St. Francis Yes: landscaping plan required (tied to screening and lot characteristics) Prior Lake Yes: Escrows to cover trees and grass/sod are taken for all development based on the landscaping estimate. Monticello Yes: LOC or cash escrow equal to 125% of estimated project landscaping cost Ramsey Yes: 40 trees (based on perimeter-1 per 50 feet) (or 1 tree pre 1000 sq feet of building space) Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section C: Trees City: Section C: Shrubs Blaine Yes. (based on site perimeter) Coon Rapids Yes: per approved landscape Dayton Yes: negotiated Medina Yes: 1 per 30 feet of lot perimeter Elk River No. (but require a landscaping plan) Cambridge Yes: 1 shrub per 450 sq. ft. of bldg. or 1 shrub per 95 ft. of site perimeter in I-2 district (1 shrub per 550 sq. ft. of total bldg. footprint or 1 shrub per 115 ft. of site perimeter in I-3 district) Big Lake Yes: Up to 50% of required trees can be substituted with shrubs; 3 shrubs=1 tree St. Francis Yes: landscaping plan required Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello Yes Ramsey Yes: 137. One shrub per 30 perimeter feet (or 1 per 300 sq ft of building space) Appendix 106 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section C: Foundation Drainage City: Section C: Foundation Drainage Blaine No. Coon Rapids No. Dayton No. Medina Yes: Per Code Elk River Yes: Per building code Cambridge Yes: As designed by Engineer Big Lake Yes: Foundation drainage on a case by case basis St. Francis Yes. Prior Lake Yes: coverage with geotech fabric material Monticello No Ramsey No. 6 5 Foundation Drainage Yes No Appendix 107 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section C: Other Requirements City: Section C: Other Requirements Blaine Full irrigation (front, rear and side) Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton NO ANSWER Medina Lawn Irrigation cannot use municipal water; Irrigate out of storm water ponds Elk River Lawn sprinklers required for industrial development Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake Irrigation Plan is required St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey NO ANSWER City: Section C: Other Requirements Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton NO ANSWER Medina Parking lot landscaping (8%) of interior of lot Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey NO ANSWER Appendix 108 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section D: Certificate of Occupancy City: Section D: Certificate of Occupancy Blaine $10 total Coon Rapids $599.75 Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River 0 Cambridge included in permit fee Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis Included in permit fee Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $4 per unit = $4 $10 $600 $16 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Certificate of Occupancy Appendix 109 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section D: Builder License Verification City: Section D: Builder License Verification Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton $10 look up Medina NO ANSWER Elk River $5 Cambridge not required Big Lake (Not Required) St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello $25.00 Ramsey NO ANSWER $10 $5 $25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Builder License Varification Appendix 110 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section D: Base Building Permit Fee City: Section D: Base Building Permit Fee Blaine $12,040 total Coon Rapids $11,995 total Dayton $19,838.19 total (includes internal plan review fee) Medina $9,137.25 Elk River 11083.75 Cambridge $11,083.75 Big Lake 10,333.75 St. Francis $11,083.75 Prior Lake $11,945.25 Monticello $10,955.28 Ramsey LMC 03 Base = $11,956.75 $12,040 $11,995 $19,838 $9,137 $11,084 $11,084 $10,334 $11,084 $11,945 $10,955 $11,957 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Base Building Permit Fee Appendix 111 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section D: Internal Plan Review Fee City: Section D: Internal Plan Review Fee Blaine $6,800 total Coon Rapids $7,796.75 total Dayton Included in base building permit fee Medina $5,939.21 Elk River 7204.44 Cambridge $7,204.44 Big Lake 6,716.94 St. Francis $7,204.44 Prior Lake $7,764.41 Monticello $7,120.93 Ramsey .65 of LMC Base = $7,771.89 $6,800 $7,796 $5,939 $7,204 $7,204 $6,717 $7,204 $7,764 $7,121 $7,772 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Internal Plan Review Fee Appendix 112 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section D: City Sewer Connection (Permit) City: Section D: City Sewer Connection (permit) Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $100 Dayton $150 Medina Hourly inspection rate (along with other infrastructure inspections) for apt and commercial Elk River 100 + 2000 bond (includes water connection permit) Cambridge $50 Big Lake 35 St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake 1% of cost (of total project valuation) Monticello $65.00 Ramsey 2% of valuation = 50,000 $100 $150 $100 $50 $35 $25,000 $65 $50,000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 City Sewer Connection (Permit) Appendix 113 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section D: City Water Connection (Permit) City: Section D: City Water Connection (permit) Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $100 Dayton $150 Medina Hourly inspection rate Elk River Water and sewer together Cambridge $50 Big Lake 35 St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake 1% of cost (of total project valuation) Monticello $55.00 Ramsey 2% of valuation = 50,000 100 150 50 35 25,000 55 50,000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 City Water Connection (Permit) Appendix 114 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section D: Water Availability Charge (WAC) City: Section D: Water Availability Charge (WAC) Blaine $3,881 per acre Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton $2660-$8,240 per acre (depending on location--the city has four separate service sources) Medina NO ANSWER Elk River 21000 Cambridge $201 per REU Big Lake 13,650.00 St. Francis $4,200 per unit Prior Lake $6,300 Monticello Varies based on line size to building Ramsey $11,907 $15,524 $21,000 $1,407 $13,650 $4,200 $6,300 $11,907 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Water Availability Charge (WAC) Appendix 115 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section D: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) City: Section D: Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) Blaine $2,230 per sac unit Coon Rapids $15,610 Dayton $3,640 per SAC unit Medina NO ANSWER Elk River 29407 Cambridge $2,273 per REU Big Lake 28,391.00 St. Francis $3,000 per unit Prior Lake $4,200 Monticello $28,210.00 Ramsey $15,610 (METCOUNC) $15,610 $15,610 $25,480 $29,407 $15,911 $28,391 $3,000 $4,200 $28,210 $15,610 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 Sewer Availability Charge Appendix 116 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section D: SAC Handling Fee City: Section D: SAC Handling Fee Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $350 Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River 0 Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey $200 $350.00 $200.00 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 SAC Handling Fee Appendix 117 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section D: Water Meter/Horn City: Section D: Water Meter/Horn Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $1,000 Dayton $450 Medina $125 for transmitter, developer buy meter/horn Elk River 570/ 860 for irrigation Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake Water meter furnished by plumber St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello $1200 + tax Ramsey TBD (will send in an updated version) $1,000.00 $450.00 $570.00 $1,200.00 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Water Meter/Horn Appendix 118 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section D: Mechanical Permit City: Section D: Mechanical Permit Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $1,672 Dayton $500 Medina $1,150 Elk River 1.5% (mechanical valuation) Cambridge $1,400 Big Lake 1,333.19 St. Francis $1,328.19 (based on value) Prior Lake $700 (1% of cost) Monticello $910.00 Ramsey 1% of mechanical valuation $1,672 $500 $1,150 $1,050 $1,400 $1,333 $1,328 $700 $910 $700 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Mechanical Permit Appendix 119 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section D: Plumbing Permit City: Section D: Plumbing Permit Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids $1,145 Dayton $500 Medina $950 Elk River 1.5% (plumbing valuation) Cambridge $1,000 Big Lake 1,092.00 St. Francis $1,087.19 (based on value) Prior Lake $500 (1% of cost) Monticello $625.00 Ramsey 1$ of plumbing valuation $1,145 $500 $950 $750 $1,000 $1,092 $1,087 $500 $625 $500 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Plumbing Permit Appendix 120 | Page Scenario 4: Industrial Development, Section D: Plumbing Permit City: Section D: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Electrical Permit $1,310 Dayton Landscape Escrow: $1,250 (per single family home, 1% of landscape cost for others) Medina Erosion - Hourly inspection rate Elk River Erosion 175 (total, admin fee) Cambridge water treatment facility charge: $901 per REU (6307) Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis Fire suppression (based on value, as needed) Prior Lake Water tower fee - $7,000 Monticello Firelock box @ $171.00 Ramsey $100 erosion control escrow fee (non-returnable) City: Section D: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Parking Lot $1,652 Dayton Curb Cut/Driveway $35 (per unit, or single charge per other development) Medina NO ANSWER Elk River State Surcharge $1,050 Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake 1-1/2” pressure reducer $350 Monticello Assessment search @ $100.00 Ramsey NO ANSWER City: Section D: Other Fees/Charges Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids Storm Sewer $1,052 Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello Utility locate @ $50.00, and Excavation permit @$50.00 Ramsey NO ANSWER Appendix 121 | Page Utility/Entitlement Fees, City Provided Utility Fees: Street Lights City: City Provided Utilities Section: Street Lights Blaine Yes: Install is required by developers. The city pays utility fees. Coon Rapids Yes: Installed by developer, city pays bills and maintenance Dayton Yes: installed and paid for by developer. City pays utility fees Medina Yes: The city (pays the fees), unless the development uses lights that aren't supported Elk River Yes: City pays the utility fees of the street lights, after the street lights are installed to ERMU specifications Cambridge Yes: Developer pays first year operation of $100 per light. Big Lake Yes: The developer pays all fees associated with street lighting installation. St. Francis Yes: Developer installs but the city pays the bills Prior Lake Yes: installed and paid for by developer. City pays utility fees Monticello Yes. We require an LOC to secure the placement. Ramsey Yes: Urban Sub. = 9.01 per qtr, Rural Sub. = 14.85 per qtr, priority streets (ALL owners charged) 1.37 per qtr Appendix 122 | Page Utility/Entitlement Fees, City Provided Utility Fees: City Provided Recycling City: City Provided Utilities Section: Recycling Blaine Yes: Do not have a separate fee—charged as part of the refuse service. Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton Yes: city pays Medina No: Not City provided...although we do have exclusive rights for a carrier Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge Yes: Residents and businesses are furnished with recycling bins for general household and office recyclable material but there is no charge Big Lake No: Recycling is handled by private vendors. St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake No recycling fee taken by the City (only private party cost) Monticello See attached Ramsey Not provided by city. this is done through a third party, 8.85 per quarter 3 8 City Provided Recycling Yes No Appendix 123 | Page Utility/Entitlement Fees, City Provided Utility Fees: Water City: City Provided Utilities Section: Water (7,500 gallons/month) Blaine $29.35 per quarter. Coon Rapids 1.65 per 1000 gallons Dayton 24.63 Medina $55.85 per month for commercial/industrial (32.23 residential) Elk River 18.75 residential rate Cambridge 35.95 per unit Big Lake 22.85 per month. Residential: $2.25 per 1,000 gallon per month + $6 per month fixed fee; Commercial: $2.25 per 1,000 gallon per month+ $12.00 per month fixed fee St. Francis 42.66 per month Prior Lake Fee = $2.65 per 1000 gallons, 39.75 bimonthly Monticello Billed quarterly. Please see attached for breakdown between commercial and residential rates. $1.27 per 1000 gal. Ramsey we charge 2.27 per 1,000 gallons for the first 15,000, 17.03 $29 $12 $25 $32 $19 $36 $23 $43 $20 $19 $17 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Water Appendix 124 | Page Utility/Entitlement Fees, City Provided Utility Fees: Sanitary Sewer City: City Provided Utilities Section: Sanitary Sewer (7,500 gallons/month) Blaine $44.70 per quarter. This is a flat rate. Coon Rapids 51.00 per quarter flat rate for residential Dayton 19.51 Medina $32.34 Elk River $20.09. Rate is average of November through March, with no history rate is: Cambridge 43.90 per unit Big Lake 40.80 per month. $4.65 per 1,000 gallon per month for both Residential and Commercial; Residential: $6.00 per month fixed fee; Commercial: $12.00 per month fixed fee St. Francis 46.13 per month Prior Lake Fee = 1.90 per 1000 gallons, 28.50 bimonthly Monticello Billed quarterly. Please see attached for breakdown. 4.01 per 1000 gal Ramsey per residential single fam home = 66.79 per qtr. Multi family or commercial 66.79 + 2.89/1000 above 20,000. 66.79 (sing fam) per qtr $15 $17 $20 $32 $20 $44 $41 $46 $14 $30 $25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Sanitary Sewer Appendix 125 | Page Utility/Entitlement Fees, City Provided Utility Fees: Storm Water City: City Provided Utilities Section: Storm Water Blaine We have a storm water utility. Scenario 1: $5.25 per unit. Scenario 2: $5.25 per unit. Scenario 3: Site plan based. Scenario 4: Site plan based. Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton NO ANSWER Medina #1 $29.51 per year per home #2 $29.51 per year per unit #3 $1,376.35 per year #4 $755.46 per year Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge #1 $4.25/month/unit, $510/month #2 $34.00/month #3 43 units, $183/month #4 18 units, $76.50/month Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake #1 7.25 bi monthly #2 7.25 bi monthly #3 7.25 bi monthly #4 21.75 per acre (bi monthly) Monticello Described within scenarios (per acre basis) Ramsey #1 9.27 per quarter per home #2 9.27 per quarter per home #3 9.27 per quarter per home #4 37.08 per REU per quarter Utilities: Storm Water Scenario 1 (per unit per month) Scenario 2 (per unit per month) Scenario 3 (120 REU, per month) Scenario 4 (18 REU per month) Blaine $5.25 $5.25 Coon Rapids Dayton Medina $2.46 $2.46 114.70 62.955 Elk River Cambridge $4.25 $4.25 510 76.5 Big Lake St. Francis Prior Lake $3.63 $3.63 435.6 65.34 Monticello Ramsey $3.09 $3.09 370.8 222.48 Appendix 126 | Page Utility/Entitlement Fees, City Provided Utility Fees: Other City: City Provided Utilities Section: Other City Provided Utilities Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton NO ANSWER Medina NO ANSWER Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello Fiber Net Monticello - a community owned fiber to every premise telecommunications provider. Voice, video and internet Ramsey NO ANSWER Appendix 127 | Page Utility/Entitlement Fees, Entitlement/Application Fees: Site Plan Review City: Entitlement/Application Fees Section: Site Plan Review Blaine Pre and Final Plat: $1,100 +$10 per lot. Coon Rapids Plat preliminary $440, Final $150 Dayton 100 plus 500 escrow Medina Site Plan Review = $5000 deposit; All hourly rates of review staff charged to applicant Elk River Preliminary and final plat ($200). 1,000 + 5$ per lot over 50 + 1500 engineering escrow) Cambridge Preliminary plat fee = $250 (escrow = $500 + $100/lot for each lot in excess of 5). final plat fee = $100 + $10/lot Big Lake Development Application for Preliminary Plat, $950 + $10,000 escrow. Development Application for Final Plat (includes Development Contract), $500. ====Prelim is 950, Final is 500 (10K escrow) St. Francis Final Plat $350 fee/ $650 escrow—preliminary plat $400 fee/425 + 175 escrow Prior Lake Preliminary plat, 500 plus 10 per lot (5,000 escrow). Final plat $150 plus $5/lot ($5,000 escrow) Monticello $300 plat application plus planning review deposit based on units Ramsey Site Plan Review =$200 *plus a site plan review escrow = $800 (staff time is charged) Pre Plat Final Plat Combined Site Plan Review Fee Escrow Per Lot Fee Escrow Per Lot Fee Escrow Per Lot Blaine 1100 10 Coon Rapids 440 150 Dayton 100 500 Medina 5000 Elk River 1000 1500 5/lot after 50 200 Cambridge 250 500 100 (in excess of 5) 100 10 (in excess of 5) Big Lake 950 10000 500 (incld devel contract) St. Francis 400 425 175 per lot 350 650 Prior Lake 200 5000 5 per lot Monticello 50 with devel. contract 300 1-5 (100 per) 6+ (150 per) Ramsey 200 800 Appendix 128 | Page Utility/Entitlement Fees, Entitlement/Application Fees: Re-Zoning Application City: Entitlement/Application Fees Section: Re-Zoning Application Blaine Rezoning $700. Coon Rapids Rezoning $415, Comprehensive plan = $630 Dayton NO ANSWER Medina Rezoning = $1000 deposit; All hourly rate of review staff charged to applicant Elk River Zone Change (assuming Comp plan does not need to be amended). $400.00 ($500.00 compl plan amend, if nec.) Cambridge rezoning application fee =$250 Big Lake Development Application for Rezoning + Site & Building Plan Review, $950 + $950 = $1,900. ===rezone is $950 St. Francis Rezoning $350 fee/$650 escrow Prior Lake Rezoning Application Fee 300 plus 10 per lot Monticello $200 for rezoning application plus planning review deposit based on acreage Ramsey Rezoning Application = $200 *plus a rezoning escrow = $400 (staff time is charged) Ent/App: Re-Zoning App Fee Escrow/Deposit Blaine 700 Coon Rapids 415 Dayton Medina 1000 Elk River 400 Cambridge 250 Big Lake 950 St. Francis 350 350 Prior Lake 300 (10 per lot) Monticello 200 Variable based on acreage Ramsey 200 400 Appendix 129 | Page Utility/Entitlement Fees, Entitlement/Application Fees: Other City: Entitlement/Application Fees Section: Other Planning Application Fees Blaine NO ANSWER Coon Rapids NO ANSWER Dayton NO ANSWER Medina Subdivision = $5000 deposit; All hourly rate of review staff charged to applicant (in addition to the other charges) Elk River NO ANSWER Cambridge NO ANSWER Big Lake NO ANSWER St. Francis NO ANSWER Prior Lake NO ANSWER Monticello NO ANSWER Ramsey Appendix 130 | Page Utility/Entitlement Fees, Engineering Inspection Fees: Public Infrastructure Inspections by Engineering City: Engineering Inspection Fees: Public infrastructure Inspections by Engineering Blaine The city does inspection of all public work. A budget is established at the beginning of the project. Based on cost and complexity an escrow is paid by the developer. All inspection costs are charged against escrow. Remaining escrow returned to the developer at the end of the project. Coon Rapids City provides design, staking, inspection for public improvements. City contracts for this work and then assesses all cost to benefiting properties—5 years to development, 20 years to others. Assessments include city engineering department time, construction interest, administration fee of 4.9%, assessment fee 2.4% ($500 max) per unit. Dayton Collect an escrow or LOC and bill the developer as costs occur. Everything that needs to be done in a development is paid by the developer. Situational amount of credit needed Medina 150% letter of credit for improvements; City inspects until completion, hourly rate reimbursed at actual cost, estimated 8% of cost for inspections Elk River Elk River charges actual engineer inspection time against an escrow account. Any unused funds are returned to the developer/ applicant at the conclusion of the project. Engineers inspect the erosion and public improvements, including plans. We do not allow developers engineer to certify public improvements. Cambridge The City requires the developer to pay for engineering inspection and the inspection is typically done by the City. This is done through an escrow fund which typically represents approximately 6% of the construction cost and any remaining would be returned at completion. The City also charges a flat fee of 1-3% of the construction cost to cover City administration of the project. Big Lake City completes all inspections. City collects escrow and bills all inspection time to developer. City bills hourly and does not commit to a fee because the City does not hire the contractor or control the schedule. St. Francis City inspects all developer installed improvements. City issues invoices to developer based on time spent. Prior Lake Escrow take is 125% of estimated construction costs (financial escrow) and a 5% construction observation fee Monticello Yes. Sample finance plan attached. Ramsey STAGE 1 Improvements: 125% of estimated valuation of stage 1 improvements (financial guarantee); and 5% charge for Inspection fees and 5% charge for maintenance. Financial guarantee. Total = 135% of valuation. STAGE 2 Improvements: we cover all of the stage 2 improvements in Section B of each scenario Appendix 131 | Page Utility/Entitlement Fees, Engineering Inspection Fees: Gross/Net Charges City: Engineering Inspection Fees: Gross/Net Charges Blaine Most costs are on an upland basis (wetlands out, ponding in--which could be wetland) Coon Rapids Front Footage on a Net Basis Dayton Gross Medina Net acres (storm water utility). Elk River We do not charge development fees on a per acre basis. Cambridge Fees are charged based on total acreage less wetlands and floodplain. Big Lake Net acreage based on Final Plat usable developable area. St. Francis Net Prior Lake Net Acreage Monticello Trunk area charges for water and sewer are paid on gross acreage, storm water is net Ramsey We charge based on gross (the total amount of land that project takes place). We do not charge based only on usable land. 2 5 3 1 Gross/Net Charges Gross Net Both Neither Appendix 132 | Page Utility/Entitlement Fees, Engineering Inspection Fees: Erosion Control City: Engineering Inspection Fees: Erosion Control Blaine Yes: cost determined as part of project approval Coon Rapids City provides inspection and includes this cost in assessment for public improvements. Dayton No (but was included in building permit) Medina Yes: $250 flat fee per single family house, hourly inspection fees for others Elk River Yes: We charge erosion fees on individual building projects. For plats, we require a plan, and that is part of the engineering inspections. Cambridge Yes: The developer is responsible for erosion control, no escrows or fees are collected. Individual builders can provide an escrow to cover erosion control/turf establishment/landscaping if they close during the winter period. Big Lake The City collects 125% of the value of the required erosion control items. (SNG FAM: Landscape Escrow=$2,000; $1,900 refund) St. Francis Included in letter of credit. 125% of construction costs Prior Lake Erosion escrows are taken as part of construction observation escrow for developments (5% construction cost) and as part of the builders deposit ($1,500) Monticello Yes, currently $3,00 for first acre and $1,500 for each additional acre Ramsey Yes, we charge a $100 administrative fee that is non refundable (listed in the previous four scenarios). We also charge an escrow of $1500 for single family. Units. The escrow is returned to the owner if proper erosion control is conducted (ideally no cost for owner). Town homes = flat rate of $3,000. Other types of projects are negotiated 2011 Development Costs Study Ramsey – Blaine – Coon Rapids – Dayton – Medina – Elk River – Cambridge Big Lake – St. Francis – Prior Lake – Monticello Study Directed by 7550 Sunwood Drive NW Ramsey, MN 55303 CONTENTS: Executive Report: Introduction Page 1 Summary Page 2-8 Appendix A: Survey Breakdown Format Appendix Page 1 Scenarios Appendix Page 2 Appendix B: Questions & Answers Background Appendix Page 3 Scenario 1: Single Family Appendix Page 4-23 Scenario 2: Town Home Appendix Page 24-63 Scenario 3: Apartment Building Appendix Page 64-92 Scenario 4: Industrial Development Appendix Page 93-120 Utility/Entitlement Fees Appendix Page 120-133 1 | Page Executive Report: Introduction Growing municipalities commonly anticipate, and in some cases eagerly await, new development. When a new residential development is proposed, or a new businesses campus is planned, municipalities are faced with many questions. These questions regard the impact of a new development on the environment, demand on public safety services, effect on neighboring properties, the impact on existing and/or new public infrastructure, etc. Furthermore, municipalities need to account for the costs of these impacts to public infrastructure along with the costs to review and inspect new developments. This study, the “2011 Development Costs Study,” aims to understand how different cities assess the costs of new development. The purpose of the study is to supply decision makers with information as they consider policies that will affect future development. In late April, the City of Ramsey sent a “Development Costs Survey” to several municipalities. Completed surveys were received into June. The following is a report of the findings. The City of Ramsey would like to thank each participating city for their time and effort in completing the development costs survey—your participation made this survey possible! We hope that this information will be useful for both city staff and elected officials. 2 | Page Survey Results: Summary Each and every city in this survey assesses development costs differently. Some municipalities rely more on developers to install needed infrastructure and to make site improvements than other municipalities. Some municipalities install needed infrastructure and make site improvements independently and then charge developers. Some cities put most of their costs into one part of a building permit and others break down their costs into separate permit fees. Some cities account for nearly all costs through development fees and some cities absorb costs into the general operating budget. Some cities pass on costs to end users rather than developers (i.e. residents and businesses) through utilities and assessments. Cities also assign expenses in several different ways: flat rates, area specific rates, escrows, per unit rates, per acre rates, type of land use rates, per hour rates, assessments, trunk fees, etc. Regardless of how development costs are accounted for, and to whom they are charged, the costs are there and they are important to understand. This survey attempts to breakdown the costs of new development and establishes a city-to-city comparison. However, due to the complexity previously referred, a truly apples to apples comparison of development costs is not possible. The 2011 Development Costs Study displays the complexity of understanding how development costs are accounted for and also reflects a wide range of results from participating cities. For an overview of the development costs study results please reference: • Individual development scenarios results tables (four total) Page 3-6 • Utility rates tables Page 7 • Planning fees tables Page 8 For detailed answers on each individual question asked in the Development Costs Study and for a specific explanation of how the survey was conducted please reference the appendix. 3 | Page Executive Report: Summary (continued) Scenario 1: Single Family Residential *Cost does not reflect developer installed (DI) and assessed (ASSD) fees/charges. Actual cost to developer is higher than stated. 120 Unit Single Family Development: 29.75 Acres SECTION B: Blaine Coon Rapids Dayton Medina Elk River Cambridge Big Lake St. Francis Prior Lake Monticello Ramsey SECTION B: Sewer Trunk $124,741 $119,000 $212,400 $249,000 ASSD $66,640 $147,263 $150,981 $146,370 $146,760 $158,160 Sewer Trunk Water Trunk DI $104,125 $36,000 $789,000 ASSD $68,842 $45,518 $39,270 $90,440 $108,840 $276,960 Water Trunk Storm Water Trunk DI ASSD $163,923 NA ASSD NA NA NA $450,000 $96,539 NA Storm Water Trunk Storm Water Management NA UTLY NA NA $23,520 NA NA NA NA NA $55,800 Storm Water Management Park Dedication (cash) $292,200 $240,000 $573,000 $420,000 $436,680 $192,000 $300,000 $300,000 $450,000 $90,840 $297,000 Park Dedication (cash) Trail Fees OT FE DI OT FE NA DI NA OT FE DI NA NA $72,000 Trail Fees Street/Traffic Signs DI $3,000 DI DI DI $1,010 DI DI DI DI $3,375 Street/Traffic Signs Future Seal Coating NA CTY NA NA $24,000 $6,000 NA NA NA NA $21,750 Future Seal Coating Street Lights DI DI DI DI $44,800 $3,200 DI DI DI NA $54,400 Street Lights SECTION TOTAL: $416,941* $466,125* $985,323* $1,458,000* $529,000* $337,962 $492,780* $490,251* $1,136,810* $442,979* $939,445 SECTION TOTAL: SECTION C: Blaine Coon Rapids Dayton Medina Elk River Cambridge Big Lake St. Francis Prior Lake Monticello Ramsey SECTION C: Top Soil 4" 4" 6" 0" 4" 3" 4" 3" 0" 0" 4" Top Soil Grass/Sod Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Grass/Sod Trees Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Trees Shrubs No No No No No No No No No No No Shrubs Radon Barrier No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Radon Barrier Foundation Drainage No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Foundation Drainage SECTION D: Blaine Coon Rapids Dayton Medina Elk River Cambridge Big Lake St. Francis Prior Lake Monticello Ramsey SECTION D: Certificate of Occupancy $1,200 NA NA NA NA NA OT FE NA NA NA $480 Certificate of Occupancy Builder License NA NA $1,200 NA $600 $600 $600 NA NA $25 $600 Builder License Base Building Permit Fee $160,200 $164,280 $286,800 $145,440 $162,930 $162,930 $162,930 $162,930 $173,220 $140,662 $173,610 Base Building Permit Fee Internal Plan Review Fee $27,600 $106,302 NA $94,560 $105,905 $105,905 $105,905 $105,905 $112,594 $91,430 $112,847 Internal Plan Review Fee City Sewer Connection OT FE $12,000 $18,000 $12,000 $7,800 $6,000 $4,200 $6,000 $3,060 $7,620 NA City Sewer Connection City Water Connection DI $12,000 $18,000 $12,000 $7,800 $6,000 $4,200 $6,000 $3,060 $7,620 NA City Water Connection Water Availability Charge $184,320 NA NA NA $360,000 $24,120 $390,000 $504,000 $108,000 $96,120 $204,120 Water Availability Charge Sewer Availability Charge $267,600 $267,600 $321,000 $267,600 $504,120 $272,760 $582,600 $360,000 $72,000 $483,600 $267,600 Sewer Availability Charge SAC handling Fee NA $6,000 NA NA NA NA OT FE NA NA NA $24,000 SAC handling Fee Water Meter/Horn NA $36,000 $36,215 $50,400 $30,672 $57,000 $33,600 $180,000 $73,200 $44,400 $52,068 Water Meter/Horn Mechanical Permit $18,000 $23,350 $24,000 $24,000 NA $8,520 $6,600 $6,000 $17,940 $34,560 $18,000 Mechanical Permit Plumbing Permit $24,000 $16,740 $24,000 $26,400 NA $18,000 $10,200 $6,000 $17,940 $10,200 $24,000 Plumbing Permit SECTION TOTAL: $682,920.00 $644,271.60 $729,214.80 $632,400.00 $1,179,826.80 $661,834.80 $1,300,834.80 $1,336,834.80 $581,013.60 $916,237.00 $877,324.80 SECTION TOTAL: GRAND TOTAL: $1,099,861* $1,110,396.60* $1,714,537.30* $2,090,400.00* $1,708,826.80* $999,526.80 $1,793,614.80* $1,827,086.05* $1,717,823.60* $1,359,215.75* $1,816,769.80 GRAND TOTAL: NA: Not applicable/No answer DI: Developer installed UTLY: Paid for through utilities ASSD: Assessed based on actual construction cost OT FE: Accounted for in other fee CITY: City Responsibility PLEASE NOTE: •PLEASE SEE APPENDIX FOR ACTUAL ANSWERS GIVEN FOR EACH SPECIFIC QUESTION—ANSWERS ABOVE MAY BE SHORTENED •PLEASE NOTE: APPENDIX INCLUDES FEES/CHARGES NOT LISTED IN THIS TABLE –SEE “OTHER/FEES CHARGES” IN EACH INDIVIDUAL SCENARIO *Cost does not reflect developer installed (DI) and assessed (ASSD) fees/charges. Actual cost to developer is higher than stated. 4 | Page Executive Report: Summary (continued) Scenario 2: Town Homes *Cost does not reflect developer installed (DI) and assessed (ASSD) fees/charges. Actual cost to developer is higher than stated. 8 Unit Town Home Development: 1 Acre SECTION B: Blaine Coon Rapids Dayton Medina Elk River Cambridge Big Lake St. Francis Prior Lake Monticello Ramsey SECTION B: Sewer Trunk $4,193 $16,000 $14,160 $16,600 ASSD $2,240 $4,950 $5,075 $4,920 $9,784 $10,544 Sewer Trunk Water Trunk DI $3,500 $2,400 $52,600 ASSD $2,314 $1,530 $1,320 $3,040 $907 $18,464 Water Trunk Storm Water Trunk DI ASSD $5,510 NA ASSD NA NA NA $2,790 $3,245 NA Storm Water Trunk Storm Water Management NA UTLY NA UTLY $1,179 NA NA NA NA NA $29,760 Storm Water Management Park Dedication (cash) $19,480 $16,000 $4,775 $28,000 $29,112 $12,800 $20,000 $16,000 $30,000 $6,056 $19,800 Park Dedication (cash) Trail Fees OT FE $4,200 OT FE NA DI NA OT FE DI NA NA $4,800 Trail Fees Street/Traffic Signs DI $400 NA DI DI $270 DI DI DI DI $450 Street/Traffic Signs Future Seal Coating NA CTY NA NA $800 $200 NA NA NA NA $725 Future Seal Coating Street Lights DI DI DI DI $7,455 $500 DI DI DI NA $8,500 Street Lights SECTION TOTAL: $23,673* $40,100* $26,845* $97,200* $38,546* $18,324* $26,480* $22,395* $40,750* $19,992 $93,043 SECTION TOTAL: SECTION C: Blaine Coon Rapids Dayton Medina Elk River Cambridge Big Lake St. Francis Prior Lake Monticello Ramsey SECTION C: Top Soil 4" 4" 6" 0" 4" 3" 4" 3" 0" 0" 4" Top Soil Grass/Sod Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Grass/Sod Trees Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Trees Shrubs Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Shrubs Radon Barrier No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Radon Barrier Foundation Drainage No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Foundation Drainage SECTION D: Blaine Coon Rapids Dayton Medina Elk River Cambridge Big Lake St. Francis Prior Lake Monticello Ramsey SECTION D: Certificate of Occupancy $80 $800 NA NA NA NA OT FE NA NA NA $32 Certificate of Occupancy Builder License NA NA $80 NA $40 $40 $40 NA NA $25 $40 Builder License Base Building Permit Fee $9,384 $9,384 $10,298 $8,296 $9,294 $9,294 $9,294 $9,294 $9,852 $9,853 $9,894 Base Building Permit Fee Internal Plan Review Fee $2,080 $6,100 NA $5,400 $6,041 $6,041 $6,041 $6,041 $6,414 $6,404 $2,968 Internal Plan Review Fee City Sewer Connection OT FE $800 $1,200 $800 $520 $400 $280 $400 $204 $508 NA City Sewer Connection City Water Connection DI $800 $1,200 $800 NA $400 $280 $400 $204 $508 NA City Water Connection Water Availability Charge $12,288 NA NA NA $24,000 $1,608 $15,600 $33,600 $7,200 $6,408 $13,608 Water Availability Charge Sewer Availability Charge $17,840 $17,840 $21,400 $17,840 $33,608 $18,184 $23,304 $24,000 $4,800 $32,240 $17,840 Sewer Availability Charge SAC handling Fee NA $400 NA NA NA NA OT FE NA NA NA $1,600 SAC handling Fee Water Meter/Horn NA $2,400 $2,414 $3,360 $560 $2,256 $2,240 $12,000 $4,880 $2,960 $3,464 Water Meter/Horn Mechanical Permit $1,200 $1,347 $1,600 $1,600 $1,020 $568 $440 $400 $1,196 $512 $1,200 Mechanical Permit Plumbing Permit $1,600 $998 $1,600 $1,760 $840 $1,200 $680 $400 $1,196 $648 $1,600 Plumbing Permit SECTION TOTAL: $44,472.00* $40,868.60 $39,792.00 $39,856.00 $75,923.12 $39,991.00 $58,199.00 $86,535.00 $35,946.00 $60,065.88 $52,246.00 SECTION TOTAL: GRAND TOTAL: $68,145.00* $80,968.60* $66,637.00* $137,056.00* $114,469.12* $58,315.00* $84,679.00* $108,930.00* $76,696.00* $80,057.88 $145,289.00 GRAND TOTAL: NA: Not applicable/No answer DI: Developer installed UTLY: Paid for through utilities ASSD: Assessed based on actual construction cost OT FE: Accounted for in other fee CITY: City Responsibility PLEASE NOTE: •PLEASE SEE APPENDIX FOR ACTUAL ANSWERS GIVEN FOR EACH SPECIFIC QUESTION—ANSWERS ABOVE MAY BE SHORTENED •PLEASE NOTE: APPENDIX INCLUDES FEES/CHARGES NOT LISTED IN THIS TABLE –SEE “OTHER/FEES CHARGES” IN EACH INDIVIDUAL SCENARIO *Cost does not reflect developer installed (DI) and assessed (ASSD) fees/charges. Actual cost to developer is higher than stated. 5 | Page Executive Report: Summary (continued) Scenario 3: Apartment Building *Cost does not reflect developer installed (DI) and assessed (ASSD) fees/charges. Actual cost to developer is higher than stated. 120 Unit Apartment Development: 8.8 Acres SECTION B: Blaine Coon Rapids Dayton Medina Elk River Cambridge Big Lake St. Francis Prior Lake Monticello Ramsey SECTION B: Sewer Trunk $36,898 $35,200 $212,400 $249,000 ASSD $19,712 $43,560 $44,660 $43,296 $146,760 $158,160 Sewer Trunk Water Trunk DI $30,800 $36,000 $789,000 ASSD $20,363 $13,464 $11,616 $26,752 $108,840 $276,960 Water Trunk Storm Water Trunk DI ASSD $48,488 NA ASSD NA NA NA $40,480 $28,556 NA Storm Water Trunk Storm Water Management NA UTLY NA UTLY $10,375 UTLY NA NA NA NA $55,800 Storm Water Management Park Dedication (cash) $292,200 $163,200 $42,020 $49,280 $436,680 $192,000 $300,000 $300,000 $450,000 $98,840 $252,480 Park Dedication (cash) Trail Fees OT FE $12,000 OT FE NA DI NA OT FE DI NA NA $72,000 Trail Fees Street/Traffic Signs DI $400 NA DI DI $270 DI DI DI DI $450 Street/Traffic Signs Future Seal Coating NA CTY NA NA $1,600 $400 NA NA NA NA $1,450 Future Seal Coating Street Lights DI DI DI DI $5,964 $400 DI DI DI NA $6,800 Street Lights SECTION TOTAL: $329,098* $241,600* $338,908* $1,087,280* $454,619* $233,145* $357,024* $356,276* $560,528* $382,996 $824,100 SECTION TOTAL: SECTION C: Blaine Coon Rapids Dayton Medina Elk River Cambridge Big Lake St. Francis Prior Lake Monticello Ramsey SECTION C: Top Soil 4" 4" 6" 0" 4" 3" 4" 3" 0" 0" 4" Top Soil Grass/Sod Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Grass/Sod Trees Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Trees Shrubs Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Shrubs Radon Barrier No No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Radon Barrier Foundation Drainage No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Foundation Drainage SECTION D: Blaine Coon Rapids Dayton Medina Elk River Cambridge Big Lake St. Francis Prior Lake Monticello Ramsey SECTION D: Certificate of Occupancy $1,200 $2,364 NA NA NA NA OT FE NA NA NA $480 Certificate of Occupancy Builder License NA NA $10 NA $5 NA $5 NA NA $25 NA Builder License Base Building Permit Fee NA $47,270 $70,565 $31,932 $41,379 $41,379 $41,379 $41,379 $41,379 $38,677 $117,810 Base Building Permit Fee Internal Plan Review Fee NA $30,726 NA $20,726 $26,896 $26,896 $23,716 $31,034 $29,344 $25,140 $76,577 Internal Plan Review Fee City Sewer Connection OT FE $12,000 $18,000 NA $7,800 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $108,000 $7,800 NA City Sewer Connection City Water Connection DI $12,000 $18,000 NA NA $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $108,000 $6,600 NA City Water Connection Water Availability Charge $184,320 NA NA NA $360,000 $24,120 $234,000 $204,120 $108,000 NA $204,120 Water Availability Charge Sewer Availability Charge $267,600 $267,600 $321,000 $267,600 $504,120 $272,760 $349,560 $360,000 $72,000 $483,600 $267,600 Sewer Availability Charge SAC handling Fee NA $72,000 NA NA NA NA OT FE NA NA NA $24,000 SAC handling Fee Water Meter/Horn NA $1,200 $302 NA $3,305 $689 NA $1,500 $925 NA NA Water Meter/Horn Mechanical Permit NA $20,000 $24,000 $5,465 $9,000 $12,000 $6,073 $6,411 $6,000 $5,000 $6,000 Mechanical Permit Plumbing Permit NA $14,400 $24,000 $3,939 $6,000 $18,000 $14,918 $4,612 $4,000 $7,500 $4,000 Plumbing Permit SECTION TOTAL: $453,120.00* $479,559.00 $475,876.73 $11,341.50 $958,504.94 $407,843.94 $681,650.69 $661,055.88 $477,648.16 $574,342.51 $700,586.80 SECTION TOTAL: GRAND TOTAL: $782,218.00* $721,159.00* $814,784.73* $1,416,941.50* $1,413,124.14* $640,989.14* $1,038,674.69* $1,017,331.88* $1,038,176.16* $957,338.51* $1,524,686.80* GRAND TOTAL: NA: Not applicable/No answer DI: Developer installed UTLY: Paid for through utilities ASSD: Assessed based on actual construction cost OT FE: Accounted for in other fee CITY: City Responsibility PLEASE NOTE: •PLEASE SEE APPENDIX FOR ACTUAL ANSWERS GIVEN FOR EACH SPECIFIC QUESTION—ANSWERS ABOVE MAY BE SHORTENED •PLEASE NOTE: APPENDIX INCLUDES FEES/CHARGES NOT LISTED IN THIS TABLE –SEE “OTHER/FEES CHARGES” IN EACH INDIVIDUAL SCENARIO *Cost does not reflect developer installed (DI) and assessed (ASSD) fees/charges. Actual cost to developer is higher than stated. 6 | Page Executive Report: Summary (continued) Scenario 4: Industrial Development *Cost does not reflect developer installed (DI) and assessed (ASSD) fees/charges. Actual cost to developer is higher than stated. 40,000 sq. ft. Industrial Development: 4 Acre Lot SECTION B: Blaine Coon Rapids Dayton Medina Elk River Cambridge Big Lake St. Francis Prior Lake Monticello Ramsey SECTION B: Sewer Trunk 16,772 $16,000 $14,120 $14,525 ASSD $8,960 $19,800 $20,300 $12,160 $12,260 $15,860 Sewer Trunk Water Trunk DI $14,000 $4,800 $46,025 ASSD $9,256 $6,120 $5,280 $22,000 $9,068 $34,580 Water Trunk Storm Water Trunk DI ASSD $22,040 NA ASSD NA NA NA $23,120 $12,980 NA Storm Water Trunk Storm Water Management NA UTLY NA UTLY $4,716 NA NA NA $23,120 NA $18,520 Storm Water Management Park Dedication (cash) $19,480 $16,000 $36,800 $25,000 $38,976 $11,760 NA NA $25,600 NA $18,952 Park Dedication (cash) Trail Fees OT FE $7,200 OT FE NA DI NA NA DI NA NA $4,360 Trail Fees Street/Traffic Signs DI $400 DI NA DI $270 DI DI $19,680 DI $450 Street/Traffic Signs Future Seal Coating NA CTY NA NA $800 $200 NA NA NA NA $725 Future Seal Coating Street Lights DI DI NA NA $2,982 $200 DI DI DI NA $3,400 Street Lights SECTION TOTAL: $36,252* $53,600* $77,760* $85,550* $47,474* $30,646* $25,920* $25,580* $125,680* $34,308* $96,847* SECTION TOTAL: SECTION C: Blaine Coon Rapids Dayton Medina Elk River Cambridge Big Lake St. Francis Prior Lake Monticello Ramsey SECTION C: Top Soil 4" 0" 6" 0" 4" 3" 4" 3" 0" 0" 4" Top Soil Grass/Sod Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Grass/Sod Trees Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Trees Shrubs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Shrubs Foundation Drainage No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Foundation Drainage SECTION D: Blaine Coon Rapids Dayton Medina Elk River Cambridge Big Lake St. Francis Prior Lake Monticello Ramsey SECTION D: Certificate of Occupancy $10 $600 NA NA NA NA OT FE NA NA NA $16 Certificate of Occupancy Builder License NA NA $10 NA $5 NA NA NA NA $25 NA Builder License Base Building Permit Fee $12,040 $11,995 $19,838 $9,138 $11,084 $11,084 $10,334 $11,084 $11,945 $10,955 $11,957 Base Building Permit Fee Internal Plan Review Fee $6,800 $7,796 NA $5,939 $7,204 $7,204 $6,717 $7,204 $7,764 $7,121 $7,772 Internal Plan Review Fee City Sewer Connection OT FE $100 $150 NA $100 $50 $35 NA $25,000 $65 NA City Sewer Connection City Water Connection DI $100 $150 NA NA $50 $35 $25,000 NA $55 NA City Water Connection Water Availability Charge $15,524 NA NA NA $21,000 $1,407 $13,650 $4,200 $6,300 NA $11,907 Water Availability Charge Sewer Availability Charge $15,610 $15,610 $25,480 $15,610 $29,407 $15,911 $28,391 $3,000 $4,200 $28,210 $15,610 Sewer Availability Charge SAC handling Fee NA $350 NA NA NA NA OT FE NA NA NA $200 SAC handling Fee Water Meter/Horn NA $1,000 $450 NA $570 NA NA NA NA $1,200 NA Water Meter/Horn Mechanical Permit NA $1,672 $500 $1,150 $1,050 $1,400 $1,333 $1,328 $700 $910 $700 Mechanical Permit Plumbing Permit NA $1,145 $500 $950 $750 $1,000 $1,092 $1,087 $500 $625 $500 Plumbing Permit SECTION TOTAL: $49,984.00* $40,367.75 $47,078.19 $32,786.71 $71,170.19 $38,106.19 $61,586.88 $52,903.57 $56,409.66 $49,166.21 $48,661.64 SECTION TOTAL: GRAND TOTAL: $86,236.00* $93,967.75* $124,838.19* $118,336.71* $118,644.19* $68,752.19* $87,506.88* $78,483.57* $182,089.66* $83,474.21* $145,508.64 GRAND TOTAL: NA: Not applicable/No answer DI: Developer installed UTLY: Paid for through utilities ASSD: Assessed based on actual construction cost OT FE: Accounted for in other fee CITY: City Responsibility PLEASE NOTE: •PLEASE SEE APPENDIX FOR ACTUAL ANSWERS GIVEN FOR EACH SPECIFIC QUESTION—ANSWERS ABOVE MAY BE SHORTENED •PLEASE NOTE: APPENDIX INCLUDES FEES/CHARGES NOT LISTED IN THIS TABLE –SEE “OTHER/FEES CHARGES” IN EACH INDIVIDUAL SCENARIO *Cost does not reflect developer installed (DI) and assessed (ASSD) fees/charges. Actual cost to developer is higher than stated. 7 | Page Survey Results: Executive Summary (continued) Utility Rates: Results based on 7,500 gallons per month Results based on 7,500 gallons per month $29 $12 $25 $32 $19 $36 $23 $43 $20 $19 $17 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Water $15 $17 $20 $32 $20 $44 $41 $46 $14 $30 $25 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Sanitary Sewer 8 | Page Survey Results: Executive Summary (continued) Planning Fees: Site Plan Review Pre Plat Final Plat Combined Site Plan Review Fee Escrow Per Lot Fee Escrow Per Lot Fee Escrow Per Lot Blaine 1100 10 Coon Rapids 440 150 Dayton 100 500 Medina 5000 Elk River 1000 1500 5/lot after 50 200 Cambridge 250 500 100 (in excess of 5) 100 10 (in excess of 5) Big Lake 950 10000 500 (incld devel contract) St. Francis 400 425 175 per lot 350 650 Prior Lake 200 5000 5 per lot Monticello 50 with devel. contract 300 1-5 (100 per) 6+ (150 per) Ramsey 200 800 o Cities either charge for pre plat and final plat individually –or- they combine the fees into one charge o Cities that charge escrows typically charge an hourly rate to perform reviews. Re-Zoning Application Re-Zoning Application Fee Escrow/Deposit Blaine 700 Coon Rapids 415 Dayton Medina 1000 Elk River 400 Cambridge 250 Big Lake 950 St. Francis 350 350 Prior Lake 300 (10 per lot) Monticello 200 Variable Based on Acerage Ramsey 200 400 2011 FEE SCHEDULE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES –BASED ON $150,000 VALUATION Becker Big Lake Zimmerman Elk River Monticello St. Michael Fee Table Used 1997 Fee Schedule 1997 Fee Schedule 1997 Fee Schedule 1997 Fee Schedule 106% of 1997 State recommended schedule 1997 State recommended schedule + consumer index increase Building Permit Fee $ 1,273.75 $ 1,273.75 $ 1,273.75 $ 1,273.00 $ 1,350.38 $ 1,353.50 Plan Review Fee $ 827.94 $ 827.94 $ 827.94 $ 828.00 $ 877.75 $ 879.78 State Surcharge $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 $ 75.00 Sub Total $ 2,176.69 $ 2,176.69 $ 2,176.69 $ 2,176.00 $ 2,303.13 $ 2,308.28 Erosion Inspection Fee $ -$ -$ -$ 175.00 $ -$ - Plumbing & Mechanical Permits $ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ - WAC $ 2,977.00 $ 3,250.00 $ 5,500.00 $3,000.00 $ 840.00 $ 2,675.00 Water Meter Charge $ 294.00 $ 200.00 $ 470.00 $ -$ 352.69 $ 330.00 Water Connection Charge $ 100.00 $ 35.00 $ 110.00 $ 65.00 $ 127.00 $ 100.00 Sewer Connection Charge $ -$ 35.00 $ -$ 65.00 $ -$ 100.00 SAC $ 4,000.00 $ 4,855.00 $ 5,500.00 $ 4,201.00 $ 4,030.00 $ 4,712.00 Contractors License $ -$ 5.00 $ -$ 5.00 $ 25.00 $ 5.00 Water/Sewer Excavation Permit $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 50.00 $ - Assessment Search Fee $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 25.00 $ - Utility Locate Fee $ -$ -$ -$ -$ 35.00 $ - Landscape/lawn Escrow $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,500.00 $ -$ -$ 1,000.00 Sub Total $ 9,371.00 $ 10,380.00 $ 13,080.00 $ 7,511.00 $ 5,484.69 $ 8,922.00 Total Fees $ 11,547.69 $ 12,556.69 $ 15,256.69 $ 9,687.00 $ 7,787.82 $ 11,230.28 Notes: WAC Charges are being looked into to see which cities treat their water