Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 01-05-2010 AGENDA MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION January 5th, 2010 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman – NAC 1. Call to order. 2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 1st, 2009. 3. Citizen Comments. 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. 5. Consideration to call for a Public Hearing for the adoption of the 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map. 6. Comprehensive Plan review a. Transportation Plan update – City Engineer Bruce Westby 7. Community Development Director’s Report. 8. Adjourn. Planning Commission Agenda- 01/05/2010 1 5. Consideration to call for a Public Hearing for the adoption of the 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map. (AS) BACKGROUND The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map and to call for a public hearing for the adoption of the Zoning Map. The City Attorney has recommended that the City adopt an official zoning map each year. The draft attached as supporting data has been reviewed by the Community Development Coordinator, City Administrator, and Consulting City Planner for accuracy. Records of all official boundary adjustments, annexations and rezoning actions have been reviewed. Additionally, no amendments to the map have been requested since the time of the previous review and adoption. Therefore, we believe the map presented is an accurate reflection of all zoning action. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 1. Motion to call for a public hearing on the adoption of the 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map. 2. Motion to recommend tabling of action on the 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map for further study. 3. Motion of other. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends calling for the public hearing on the City of Monticello Zoning Map as proposed. This draft represents an accurate picture of Monticello’s zoning based on a review of all available records, SUPPORTING DATA Exhibit A: Draft 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10 1 6. Consideration to complete an annual review of the 2008 City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan. (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND The Planning Commission is asked to complete an annual review of the adopted 2008 City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan, and to provide recommendations for amendment, if desired. The comprehensive plan states that an annual review of the Comprehensive Plan “keeps an active and current focus on achieving the vision for Monticello and the use of the Comprehensive Plan.” To aid the Commission in this review, staff has included both excerpts of the Plan (the full document is available online Under the Planning Department of the City’s website), and an analysis of the major concepts of the Plan. Obviously, the Commission’s comments are not limited to these excerpts or statements, but rather these broad policies are the representative direction of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, a discussion of these items is a critical component of the annual review. Additionally, during its December meeting, the Planning Commission asked for a report on the status of the Transportation Plan, which is a critical planning document for the City and exists as Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan. City Engineer Bruce Westby will be present to provide a detailed update to the Commission and Item 6(a) addresses that item in written detail. The Commission should be aware that significant alterations to the Plan require formal amendment, which requires a super-majority of the City Council for adoption. ANALYSIS CHAPTER 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK Annual Updates 1. Development trends and projects from the current years. The development of this Comprehensive Plan occurred over a two year period. As such, the Comprehensive Plan anticipates both the impacts of rapid growth, and considers a more cautious approach to development. A more measured approach to growth was implemented in the Plan due to both the economic slowdown and to the City’s land-use goal of providing move-up housing options. Even with a more cautious approach, the pace of development illustrated by the growth projections within the Land Use Chapter may require update through a Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10 2 more comprehensive analysis, which is described within the “Annual Updates” section. Should Commission which to proceed with this adjustment, a formal recommendation in this regard should be made. It should be noted that a number of undeveloped residential and commercial projects received approvals for conditional use permits or platting prior to the adoption of the plan. Although some of those approvals have since lapsed (Hidden Forest, Jefferson at Monticello), the Commission is charged with reviewing any extension of previous approvals through the scope of this Comprehensive Plan. Updated information on housing supply in relationship to Monticello’s most recent developments and building permit data is included for the Commission’s reference. Community Development staff have also asked that NAC prepare an outline for a potential housing study for the community, as a starting point for discussion. If the Commission believes that a more in-depth look at housing trends for the community should be completed, a housing study may be a logical first step. 2. Summary of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. To date, no amendments have been proposed. 3. Discussion of current development issues and implications for the Comprehensive Plan. As mentioned, the Comprehensive Plan did anticipate a slower growth progression over the near term. However, the Commission should consider the likeliness of a scenario by which development begins to increase in pace and by which the City is presented with development proposals which do not meet stated Comprehensive Plan objectives. These may include proposals which do not provide move-up housing opportunities or accommodate conservation design principles in areas with significant natural resources. The Commission was asked to consider a request in this regard during its November cycle. The developer of Hillside Farms was requesting a reduction in PUD development standards due to market conditions. The Commission’s decision was to request that the developer maintain standards until such time that the developer could provide specific housing designs that would still meet the intent of the R-1A’s step-up design regulations. Modifying Land Use Controls The Comprehensive Plan clearly cites that for Monticello, zoning regulations are the critical tool for achieving the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. A comprehensive update Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10 3 to the Zoning Ordinance has been planned since the adoption of the Plan and has been initiated since the last review of the Comp Plan in 2009. While consistency between the plan and the ordinances is required by State Statute, it also supports practical application of the Comprehensive Plan policies. Without an ordinance supporting the Plan, the City is unable achieve Comp Plan objectives. For example, the Comprehensive Plan does not regulate residential land use by density. The Plan instead only guides locations broadly for residential uses, then further defines the type and character of residential development through goal statements. The zoning ordinance would support move up housing objectives by clearly refining zoning districts and design standards within those districts. The Planning Commission/Steering Committee for the zoning ordinance revision will be taking on a review and in-depth discussion of the zoning districts and standards over the next few months. Next Steps Much progress has been made since the 2008 adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in relationship to the Comprehensive Plan’s identified Next Steps. Updating of the Zoning Ordinance is noted again within this portion of the Framework, and this project is moving along on schedule. Also recommended as Next Steps are updates to the Subdivision Regulations and Park Dedication Ordinance. An update to the Park Dedication ordinance was completed earlier this year. Updates to the Subdivision Ordinance are expected to occur after the adoption of the revised Zoning Code, which is expected to occur in 2010. Other recommended actions outlined in the Next Steps section: Natural Resource Inventory This recommended next step is complete and the final inventory document is being prepared. Full copies will be provided to all Commissioners, and a digital version will be posted online. Transportation Plan See item 6(a) of this report for more information on the Transportation Plan chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Downtown While the Comprehensive Plan did not specifically find that the 1997 Downtown Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10 4 Revitalization Plan requires a complete revision, it did find that significant attention should be given to reviewing the plan and developing prioritized action plans for downtown. In discussions regarding this item in January of 2009, the Planning Commission’s direction was to recommend that renewed efforts at downtown planning should occur in the near future. However, the Commission noted that the downtown property owners and businesses should have a large role in helping to guide that process. The Monticello Downtown Business Association has been formed since that time and is building its momentum. Additionally, the upcoming joint City Council and EDA meeting on January 13th will provide insight into potential projects and funding sources for downtown projects, including the updating of the downtown plan. It should be noted that the Zoning Ordinance revision will not include major changes to the CCD District language until such time that a new study is completed for downtown. The 1997 still stands as valid. Financial Management Plan Finance Director Tom Kelly has been preparing the foundational documents for a financial management plan. Among these is a Capital Improvement Plan, which details major capital improvement projects (from land purchase to road projects) through 2014. This document has been reviewed and approved by the City Council (December 2009). See item 7 of this agenda for more information on that item. The EDA has also directed the completion of an analysis of all active TIF districts. This analysis was completed by Northland Securities (the study was headed by Comp Plan consultant Rusty Fifield) and has been adopted by the EDA. If Planning Commissioners are interested in seeing a copy of that analysis, a copy will be provided on request. CHAPTER 3: LAND USE Future Growth This segment of the Land Use chapter details the importance and impacts of future growth. As noted within the Framework Chapter, a frequent review of the stated growth projections is important in maintaining the balance between growth pressure and Comprehensive Plan policy. Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10 5 Again, as part of its annual review, the Commission may choose to direct a more in-depth analysis of the growth trends and projections illustrated in the plan, especially in light of the potential for continued weak economic conditions. The Commission may also choose to reaffirm or adjust the policy statements below: 1. The City will consistently review recent development trends and update growth projections to serve as a basis for public and private planning. 2. Over the life of this Comprehensive Plan, growth will occur within the boundaries of the current municipal boundaries and the Orderly Annexation area. 3. Future development should be guided to locations that utilize existing infrastructure and locations that facilitate the construction of street and utility systems that meet the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate action by Monticello to annex or extend utility systems to property immediately north of the Mississippi River. Development in this area will place additional traffic on STH 25 (particularly in the Downtown area) and channel investment away from other parts of the City, especially the Downtown. Land Uses In terms of Land Use classifications, the Comprehensive Plan outlines a set of objectives and/or policies for both the type of land use, and for the area in which that land use occurs. In considering future development, the City will use both of these to evaluate consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Places to Live Objectives 1. Provide a range of housing choices that fit all stages of a person’s life-cycle (see below). 2. Support development in areas that best matches the overall objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Develop quality neighborhoods that create a sense of connection to the community and inspire sustained investment. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain the quality and integrity of existing neighborhoods by encouraging the maintenance of property and reinvestment into the existing housing stock. Changes in housing type should be allowed only to facilitate necessary redevelopment. 4. Create neighborhoods that allow residents to maintain a connection to the natural environment and open spaces. Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10 6 5. Seek quality over quantity in residential growth. Achieving the objectives for quality housing and neighborhoods may reduce the overall rate of growth. 6. Reserve areas with high amenities for “move up” housing as desired in the vision statement. These amenities may include forested areas, wetland complexes, adjacency to parks and greenways. Policies 1. Neighborhoods should incorporate the natural characteristics of the setting. Trees, terrain, drainageways, and other natural features provide character to neighborhoods. 2. Housing should be oriented to the local street, minimizing access and noise conflicts with collector streets. 3. The City will use public improvements to enhance the appearance and character of a neighborhood. Some examples of improvements that define an area include streets with curb and gutter, trees in the public boulevard, street lighting systems, and storm water ponding. 4. Sidewalks, trails, and bikeways will connect the neighborhood to other parts of the community. 5. Every neighborhood should have reasonable access to a public park as a place for residents to gather and play. Safe Places Policies Recognizing the community’s stated priority to create safe neighborhoods, the Comprehensive Plan specifically included a set of policy statements for residential uses as related to this goal. 1. The City will encourage existing neighborhoods and develop new neighborhoods where people are involved in the community, interact with their neighbors and support each other. 2. The City will design, build and maintain a system of streets that collects traffic from neighborhoods, allows movement within Monticello to jobs, shopping and other destinations and minimizes traffic that “cuts through” neighborhoods on local streets seeking other destinations. 3. The City will provide, directly or by contract, services needed to protect people and property. 4. The City will support the Land Use Plan with a water supply that provides clean water at pressures needed to support fire suppression. 5. The City will protect the natural environment by requiring new development to connect to the sanitary sewer system and by adequately treating all municipal wastewater. Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10 7 6. The City will provide water that is safe to drink by protecting water supply sources. Places to Work/Economic Development Objectives 1. Expanding and diversifying the property tax base. 2. Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for people to work and live in Monticello. 3. Promoting wage levels that provide incomes needed to purchase decent housing, support local businesses and support local government services. 4. Take advantage of opportunities to attract corporate headquarters/campuses and businesses that specialize in biosciences and technology businesses in Monticello. 5. Encouraging the retention and expansion of existing Policies 1. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to designate and preserve a supply of land for Places to Work that meets current and future needs. 2. Consistent with the vision for the future of Monticello, the Land Use Plan promotes the establishment of business campus settings that provide a high level of amenities, including architectural controls, landscaping, preservation of natural features, storage enclosed within buildings, and other features. The zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and other land use controls will also be used to create and maintain the desired business campus settings. 3. Places to Work supports the City’s desire to attract businesses oriented to bioscience, technology, research and development, corporate headquarters, business office, wholesale showrooms, and related uses. 4. The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that Places to Work should provide locations for other general industrial development in the areas of manufacturing, processing, warehousing, distribution and related businesses. 5. Places to Work may include non-industrial businesses that provide necessary support to the underlying development objectives of this land use. Examples of supporting land uses include lodging, office supplies and repair services. Policies (from the Economic Development Chapter) 1. The City must use the Comprehensive Plan to provide adequate locations for future job-producing development (Places to Work). Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10 8 2. The City should adhere to the Comprehensive Plan to encourage stable business setting and promote investment and expansion of facilities. 3. The City should coordinate utility planning and manage other development to ensure that expansion areas are capable of supporting new development in a timely manner. 4. The City should evaluate the need and feasibility of additional city-owned business parks as a means of attracting the desired businesses. Places to Shop Policies 1. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to attract and retain businesses that provide goods and services needed by Monticello residents. 2. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to capture the opportunity for commercial development that serves a broader region. Places to Shop with a regional orientation should be located where the traffic does not disadvantage travel within Monticello. 3. Commercial development will be used to expand and diversify the local property tax base and as an element of a diverse supply of local jobs. 4. Places to Shop will be located on property with access to the street capacity needed to support traffic from these businesses. 5. Each parcel should supply an adequate supply of parking that makes it convenient to obtain the goods and services. 6. Building materials, facades and signage should combine with public improvements to create an attractive setting. 7. Site design must give consideration to defining edges and providing buffering or separation between the commercial parcel and adjacent residential uses. Downtown Policies 1. Downtown is a special and unique part of Monticello. It merits particular attention in the Comprehensive Plan and in future efforts to achieve community plans and objectives. 2. Downtown is intended to be an inter-connected and supportive collection of land uses. The primary function of Downtown is as a commercial district. Other land uses should support and enhance the overall objectives for Downtown. 3. Wherever possible, street fronts should be reserved for businesses. Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10 9 4. Housing in the downtown can facilitate necessary redevelopment and bring potential customers directly into the area. Housing may be free-standing or in shared buildings with street level commercial uses. 5. Downtown is the civic center of Monticello. To the degree possible, unique public facilities (such as the Community Center, the Library and the Post Office) should be located in the Downtown area as a means to bring people into the Downtown. 6. Downtown should emphasize connections with the Mississippi River that are accessible by the public. 7. Downtown should be a pedestrian-oriented place in a manner that cannot be matched by other commercial districts. 8. Downtown should have an adequate supply of free parking for customers distributed throughout the area. 9. The City will facilitate private investment in Downtown and, if necessary, use its redevelopment powers to remove barriers to desired private investment. Strategies 1. The Downtown land use area should be an area running from the River to 7th Street. It is bound on the east by Cedar Street and on the west by Locust Street. 2. Land use in the Downtown should be a mix of retail, service, office, civic and residential development. Although an industrial land use, Cargill Kitchen Solutions is an important and ongoing part of Downtown. Change in land use should only occur if Cargill Kitchen Solutions decides to leave this location. At such time, it would be desired not to perpetuate industrial use at this location. 3. With continued traffic along Highway 25, it is essential to work to establish a strong link along Walnut Street between the Community Center, businesses on Broadway and the River. The objective is to establish strong connections between all of the factors that attract people to the Downtown. 4. To help move towards the creation of a new “main street” all new development on Walnut Street should have storefronts oriented to Walnut Street. This development may be single story commercial or multi-level mixed use. 5. Orienting storefronts to Walnut Street is only one element of making the street more attractive for pedestrians. The City should also explore other ways to improve the pedestrian and bicycle experience along Walnut Street. 6. It is essential not to allow Walnut Street to become a bypass route for Highway 25. As congestion increases on Highway 25, there is an impetus to seek other routes. Walnut Street is an attractive cut-through option. Th e Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10 10 orientation of buildings, on-street parking, boulevard trees, and curb “bump outs” are examples of means to calm traffic and discourage cut-through movements. 7. Housing is intended to supplement and support, but not replace, commercial development in the Downtown. All housing in the Downtown area (as identified in the Comprehensive Plan) should be multiple family housing. Land is a limited commodity in the Downtown and should not be consumed by single-story housing. Housing should only be allowed above street level on Broadway and Walnut Street. Housing should be encouraged on the edges of the Downtown, in locations needing redevelopment and not viable for commercial uses. 8. The Downtown benefits from strong connections with adjacent neighborhoods. These neighborhoods provide an important customer base for Downtown businesses. A vibrant Downtown enhances these areas as places to live. Improved pedestrian connections, particularly across Highway 25, are needed to strengthen and maintain these connections. Existing crossing points Broadway and 7th Street should be enhanced. 9. Downtown would benefit from stronger connections with the riverfront. Downtown is one of the few locations in Monticello that allows meaningful public access to the Mississippi River. This asset should be enhanced as a means of attracting people to Downtown. West Bridge Park lies in the Downtown area, but does not feel like an active part of Downtown. One possible improvement is a connection with Walnut Street. Currently, Walnut Street terminates south of River Street and is separated by a grade change. The potential for trail and/or street connection should be evaluated. Community events and activities in West Bridge Park also build the connection between the community, Downtown and the River. 10. Access to the Downtown would be improved by making trail and/or bike lane improvements along River Street to provide another means of reaching Downtown and take advantage of the controlled intersection with Highway 25. Mixed Use Policies 1. Development should not have direct access to Broadway Street. Access should come from side streets. 2. Non-residential development should be limited to small retail, service and office businesses. The scale, character and site design should be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. All non-residential development will be oriented to Broadway Street and not to 3rd Street or River Street. Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10 11 4. Commercial development compatible with the Downtown should be encouraged to locate there. 5. More intense housing and commercial uses may be allowed if directly related to the hospital. Places to Recreate/Parks Policies (from the Parks chapter) 1. Neighborhood parks are essential elements of Monticello neighborhoods. Neighborhood parks are intended to be two to six acres in size. 2. The Comprehensive Plan seeks a service area of one mile or less for a neighborhood park. This service area must account for barriers created by natural and man-made features. The goal is to have a neighborhood park within walking or biking distance of every home. 3. There is a clear nexus between development and the need for additional parks. The City will use the park dedication powers convey by State Law to acquire land (or cash) to implement this Plan. The City will require the dedication of desirable locations for parks in all new subdivisions, unless the subdivision is adequately served by an existing (or planned) neighborhood park. Land received by the City through park dedication must have the capacity for park use. Dedicated land should not be encumbered by steep slopes, poor soils, utility easements and other impediments to intended park uses. 4. Parks should be connected by trails and sidewalks to provide walking and biking access for both neighborhoods and the broader community. 5. The development, improvement and maintenance of the park system requires careful financial planning. With park dedication providing a key resource, this planning must be tied to ongoing projections of future growth. Th is planning should work to ensure that funding plans for the acquisition and development of the regional park do not deplete funding for the rest of the system. 6. Timely development of neighborhood parks is essential. Funding of the park system should provide for both acquisition and timely development of neighborhood parks. This objective may require new financial strategies. Finance tools such as special assessments and housing improvement areas would allow a park to be built at the outset of residential construction. 7. Planning for neighborhood parks should also consider the needs of rural residential subdivisions. A less dense development pattern does not remove the need for neighborhood parks, but may alter the service area and location. Places for Community and Urban Reserve No specific objectives or policy statements were made for these land use classifications. However, the Comprehensive Plan text does discuss opportunities and considerations for each. Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10 12 Greenway Through the adoption of the Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment, the City re-affirmed the concept of greenway corridors. Although their final alignment and configuration will be determined by the pattern of actual development, the NRI/A does provide a concept which links those places the community holds as valuable, those of high ecological significance, and other factors such as existing powerline corridors and conservations easements. Policies 1. To provide (where possible) a continuous green corridor connecting large community parks and open spaces to neighborhoods, shopping areas, schools and places to work. 2. To connect people to significant places. 3. To protect the community’s natural resources (trees, ponds, wetlands, slopes, etc). 4. To create environmentally sensitive development and design. 5. To provide opportunities for corridors for wildlife movement and ecological connections between natural areas. Northwest Area 1. Encourage development in this part of the community to utilize infrastructure investments and to provide the capacity to develop in high amenity areas. 2. Provide for a variety of housing alternatives based on the natural features and the surrounding land uses. Areas with high natural amenities or proximity to the planned regional park should be reserved for move up housing. 3. Expansion of existing Places to Work in a manner that creates more “head of household” jobs. 4. Preserve and promote public use of natural areas, including the establishment of greenway corridors. 5. Identify and preserve key street corridors. 6. Preserve areas for future Places to Shop and Places to Work around a future highway interchange, if such an interchange proves viable. South Central Area 1. It helps to facilitate the expansion of the sanitary sewer system in conjunction with the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue. This sanitary sewer capacity is needed to support future industrial growth area along Highway 25. Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10 13 2. These areas encourage growth in areas that could use the new eastern interchange with I-94 rather than Highway 25. 3. These areas provide appropriate locations for continued growth in entry-level single family homes and medium density housing types. These Places to Live are important elements of maintaining an adequately diverse housing stock. 4. 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. East Area The Comprehensive Plan places greater priority on growth to the west and south. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In terms of process, the Commission may choose to recommend any and all proposed amendments as part of one motion, or individually by Chapter or sub-section. Additionally, the Commission may make a formal motion regarding other recommendations related to the plan, such as the noted re-analysis of growth projections. These directives do not require amendments to the plan, but rather support the current contents. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that the Comprehensive Plan document continues to accurately represent the goals and objectives outlined by the City. Many of these objectives have yet to be tested by actual development proposals. At this time, staff has not cited any recommended amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. However, staff does believe that the Commission may want to discuss how it wishes to proceed with regard to the housing and growth trends identified within the Plan and perhaps provide additional recommendation/support as related to downtown planning efforts. SUPPORTING DATA A. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1: Framework B. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2: Community Context C. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3: Land Use D. NAC Housing Study Proposal E. Housing and Building Permit Data For the full version of the Comprehensive Plan, please visit www.ci.monticello.mn.us. Click on “City Departments”, then “Community Development”, “Planning”, and then 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Monticello is fortunate to possess many assets, including a beautiful setting an excellent location, and a rich heritage. The Comprehensive Plan seelcs to use, preserve and enhance these assets in building a great place to live, work, shop and play. Monticello offers housing choices thatfit all stages of a person's life. Exist- ing neighborhoods are thefoundation of the community. The Plan seeks to promote pride in property that results in maintenance and reinvestment to sustain these great places to live. Looking to 2030, Monticello seeks to expand the supply of "move up" housing that allows people to upgrade their home without leaving the community. As the population ages, the elderly will be drawn to Monticello because of the housing and health care options. Monticello provides the types and quality of services and amenities required to attract and keep people in Monticello. Key among these factors are; ► An excellent public education system. ► Access to a wide range of quality health care services. ► An unequaled system of parks, trails and recreation facilities including the unique assets of the Monticello Community Center, the Mississippi River and continued focus on the potential conversion of YMCA Camp Manitou into a regional park. ► A downtown area that combines a successful commercial district, com- munity identity and heritage with connection to the Mississippi River. ► A thrivingplace of commerce that provides needed goods and services through businesses that are engaged in the civic life of Monticello. Monticello seeks a wide range of employment opportunities with a growing emphasis on jobs at higher wage levels that allow more people to live and work in Monticello. Through a combination oflocation and community characteristics, Monti- cello has the opportunity to become an important regional center forjobs, shopping and health care between the Twin Cities and St. Cloud. Monticello seeks to seize this opportunity in a manner that benefits the community. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Planning Framework 1 1-1 Monticello's population will continue to become more diverse. This diversity will be seen in age, race, culture and wealth. The Plan must be flexible enough to re- spond to change while remaining true to core values and qualities. Monticello must be a safe place to live, work, shop, and travel. Monticello has a beautiful natural environment. The Plan seeks to use the environment as a catalyst for de- velopment whilepreserving natural assets for public use and future generations. All actions should work to make Monticello sustainable socially, economically and environmentally. Steps taken today also look to providing resources to maintain and enhance Monticello in the future. This statement describes the vision for the future of Monticello. It describes the fundamental qualities and principles aspired to by the Monticello community. It is a snapshot of how Monticello should look, feel and function in the future. The vision provides the basic framework for planning and decision-making by pre- senting a benchmark against which future actions can be measured. When faced with a decision that will affect the community's future, decision -makers can ask how the potential results might fit with and move the community towards the vision for the future as articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. The City of Monticello has created and adopted this Comprehen- sive Plan as a means for realizing this vision. Overview of the Plan Role of the Plan The Comprehensive Plan is a tool for guiding the growth, redevelopment and improvement of Monti- cello. The traditional view of the Comprehensive Plan focuses on land use. The Land Use Plan describes the The Comprehensive Plan has far broader implications for shaping the character of the community and the quality of life in Monticello. ► The Plan seeks to create and sustain the elements that define the character, heritage and identity of the place that is Monticello. ► The Plan influences the economic health of the community. The Plan seeks to attract new in- vestment and guide it to proper locations in the community. The Plan protects the investment in existing properties by promoting strong residential neighborhoods and business districts. ► The Plan shapes the future of municipal govern- ment. Public improvements are needed to facilitate and sustain development. The form of develop- ment influences the character of the local popula- tion and the demand for public services. The 2008 Update The 2008 Comprehensive Plan updates the previous Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City in 1996. The ongoing growth and development creates the need to update the Comprehensive Plan. It is essential to look back and evaluate how Monticello has grown and to consider the opportunities and challenges that lie in the future. An important catalyst for this update to the Comprehensive Plan was the 2005 Orderly An- nexation Agreement with Monticello Township. The Agreement creates the means for the orderly expansion of the City and the protection of the surrounding rural area. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan provides the tools for achieving these objectives. While the 2008 Comprehensive Plan continues direc- tions and policies set by prior planning, it is more than a refreshening of the document. The framework for the comprehensive plan has been restructured. The 1996 Plan contained three chapters: Inventory, Goals and Policies, and Development Framework. The 1996 Plan also includes appendices with Inventory Data and use of property within Monticello. It reinforces desir- Tactics Report. able land use patterns, identifies places where change is needed and sets the form and location of land for future growth. The vision for Monticello is more, however, than a rational pattern of development. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan consists of a series of interrelated chapters. These chapters work collectively to create a plan for the future of Monticello. The chap- ters of the Comprehensive Plan include: 1-2 1 Planning Framework City of Monticello ► Planning Framework ► Community Context ► Land Use ► Economic Development ► Parks ► Transportation and Utility System Plans This structure reorganizes the Comprehensive Plan into a more conventional and usable format. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City Council on May 12, 2008. Organization of the Plan Planning Framework describes how the Comprehensive Plan should be used to achieve Monticello's vision and goals for the future. Using the Comprehensive Plan requires an understand- ing of the Community Context that shapes plans and policies for Monticello. The 2008 update of the Com- prehensive Plan was not created in a vacuum. Input from the public was a critical source of information and guidance. The Plan draws on a wide range of informa- tion that describes the Monticello of today and forces that will influence the future. The Land Use chapter seeks to guide the use of land in order to realize the Vision for the future of Monticello. It forms the practical foundation of the Comprehensive Plan. Land use patterns define community identity. The organization of residential, business, and public land uses influence how people live, work and play in Monticello. The Land Use chapter promotes strong residential neighborhoods, a flourishing industrial base, a vibrant downtown core, focused commercial areas, and numerous recreational opportunities. In a perfect world, the market would operate within this land use framework and meet the development needs of the community. Unfortunately, certain community objectives may not be met relying solely on land use regulations and market forces. The other chapters of the Comprehensive Plan address areas of public policy and action that work with the land use plan to achieve the overall community objectives set forth in the vision. Another critical area of city involvement is economic development. Creating jobs and expanding the tax base are important elements of Monticello's vision. The Economic Development chapter describes goals and strategies beyond the management of land use. Parks and trails are excellent examples of how municipal investments enhance the quality of life in Monticello. Parks provide places for the community to gather and play. They also provide a means for protecting natural features, open spaces, and other aspects of Monticello's rural heritage. A system of trails connects the commu- nity and allows for safe movement outside of our cars. The Parks chapter of the Comprehensive Plan describes Monticello's plan to maintain, expand and enhance the system of parks, trails, recreational facilities and open space. It becomes a new chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. In the 1996 Plan, parks and trails are addressed in the Development Framework. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan envisions that other city policy plans will be distilled to form new chapters in the Plan. Transportation is an example of a municipal function that should be supported by a chapter in the Comprehensive Plan. There are significant interrela- tionships between land use and transportation. Streets provide the initial capacity for land to develop. Land use produces the vehicle trips that determine roadway use and operations. Future street function and charac- ter influence land uses adjacent to and served by street corridors. A draft Transportation Plan was completed in 2006. It is the intention of the City to review the draft Transportation Plan in light of the land use changes in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The adopted Transpor- tation Plan creates the information needed to create a Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. It is not recommended that the Transportation Plan be adopted in its entirety as a chapter of the Comprehen- sive Plan. Father, the Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan should be a separate document that includes the key transportation plans and poli- cies that need the support of the Comprehensive Plan and the coordination with other Plan chapters. This approach does not encumber the technical and other policy data in the Transportation Plan with the legal standing of a municipal comprehensive plan. 2008 Comprehensive Pian Planning Framework 1 1-3 This approach should also be applied to other aspects of municipal government that play a role in implementing the Comprehensive Plan. Areas to consider for addi- tional chapters in the Comprehensive Plan include: ► Sanitary sewer ► water supply ► Surface water management ► Natural resources ► Housing Appendix A summarizes the public input collected dur- ing the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan. Authority to Plan The power to create and employ a comprehensive plan comes from State Law. Minnesota Statutes, Sections 462.351 to 462.364 contains the planning powers granted to Minnesota cities. Specifically, M.S. Section 462.353, Subd. 1 authorizes the City to "carry on comprehensive municipal planning activities for guiding the future development and improvement of the municipality and may prepare, adopt and amend a comprehensive municipal plan and implement such plan by ordinance and other official actions." This Plan is created and adopted under this statutory authority. For reference, portions of State Law (2006) related to the Comprehensive Plan are included in Appendix A. The Comprehensive Plan lays the foundation for land use management and control. The City has adopted zoning and subdivision regulations to implement the Plan. These regulations describe the limitations and procedures for the use of land in Monticello. Using the Plan The Comprehensive Plan is the most important tool for guiding the future of Monticello, but the plans, goals, and policies contained within can only be achieved if the Plan is used. The purpose of this section is to pro- vide guidance on using the Comprehensive Plan. Adopting the Plan The process for adopting the Comprehensive Plan begins with the Planning Commission. State Law requires that the Planning Commission hold at least one public hearing on the proposed Plan. After public comments are received, the final document is prepared and presented to the Planning Commission for recom- mendation to the City Council. The Plan is adopted by resolution of the City Council that requires approval of two-thirds of all of its members. Amending the Plan The Comprehensive Plan tries to anticipate the future of Monticello. Some conditions will be addressed by the Plan; other changes may be unexpected or even beyond the scope of the Plan. Responding to these changes may require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan should not be amended capriciously. The care that was given to the creation of this plan must also be applied to any amendment. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may take several forms: ► Changes in the map or categories of the Land Use element. ► Changes in other elements of the Plan. ► Plans and other studies that become part of the Comprehensive Plan. ► Updating of entire sections of the Plan. ► Addition of new chapters as needed to accomplish the goals and policies of this Plan. ► Revisions related to major geographic sections of the community. Amendments to the Plan may originate from the Plan- ning Commission, City Council or another party with a vested interest in affected property. Adoption of amendments, however, can only be accomplished by City Council resolution. All amendments are subject to the same public hearing and two-thirds vote require- ments as the adoption of the original plan. Council initiated amendments, however, may not be adopted until the Council has received a recommendation from the Planning Commission, or until 60 days have elapsed from the date of submission to the Planning Commission. 1-4 1 Planning Framework City of Monticello Annual Updates A strategy for keeping the Comprehensive Plan up to date and relevant is through an annual review of the Plan and development trends. This annual review could include: ► Development trends and pro) ects from the current years. ► Summary of amendments to Comprehensive Plan. ► Discussion of current development issues and im- plications for the Comprehensive Plan. This approach keeps an active and current focus on achieving the vision for Monticello and the use of the Comprehensive Plan. Updating growth projections is an important part of an annual review. The City should lead an annual and collaborative approach to updating these projections. An annual update should be based on a discussion among key stakeholders including the City, developers, the business community and the School District. This approach ensures that the projections are based on the best possible information and that all stakeholders are using common assumptions about future growth. Another benefit of this approach is an ongoing forum for the discussion of recent trends and the future of Monticello. Modifying Land Use Controls State Law requires that the Comprehensive Plan contain guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of official controls necessary to ensure planned, orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consis- tent with the Land Use Chapter. Official controls may include ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes and official maps. Zoning Regulations State Law views zoning regulations as a critical tool for implementing the Comprehensive Plan. Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.356 states: "...the planning agency [Planning Commission] shall study and propose to the governing body [City Coun- cil] reasonable and practicable means for putting the plan or sections of the plan into effect. Subject to the limitations of the following sections, such means include, but are not limited to, zoning regulations, for the subdivision of land, an official map..." The City has adopted zoning regulations (Title 10 of the City Code) for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals of the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan. The application of zoning districts and the specific regulations must support the objectives of the Com- prehensive Plan. Adopting an updated Comprehensive Plan should immediately be followed by a review and modification of the zoning ordinance. In a broad sense, this review of the zoning ordinance should examine the following items.- No- tems: ► The regulations for each zoning district should be reviewed to determine if they fit with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning districts should be examined in relationship to land use designations. Changes in zoning districts will be needed to match zoning with land use. One of the policy decisions the City will need to make is how to implement the land use plan through the zoning district designations. In the Twin Cities metropolitan area, State Law (the Metropolitan Land Planning Act - Minnesota Statutes, Section 473) mandates consistency between the land use plan and zoning regulations. Out- side of the metropolitan area, there is not a statutory requirement for consistency. While the goal should be a clear and strong connection between the land use plan and zoning, Monticello has flexibility on how and when to make changes. Strategies include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: ► Keep current zoning in place until such time as the use terminates or redevelopment is initiated. ► Rezone property to a zoning district compatible with a land use plan category. ► Develop an interim strategy to address current use situations as they relate to long term objectives. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Planning Framework 1 1-5 It is essential, however, to remember that zoning regula- tions control the use of land. If Monticello chooses a strategy that does not immediately create consistency, then the City must have a clear strategy for when changes are made. Nonconforming Uses Changes in zoning districts may create nonconform- ing uses. Such uses occur when the existing land use is not allowed within the zoning district. In most cases, when these situations arise as the result of a new Comprehensive Plan, the goal is not to influence an im- mediate change in property use. Instead, the objective is to guide future investments to achieve the outcomes desired by the Comprehensive, Plan. Nonconforming uses are controlled by Section 9.15 of the City Code. A review of the zoning regulations will provide the context for an evaluation of the noncon- forming provisions. This evaluation, in turn, may point to Ordinance changes that will assist in the reasonable transition of nonconforming land uses. Subdivision Regulations While the land use plan has direct implications for zon- ing, the Comprehensive Plan does not have comparable effects on the land subdivision and platting regulations. Changes in these regulations are not required for the immediate adoption of the Plan, but are recommended in order to incorporate some of the concepts discussed in the Plan. Project Evaluation In adopting the Comprehensive Plan, the City of Mon- ticello makes a commitment to use the Plan as a means of evaluating a variety of private and public projects. This evaluation requires using a series of questions to consider the merits of a project: ► Is the project consistent with the land use plan? ► Does the project move Monticello towards its vi- sion for the future? ► Is the project consistent with the policies contained in the Plan? A negative answer to one or more of these questions may illustrate flaws in the proposed project. These flaws may be fundamental and require denial of the project, but modifications to the project that bring it into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan may be possible. Negative answers to the questions listed above might, however, point to a need to amend the Plan (see Amending the Plan). In such situations in which a noncompliant project underscores a potential flaw in the Plan, then the project should be approved and an effort to properly amend the Plan should be initiated. Repeated failures to amend the Plan in order to allow worthy projects to move forward will eventually render the Comprehensive Plan useless. What is a Project? To apply this process, it is helpful to define a "project." This definition has both practical and legal consider- ations. For the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, the following items are considered projects: ► Platting of land for private development ► Rezoning of property ► Acquisition and disposition of public lands ► Construction of public improvements ► Provision of financial assistance to private devel- opment The discussion that follows examines each type of project in greater detail. Platting The Land Platting and Subdivision Regulations of the City Code do not require consistency with the Compre- hensive Plan as a prerequisite for approving a prelimi- nary and final plat. The regulations do tie back to the Comprehensive Plan for certain aspects of subdivision design, such as streets and parks. Rezoning Rezoning that changes the use of a parcel should not be undertaken without corresponding changes to the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan and the zoning regulations act in concert to manage land use. The zoning regulations do not specifically require the City Council or Planning Commission to 1-6 1 Planning Framework City of Monticello consider relevant provisions of the Comprehensive Plan as part of the review of proposed amendments to zoning regulations. Acquisition and Disposition of Public Lands According to State Law (M.S. Section 462.356, Subd. 2), publicly owned land within the City cannot be ac- quired or disposed of until the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and reported in writing to the City Council as to the compliance of the proposed action with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council may, by resolution adopted by two-thirds vote, dispense with this requirement when it finds that the proposed acquisition or disposal of real property has no relation- ship to the Comprehensive Plan. Construction of Public Improvements The Comprehensive Plan guides capital improvements by all political subdivisions. No capital improvements shall be authorized by the City (and its subordinate units) or any other political subdivision having jurisdic- tion within Monticello until the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and reported in writing to the City Council as to the compliance of the proposed action with the Comprehensive Plan (M.S. Section 462.356, Subd. 2). As with land transactions, this requirement can be dispensed by Council resolution if the capital improvement has no relationship to the Comprehensive Plan. Provision of Financial Assistance Tax increment financing is the only finance tool for- mally tied to the Comprehensive Plan. State Law requires that the City find that a TIF plan conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. As a matter of policy, similar evaluation should apply to other forms of public financial assistance. In agreeing to provide financial as- sistance to private development, it is reasonable that the City Council determines that the development furthers the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Next Steps Updating the Comprehensive Plan is one step in the ongoing process of guiding development and public investments. The Comprehensive Plan identifies a series of next steps in this process. Zoning ordinance A priority should be given to the review and updating of zoning regulations. The vision and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan will not be achieved unless zoning regulations are aligned with the Plan. Outside of the seven -county metropolitan area, zoning regulations control the use of land, regardless of their consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Subdivision Regulations Subdivision regulations are another important land use management tool for the City. These regulations should be reviewed to identify and adopt changes that enhance the ability to implement the Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the review of the subdivision regulations should focus on compliance with current State Law, support for zoning regulations, protection of natural resources, and dedication of park land. Park Dedication ordinance The statutory power to require the dedication of park land is an essential tool for implementing the Compre- hensive Plan. The park dedication ordinance should be updated to provide consistency with the Comprehen- sive Plan and compliance with current State Law. Natural Resources Inventory A natural resources inventory (NRI) would identify the type, location and significance of natural features in Monticello and the orderly annexation area. Informa- tion from a NRI is invaluable in: ► identifying areas of environmental significance that need public protection. ► Coordinating development proposals with the natural environment. ► Planning for a greenway system around Monti- cello. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Planning Framework 1 1-7 Transportation Plan An updated Transportation Plan has remained in draft form pending completion of the Comprehensive Plan update. The draft plan should be reviewed to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and adopted. A summary of the adopted Transportation Plan should be added as a chapter in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan highlights several important transportation initiatives for continued planning. They include: ► Evaluating of the feasibility of a new west inter- change with I-94. ► Ongoing management and mitigation of traffic on TH 25 between I-94 and the River. ► Planning for the construction of the Fallon Avenue Bridge, the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue and the related expansion of municipal utility systems. ► Coordinating development projects to protect future collector street corridors. ► Evaluating transit opportunities to maximize the use of the Northstar project and other transit op- portunities. ► Ensuring that pedestrian facilities are provided throughout the City and across major transporta- tion corridors. ► Coordinating with regional transportation ef- forts. Downtown The process of updating the Comprehensive Plan did not discover an immediate need for another Down- town planning project. Instead, the Downtown area of Monticello requires ongoing public attention and development assistance in the form of: ► Inventory of actions that could be taken to enhance the Downtown. ► Prioritization of these actions. ► Creation of an annual "action plan" that lists of objectives for 2008, allocates needed resources and assigns roles and responsibilities. ► Study of traffic and movement issues in the Down- town area and the creation of a plan to resolve these issues. ► Establishment of a process that brings together Downtown stakeholders to review results of the past year and to set the action plan for the coming year. Financial Management Plan The Comprehensive Plan has many financial implica- tions. The creation and use of a financial management plan will help to identify, prioritize and fund the ac- tions needed to implement the Comprehensive Plan. A financial management plan will be a tool to ensure that available financial resources are used in the most effective manner. It also encourages actions that are financially sustainable. 1-8 1 Planning framework City of Monticello Planning for the future does not start on a clean slate. The future will be built on the foundation of Monticello as it exists today. The Monticello of today has evolved over time, shaped by a variety of forces. These forces will continue to shape the community into the future. The Community Context section of the Comprehensive Plan examines a variety of forces and factors affecting development of Monticello. A clear understanding of these influences provides the context for planning decisions. Physical Characteristics Location Monticello's location is a critical factor for the future. Monticello is cen- trally located between the Minneapolis/St. Paul and St. Cloud metropolitan areas on the Interstate 94 corridor (see Figure 2-1). State Highway 25 is a key north/south corridor on the west edge of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. This highway (with the Mississippi River bridge) connects Sherburne County and other exurban areas with jobs and services in the Twin Cities. STH 25 is an important route to recreational areas in northern Minnesota. In the future, this highway will serve as the connection with commuter rail transit service in Big Lake. This location presents both opportunities and challenges to Monticello's future: ► The highway system provides convenient access to employment, goods and services in the Twin Cities region. This location allows people to enjoy the small town environment and lower housing costs of Monticello while drawing upon employment and amenities of the Twin Cities. ► This location makes Monticello vulnerable to increased fuel costs, traffic congestion and travel time to work. ► Location and accessibility allow Monticello to become an important center for employment, services and shopping between St. Cloud and Minneapolis. 2008 Comprehensive Pian Figure 2-1: Regional Setting Cloud i Lake Mona o Minne polisSt. aul Twin Cities egion Community Context 1 2-1 ► Thousands of cars travel through Monticello every day. These vehicles increase the potential market for local business. On the downside, these trips add to traffic congestion in Monticello. The Comprehensive Plan seeks ways to seize the op- portunities and to mitigate the threats created by Monticello's location. Planning Context The map in Figure 2-2 is a composite of key physical factors influencing future growth and development: ► Existing land use. ► Potential future street corridors, highway inter- changes and highway bridges. ► Planned expansion of the sanitary sewer system. ► Existing powerline corridors. ► Watershed breaklines. use types. A brief description of each category of exist- ing land use follows. Single Family Residential - Traditional single family neighborhoods where housing units are "unattached" to one another. 2 to 8 Units - Forms of housing with two to eight units attached to one another or in a common structure, most commonly duplexes, twin homes and townhouses. 8+ Units - Higher density residential land uses with structures containing multiple housing units including apartments and condominiums. Manufactured Home Park — Areas that are exclusively designed for manufactured housing units. Commercial — Primarily retail and service businesses. The map shows properties that are currently planned for commercial use, but have not yet developed. ► Public waters and wetlands. Industrial - All forms of businesses with manufacturing, physical This map illustrates the location and type of h sisal distribution, warehousing or other industrial use. The factors that will shape future development of Monti- map shows properties that are currently planned for cello. This map was used to form and evaluate land use industrial use, but have not yet developed. alternatives during the planning process. K-12 School — Elementary, middle and high schools. The section that follows explains these physical factors Institutional — Churches, cemeteries, hospitals and in greater detail. other quasi -public land uses. Existing Land Use The planning process began with the investigation and analysis of existing land use. Monticello is constantly changing. Development converts vacant land to built uses. Redevelopment changes the character and, at times, the use of land. The map in Figure 2-2 is a snap- shot of Monticello in 2007. This information forms the foundation of the Comprehensive Plan by describing: ► The nature and diversity of land uses in Monti- cello. ► The relationships between built and natural fea- tures of the community. ► Areas with potential capacity to accommodate future growth. The map of existing land uses divides Monticello into a series of residential, commercial, industrial and public Public — Property owned by local (not school), state and federal governments. Park - Property in the public park system. Private Recreation Facility — Golf courses and the YMCA camp. Railroad — Rail right-of-way. Utility — Power plant. Agricultural - Land outside of the city limits and not occupied by some other land use. 2-2 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2-2/Planning Context 2OO8Comprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2-3 Natural Features The natural environment has shaped Monticello's past and will influence its future. The original community grew along the Mississippi River. As Monticello grew away from the River, flat land and reasonable soils facili- tated suburban growth. Looking to the future, natural features will continue to influence development: 00, Much of the prime farm land (as classified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Wright County) is located in the southeastern sec- tions of the community. ► Abundant aggregate resources create the potential for mining in future growth areas. ► Lakes, wetlands and wooded areas offer amenities to attract development and also to be protected. The map in Figure 2-4 shows these natural features in and around Monticello. Street System The street system continues to play a key role in the form and function of the community. Streets provide access to property and the ability for land to develop. Commercial and industrial land uses rely on this ac- cess to conduct business. Streets allow people to move throughout the community. The physical design of streets influences the character of residential neighbor- hoods and commercial districts. The best way to describe the street system is in terms of its functional classification (see Figure 2-5). Each street serves a specific function. The pieces of the street system must fit together to achieve the desired functional outcomes. Monticello's street system con- sists of five functional classifications: Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector, and Local Streets. ► Major Arterial streets represent regional transpor- tation corridors that connect Monticello with other cities. Only I-94 is in this classification. ► Minor Arterials are roadways connect Monticello with the surrounding region. Within Monticello, Minor Arterials connect districts and other des- tinations. The safe and efficient movement of vehicles is the most important function of these streets. State Highway 25 and Broadway/County 75 east of Highway 25 are minor arterials. ► Collector streets form the link between arterials and local streets. As the name suggests, these streets are intended to "collect" traffic from an area and channel it into the arterial system. Collector streets are typically limited in distance to discour- age use for longer trips. Their design typically places equal emphasis on mobility and access. ► All other streets in Monticello are local streets. These streets emphasize access to property. They are typically designed for shorter distances and lower speeds. Orderly Annexation In 2005, the City of Monticello and Monticello Town- ship entered into an orderly annexation agreement covering the property surrounding the City. This agreement provides a means for the orderly develop- ment of the community without contentious annexa- tions. It also protects rural portions of the Township from urbanization. All of the development shown in the Comprehensive Plan occurs within the orderly an- nexation area. The boundaries of this area are shown in Figure 2-6. 2-4 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2-3/Existing Land Use (2OO7) J008Comprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2-5 Figure 2-4: Natural Resources 4 ra AIF 0 TO z a. < M 0 CD Or 7, I" MCA 1�7 -IWO It 70 co 2-6 1 Community Context City of Monticello 0 X01 0 0 14 (D 1?7 A, Uw it UT Z C 4) 4 ra AIF 0 TO z a. < M 0 CD Or 7, I" MCA 1�7 -IWO It 70 co 2-6 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2-5: Street System Z00OComprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2-7 Figure 2-6: Orderly Annexation Area {|�yof�ondmeUo 2-8 1 Community Context Ib co CU c0q) {|�yof�ondmeUo 2-8 1 Community Context Growth Monticello celebrated its 150th birthday in 2006. For most of this time, Monticello was a small town on the banks of the Mississippi River. Over the past 30 years, the suburban expansion of the Twin Cities has brought new growth in Monticello. In 1970, the City's population totalled 1,636. By 2000, the population had grown to 7,868 (see Figure 2-7). The combination of new housing development and annexation has pushed the current population over 10,000. Figure 2-7: Population Trends 1970-2000 These growth trends continued into the first half of this decade. From 2000 to 2005, the City issued an average of 219 new housing permits per year (see Figure 2-8). In 2006, the Overall slowdown in the housing market dropped new growth to just 77 new units. This growth trend continued into 2007 with 47 permits issued. Recent growth trends have seen an important shift in the type of new housing development. In 2000-2004, 86% of all new housing was the traditional single-family detached home. In 2005 and 2006, more single-family attached housing was built. The Land Use chapter of the Plan discusses projections for future growth and housing development. Housing Housing is a critical part of the context of planning for the future of Monticello. It is the single largest form of built land use. Housing shapes the form and character Figure 2-8: Building Permits for New Housing of the community. It influences who lives in Monticello today and in the future. Housing Type Figure 2-9 shows the growth in Monticello's housing stock from 1990 to 2000. The Census reported 1,097 new housing units in Monticello over this decade, a 57.5% increase in the total number of units. Single family detached housing (1 -unit detached) accounted for 79% of this growth. This type of housing is occupied by a single family and is not physically connected to any other housing unit. It is the typical home found in Monticello. An additional 20% of the growth came in the form of single family attached housing (1 -unit attached). This housing type is a structure containing a single housing, unit that is physically connected to one more compa- rable housing units. Twinhomes and townhomes are Figure 2-9: Housing Type (1990 and 2000) 2008 Comprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2-9 common examples single family attached housing. In 2000, single family housing (de- tached and attached) made up 70% of Monticello's housing stock. 27% of the 2000 housing supply was classified as rental (see Figure 2-10). The vast majority of rental housing was a type other than single family detached. Only 81 units (4.6%) of all 1 -unit detached housing were rental. There were very few options for owned housing with a density above one unit per building. Only 21 units (3.1% of all units with 2 or more units in a structure) were classified as owner occupied. Monticello's housing stock is more diverse than the rest of Wright County. 86% all housing in Wright County was single family detached and attached (see Figure 2-11). Monticello has more multiple unit housing than the County, but in proportion to the overall regional housing supply. The distribution of the housing stock is indicative of where Monti- cello residents live. 66% of the 2000 population lived in single family detached housing (see Figure 2-11). 12% of the population lived in rental housing with five or more units in the building. Age of Housing Given the growth of Monticello, it is not surprising to find that the housing stock is relatively new. Forty-two percent (42%) of the 2000 housing supply was built in 1990 or later (see Figure 2-12) and only 18% 2-10 1 Community Context Fiqure 2-10: Housing Type and Tenure (2000) Figure 2-11: Housing Type and Tenure - City/County/Region (2000) 700 600 500 :D 400 300 200 100 0 Figure 2-12: Year Built/Tenure (2000) 1999 to 1995 to 1990 to 1980 to 1970 to 1960 to 1940 to 1939 or March 1998 1994 1989 1979 1969 1959 earlier 2000 Year Built City of Monticello Figure 2-13: Year Builjt/TenurelAge of Householder (2000) �...._.._ _...._...� ...__...__..... 45 40( 35( 30( 25( 20( 15C 100 50 1990 or later - Own 1970 to 1989 - Own Before 1970 - Own ` 0 1990 or later - Rent 1970 to 1989 - Rent-��""� l���. _`' T" 55-64 65-74 75+ Qry`~N Before 1970- Rent " ...-•--r"""�'r 35-44 45-54 15-24 25-34 e °{ Nouseh°`der Ag Figure 2-14: Housing TypelTenurelAge of Householder (2000) 600 500 400 300 200 100 to lim Lj 'MW W 77�_� 1 lie 1? 4-1 0 F, �-Ln o CU N t Ln et CC Ln rq 4-4 Q +.A o o C_.? `� 4.0 C �^ o +_0 0 Units in Sr uc� 0 ure/Tenure orN Pge °{ \Ao of all units were built before 1970. Sixteen percent (16%) of all rental units were built in 1990 or later. Age of Householder Figure 2-13 connects the age of the housing with the age of the house- holder. ► A householder age 44 or young- er occupied 75% of all owned housing built in 1990 or later. ► 62% of senior households (householder age 65 and older) lived in owned housing. ► The majority of rental units (63%) are occupied by house- holds headed by persons age 44 or younger. This data provides insights on both the housing supply and the age of the population attracted to Mon- ticello. The chart in Figure 2-14 offers an- other perspective on the relation- ship between housing and the age of the householder. This chart shows the distribution of housing type and tenure by age of householder. With the exception of the youngest (15-24) and oldest (75+) age groups, the vast majority of Monticello's population lives in single fam- ily owned housing. The 15-24 age group is most likely to live in rental housing. The oldest residents live in either single family housing or in larger rental structures. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2-11 Demographics A comprehensive plan focuses most closely on the physical aspects of community - land use, parks, streets, and utilities. Planning must recognize that the physical and social aspects of community are intertwined. It is impossible to plan for the future without a careful examination of the demographic, social and economic characteristics of the community. Age Monticello's population increased from 4,941 in 1990 to 7,868 in 2000, a 59% increase. The population grew in all age brackets (see Figure 2-15). An issue raised at community meetings was that Monticello is a "starter" community. Young families buy their first home in Monticello, but move away later in life. Much of the Census data, beginning with the age of popula- tion, supports this characterization of Monticello. The most population growth occurred in the age brackets representing families with school age (or younger) children. Monticello has a smaller population of older residents. Only 6% of the 2000 population was age 65 or older. The elderly population is smaller than for Wright County (8%) or the Twin Cities region (10%) - see Figure 2-16. Monticello is a relatively young community. The 2000 median age of Monticello's population was 29.8 years. This compares with 33.1 years Fiaure 2-15: Aae of Population 1990 and 2000 Fiaure 2-16: Aae Distribution Citv/Countv/Reaion (2000) Figure 2-17: Age and Gender Distribution (2000) 2-12 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2-18: Residence in 1995 - City/County/Region 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Figure 2-19: Residence Five Years Ago Same house Different House in Different House in Different state Elsewhere same county same state EI 1985 (1990 Census) ■ 1995 (2000 Census) Figure 2-20: Year Moved Into House (2000) 90% 82% 80% 70% 67% 67% 60% 1 50% 40% 30% 20% 16% 16% 11% % 10% 9 o 0 10% ,. 4% 3% 7% 8 /o 1990 or later 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1969 or earlier ■ Monticello ] Wright County ® Twin Cities SMSA for the County and 34.2 years for the region. Figure 2-17 shows the age distri- bution of the 2000 population. In 2000, women made up 52% of Monticello's population. Women outnumbered men in all age groups except 20-34 years old. Mobility Mobility is an important character- istic of Monticello's population. In the 2000 Census, only 41% of the population (age 5 and older) lived in the same house in 1995 (see Figure 2-18). This compares with 58% for all of Wright County and 54% for the region. The Census does not report movement within Monti- cello (the population that moved to a different house in Monticello) during this period. People moving to Monticello from a different house in all of Wright County made up 23% of the 2000 population. The greatest shift from 1990 to 2000 came in the share of the population that moved to Monticello from out- side of Wright County. In 1990,23% of Monticello's population reported living in another Minnesota county. This group made up 32% of the 2000 population. These statistics suggest that Monticello was successful in attracting people Minnesotans relocating to and within the Twin Cities region. Monticello was less attractive to people moving from other states. Less than 5% of the 2000 population lived in another state in 1995. Another measure of mobility is the year moved into the 2000 residence. 82% of Monticello's 2000 population 2008 Comprehensive Pian Community Context 1 2-13 moved into their current house in 1990 or later. The Census does not distinguish among people moving to Monticello and people moving into a new house within Monticello. Given the other Census data, it is reasonable to conclude that many of these households were new to Monticello. This degree of move- ment is significantly higher than County and regional levels (see Figure 2-20). These mobility statistics suggest that Monticello's population is relatively new to the community. These resi- dents have had limited time to form connections to the community. The sense of community history has a short time horizon. These trends are also important for the future. If people move in and stay, the com- munity will grow proportionately older. If the population continues to move up and out, then the future Monticello may show many of the same characteristics as in 2000. Households A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence. House- hold characteristics offer another perspective on the characteristics of people living in Monticello: ► 70% of Monticello households are family households (see Fig- ure 2-21). This compares with 76% for the entire County and 65% for the region. ► 53% of all Monticello family households include a married couple. ► 44% of all households included children under the age of 18. Figure 2-21: Household Type - City/CountylRegion (2000) Fiqure 2-22: Household Type (1990 and 2000) A Family Household includes a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. A family household may contain people not related to the householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder's family in census tabulations. This means that the population living in family household may exceed the population of families. Nonfamiliy, Households contain a group of unrelated people or one person living alone. The Householder is the person in whose name the home is owned or rented. 2-14 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2-23: Household Size (1990 and 2000) Figure 2-24: Household Size - City/CountylRegion (2000) Figure 2-25: Population Per Housing Type and Tenure (2000) Only 34% of all households in the region contained children. ► Of the 1,167 households added from 1990 to 2000, two-thirds were family households (see Figure 2-22). Of these new fam- ily households, only 72% were married couple families. Monticello has a smaller proportion of nonfamily households than the region as a whole (30% to 35%), but more than Wright County (24%). Monticello's nonfamily households consist largely of the householder living alone (79% of nonfamily households). The Census shows several trends about the size of each household: ► The average size of a household is getting smaller. From 1990 to 2000, the average size of all Monticello households dropped slightly from 2.73 people to 2.64 people (see Figure 2-23). ► The average household living in owned housing is larger (2.90 people per household) than the typical household in rental housing (1.97 people). ► For each household and family type in Figure 2-24, Monticello has fewer people per house- hold/family than for Wright County as a whole. These statistics come from specific household size data. The Census also reports the population living in various types of housing. This data can be used to calculate the average number of people living in different housing types. The chart in Figure 2-25 compares average population by housing type and tenure (own or rent). This data provides some 2008 Comprehensive Pian Community Context 1 2-15 interesting observations about the use of housing in Monticello: ► More people tend to live in a single-family home (1 detached and 1 attached) when the unit is rented instead of owned. ► Owner -occupied townhouses (1 detached) do not appear to be producing family housing with an average size of 2.17 people/unit. ► Structures with 2 to 49 units are primarily occupied by one and two person households. The average population of owner oc- cupied single family is equal to the average family size in Monticello. This data suggests that other hous- ing types (except mobile homes) are typically occupied by one and two person households. The population per housing unit shows little varia- tion between structures with two or more units. Race It is important to understand how the Census addresses racial issues. The Census allows people to select the race or races with which they most closely identify. The standards for collecting and presenting data on race and ethnicity were revised for the 2000 Census. The new guidelines are intended to reflect "the increasing diversity of our Na- tion's population, stemming from growth in interracial marriages and immigration," As a result, race data from the 2000 Census is not directly comparable with any prior census. Despite the data differences, it is useful to compare the racial compo- sition of the population in 1990 and 2-76 1 Community Context Figure 2-26: Race (1990 and 2000) Figure 2-27: Race - City/County/Region (2000) 100% 97%98% 90% 6% 80%- 70% 60%- 50%- 40%- 30% 0%s0%40%30% 20%- 10% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 4% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 2% White Black or African American Indian Asian Some other race Two or more American and Alaska races Native ■ Monticello [3 Wright County M Twin Cities SMSA 1,400 1,200 0 .0 1,000 u �n 0 800 N 600 C 400 E 200 W Figure 2-28: Race of Elementary School Population (2006/07) PINEWOOD MONTICELLO MONTICELLO LITTLE ELEMENTARY SENIOR HIGH MIDDLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY ■ White E3 Black ® Hispanic El Asian ■ American Indian City of Monticello Figure 2-29: Place of Birth - City/County/Region (2000) Figure 2-30: Place of Birth Foreign Born Population - City/County/Region I9nnnl Figure 2-3 1: Income - CitylCounty/Region (2000) 2000 (see Figure 2-26). This chart shows little change in the diversity of Monticello's population. In 1990, 98.7% of the population was white. The 2000 Census reported that 97.0% of Monticello's population identified itself as white. The racial diversity of Monticello's population is similar to Wright County, but less than the region as a whole (see Figure 2-27). Another factor in understanding race data is the reporting of the Hispanic population. People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino are not classi- fied as a separate racial category. They may be of any race. In the 2000 Census, 160 people were reported as Hispanic or Latino (of any race). This represents 2% of the total population. School enrollment data collected and reported by the Minnesota De- partment of Education provides a more current look at the racial com- position of Monticello's population. For the 2006/2007 school year, the six elementary schools located in Monticello reported that 7.1% of total enrollment was a race other than white. (In this data, Hispanic is classified as a category of race) The chart in Figure 2-28 shows the racial composition for each school. The non-white portion of the stu- dent population ranges from 4.5% to 10.2%. Another way of looking at the eth- nic characteristics of the popula- tion is place of birth. Only 1.9% of Monticello's 2000 population was foreign born. As with race, the ratio of foreign born residents is similar 2008 Comprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2-17 to County and well below regional levels (see Figure 2-29). The chart in Figure 2-30 compares the place of birth for the foreign born population. Latin America was the most common place of birth for all jurisdictions. 69% of Monti - cello's foreign born population was born in Latin America. A smaller share of Monticello's population (compared with the Twin Cities region) was born in Asia or Africa. Income Income influences many aspects of community. Income provides the capacity to acquire housing (own or rent) and to purchase goods and services from local businesses. Income influences the demand for and the capacity to support public services. The Census data on income adds to the profile of Monticello as an entry level community. All measures of income are below county and re- gional levels (see Figure 2-32). Figure 2-32 compares Monticello with other cities in the northwest sector of the Twin Cities region. For all measures of income (household, family and per capita), income in Monticello falls below each of these neighboring cities. Data about the characteristics of children enrolled in the public school system provide some in- sights about current economic conditions. In the 2006/07 school year, Monticello elementary schools reported that 21% of the student population was eligible for free and Figure 2-32: Income - Monticello and Selected Other Cities (2000) 100,000 M ON M dr M N 80,000 rv` � 00N. LA N O — N � N� %00 N �p M 60,000 Ln N 'I n � M N Ln Lq M dam' !. to tr d' 40,000Ln00 v ON 0 ON 0 Nr1tN N N C (T N N N N 20,000 0 Median household Median family Per capita ■ Monticello 11 Albertville M Buffalo 0 Elk River ■ Otsego 0 Rogers ■ St. Michael Ficaure 2-33: Socio -Economic Indicators Monticello Schools (2006/07) Figure 2-34: Household Income by Age of Householder (2000) 2-18 1 Community Context City of Monticello Z0010prW _"VIM Figure 2-35: Educational Attainment (1990 and 2000) Figure 2-36: Educational Attainment - City/CountylRegion (2000) 70% 0 60% c 50% a 40% Ln 30% zUU/0 0 10% CL 0% Figure 2-37: Marital Status - CitylCounty/Region (2000) Never married Now married, Separated Widowed Divorced except separated ■ Monticello E]Wright County ® Twin Cities SMSA 2008 Comprehensive Plan reduced price lunches. For indi- vidual schools, this segment of the student population ranges from less than 15% to 25% (see Figure 2-33). Another perspective comes from the relationship between income and age. The chart in Figure 34 shows the distribution of household income by age of the householder. Less than 1% of all households have income over $200,000. All of these households are in the 55-64 age bracket. The oldest and young- est households have the lowest incomes. Only one in five senior households has income above $35,000. Educational Attainment The Census shows a sharp increase in college education among Mon- ticello residents. In 2000, 55.2% of the population (age 25 and older) had attended college. This share of the population is up from 34.8% in the 1990 Census (see Figure 2-35). Less than 16% of the 2000 popula- tion did not graduate from high school. The chart in Figure 2-36 compares educational attainment in Mon- ticello with Wright County and the region. 21% of Monticello's population had earned a degree as compared with 18% for the County and 33% for the region. Marital Status Marital status provides another view of the general family orientation of the 2000 population in Monticello. 58% of the population (age 15 and older) was currently married. This is a lower level that reported for Community Context 1 2-19 the County, but above the regional average (see Figure 2-37). Employment Employment touches many aspects of community life. Jobs provide the income to pay for housing and to purchase goods and services. The location of jobs influences the amount of time Monticello residents are in the community each day. Commuting decisions impact transportation systems. Labor Force the Census looks at the potential working population as persons age 16 and older. The Labor Force includes all people classified in the civilian laborforce, plus members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The Civilian Labor Force consists of people clas- sified as employed or unemployed. Monticello's labor force grew with the population from 1990 to 2000 (see Figure 2-38). The share of the working age population in the labor force grew from 66.8% to 76.1%. The change in the labor force comes from a smaller portion of the popu- lation reporting itself as not in the labor force (29.3% in 1990 to 21.5% in 2000). Persons not in the labor force typically represent retirees, students and stay at home mothers. This change is not due to greater un- employment. The percent reported as unemployed fell from 3.9% in 1990 to 2.4% in 2000. More of Monticello's working age population is part of the labor force than the County or the region (see Figure 2-39). This employment status is consistent with its age and demographic characteristics. Figure 2-38: Population in the Labor Force (1990 and 2000) 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 - Population In labor Females 16 Females 16+ Own All parents 16 years and force years and in labor children in family in over over force under 6 labor force years ■ 1990 D 2000 Figure 2-39: Employment Comparisons - City/County/Region (2000) Figure 2-40: Population in Labor Force by Age (2000) 2-20 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2-41: Female Population in Labor Force by Age (2000) Figure 2-42: Occupation (2000)8 45% o a, > 40% M 0 35% o 0 0 30% CYNN N N a 00 W N ¢ 25% � o ,Q 20% o n M 0 0 15% o 10% OR v 5% 0 0 o 0% —r - Management, Service Sales, office Farming, Construction, Production, professional fishing, extraction, transportation forestry maintenance ■ Monticello E]Wright County E Twin Cities SMSA Stear Sherk Cou 6� Other H Cot 2� Other Place lVill 11 lcaNuila Plymouth 6% 7% )nticello 31% Nright my i5% Figure 2-43: Location of Employment for Workers in Monticello (2000) The Census looks at percent of working age population in the labor force for various age groups. Mon- ticello is generally above Wright County and the Twin Cities re- gion for all age groups (see Figure 2-40). Labor force statistics break out data for the employment status of women. As with the labor force as a whole, the proportion of women (by age group) in the labor force is similar for Monticello, the County and the region (see Figure 2-41). In general, more of the female Monti- cello population tends to be in the labor force. The large number in the 25 to 54 age group is indicative of two income households. Occupation Figure 2-42 compares the occupa- tion of Monticello's population with the County and region. Monticello stands out with over one-half of the working population employed in managerial and professional oc- cupations. Monticello tends to be home to fewer people employed in construction and production fields. Location and Commuting The Census tracks the location of work place for the population. Only 31% of workers living in Monticello reported a place of employment in Monticello (see Figure 2-43). Hen- nepin County is the largest employ- ment location (37% of all workers). Only a small segment of the labor force (9%) lived in Monticello and worked in Stearns or Sherburne counties. 2008 Comprehensive Plan community Context 1 2-21 Travel to work data shows a very automobile dependent pattern (see Figures 2-44 and 2-45). The per- cent of Monticello workers driving alone to work increased from 1990 (77.9%) to 2000 (82.6%). The labor force in Monticello makes limited use of public transportation (0.7% in 1990 and 0.3% in 2000). More people walked or worked at home than used public transportation. The share of workers that walked or worked at home decreased from 5.1 % to 4.1 % from 1990 to 2000. These commuting patterns are re- flective of other suburban settings in the Twin Cities regions. The employment and commuting patterns contribute to the neces- sity of owning an automobile in Monticello. Only 1.9% of occu- pied housing units did not have a vehicle (see Figure 2-46). Almost three-quarters of all housing units reported two or more vehicles. The Census also collects data on the average travel time to work (see Figure 2-47). The 2000 Census reported a mean commute time of 24 minutes. (This statistic was not reported in the 1990 Census.) There are no significant differ- ences in travel to work for Monti- cello worker in comparison to the County and the region. Employment in Monticello Monticello is a net importer of employment. In the 2000 Census, 4,262 Monticello residents were employed in the civilian labor force. Monticello was the place of employ- ment for 5,111 people. Figure 2-44: Means of Travel to Work (1990 and 2000) Figure 2-45: Means of Travel to Work - City/County/Region (2000) Figure 2-46: Number of Vehicles Per Housing Unit (2000) 2-22 1 Community Context City of Monticello 100%io 0 90% $ CO 00 0 80% C 70% - `1° 60% 50% Q 40%-- 30% 0 a o \ \ \ 20% N M _10% o I -e EFIE, c c o ge o Ln c d' 0% o oAM -ammemn, N M r r r- �„� T_ Drove alone Carpool Public Walk Other Work at home transportation ■ Monticello [3 Wright County ® Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2-46: Number of Vehicles Per Housing Unit (2000) 2-22 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2-47: Travel Time to Work -City/County/Region (2000) The chart in Figure 2-48 shows theplace of residence for people trav- eling to Monticello for work. The bulk of the work force comes from the area surrounding Monticello. 47% of people working in Monti- cello live in Monticello Township, other places in Wright County, Big Lake, Big Lake Township, and Beck- er Township. There is little reverse commuting. Only 5% of workers live in Hennepin County. The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Devel- opment collects data and prepares profiles of Minnesota cities. One . 1 part of the States community pro- 515 file is a listing of "major employers". Elementary and secondary education Figure 2-49 contains major employ- Xcel Energy ers reported for Monticello. Figure 2-48: These employers account for 2,885 Residence of jobs. These jobs represent 56% Persons Working of the people that reported jobs in Monticello in Monticello as part of the 2000 (2000) Census. While this is somewhat Denny Hecker Monticello an apples -to -oranges comparison, 150 it does provide a sense of the nature Machine job shop of employment in Monticello. The Cub Foods employment base is not dominated 122 1 bt by several arge emp oyers, u • r in Monticello 2007 spread among a large number of Figure 2 49. Mayor Employers ( ) small and medium sized employers Emolover Products/Services Employees in different types of businesses. Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital Hospital, nursing home and counseling center 515 I.S.D. No. 882 (Monticello) Elementary and secondary education 455 Xcel Energy Utility 422 Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. Food processing 396 Wal-Mart Supercenter Discount retail store 325 City of Monticello Municipal government and services 151 Denny Hecker Monticello Automobile dealership 150 Ultra Machining Corp. Machine job shop 130 Cub Foods Retail grocery store 122 Monticello Clinic Clinic 98 Bondhus Corporation Cutlery and hand -tool manufacturing 73 Source: Written/telephone survey (November 2007), 2007 Minnesota State Business Directory, 2007 Minnesota Manufacturers Register 2008 Comprehensive Pian Community Context 12-23 This page intentionally left blank -24 1 Community Context City of Monticello The future vision for Monticello provides the foundation for the Compre- 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 achieve the future vision for Monticello. The Land Use Plan seeks to rein- force desirable land use patterns, identify places where change is needed and guide the form and location of future growth. The Land Use Plan for Monticello was shaped by a variety of factors, including: ► Community input gathered through public workshops and Task Force discussions. ► The existing built and natural environment in Monticello. ► The vision for Monticello's future. ► Factors described in the Community Context chapter of the Plan. ► Systems plans for transportation, sanitary sewer and water supply. This represents a departure in form from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan. The 1996 Plan included the land use plan as part of a broader Develop- ment Framework section. The 1996 Plan described Monticello's land use plan by general district of the community as a means of attending to the unique issues in each district. The 2008 Update of the Comprehensive Plan establishes a separate land use chapter consisting of the following components: ► A section on Future Growth describes the implications of future resi- dent growth and the amount of growth anticipated by the Plan. ► The Land Use Plan Map (see Figure 3-2) shows the land uses assigned to each parcel of land. ► Land Use Cate og ries 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, goals and policies for key areas of the community. 2008 Comprehensive Plan .and Use 1 3-1 Future Growth In looking to the future, Monticello must not just con- 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 foundation for the Comprehensive Plan. Growth has several important implications for the Comprehensive Plan: ► Growth projections are used to plan for the capacity of municipal utility systems. ► Growth projections are used to create and manage finance plans for capital improvements. ► The school system uses growth projections to forecast enrollments and to plan for programs and facilities. ► Market studies use growth projections to analyze the potential for locating or expanding businesses in Monticello. ► The characteristics of growth influence the amount of land needed to support this development. ► Growth adds trips to the local street system. ► Assumptions about growth influence the policies and actions needed to implement the Compre- hensive Plan. For these reasons, it is essential that the Comprehensive Plan state assumptions of the nature of future growth. A challenge in forecasting future residential develop- ment is that the Comprehensive Plan influences, but does not control, the factors that determine where people live. These factors include: ► Quality of life. ► Access to employment. ► Availability of desired housing and neighborhood options. ► Affordability. ► Competition from other places in the region. more growth than is reasonable. The chart in Figure 3-1 shows the projection of future residential growth assumed in the Comprehensive Plan. Figure 3-1: Growth Trends and Projections 300 --- _ _ .._... _�...._............. ..... ....... _........... ._..__ ......_._�..... 256 250 242 /��/22 zoo 1167 150 150 150 150 150 150 150; —#—Actual 150t 30 i--�_'�.'. _-1 —0—Projected 110 100 9 /70 50 50 0 30 0 o,1w oyo ti ti � ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti The projections assumes that the rate of growth slowly rises over the next five years and continues at a level of 190 units per year from 2012 to 2020. This amount falls below the 229 units/year average for 2001 through 2005. This rate of growth is intended to reflect several factors. Monticello will remain a desirable place to live, attract- ing both builders and residents. Housing market condi- tions will improve from the weaknesses experienced in 2006 and 2007. A combination of market conditions, local policy objectives, and changing demographics may reduce the potential for achieving and sustain- ing higher rates of residential growth. Slower future growth reflects the belief that achieving the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular seeking more move up housing, will result in less development than in previous years. Growth Policies 1. Given these uncertainties, the Comprehensive Plan 2. seeks a balance between optimism and prudence. For many reasons, the Plan should not significantly understate the growth potential of Monticello. The balancing force lies with the implications of assuming The City will consistently review recent develop- ment trends and update growth projections to serve as a basis for public and private planning. Over the life of this Comprehensive Plan, growth will occur within the boundaries of the current municipal boundaries and the Orderly Annexation Area. 3-2 1 Land Use City of Monticello 3. Future development should be guided to locations that utilize existing infrastructure and locations that facilitate the construction of street and utility systems that meet the objectives of the Compre- hensive Plan. 4. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate action by Monticello to annex or extend utility systems to property immediately north of the Mississippi Riv- er. Development in this area will place additional traffic on STH 25 (particularly in the Downtown area) and channel investment away from other parts of the City, especially the Downtown. Land Use Plan Map The Land Use Plan Map (shown in Figure 3-2) shows the desired land use for all property in Monticello and the Orderly Annexation Area The land use plan de- picted in this map builds on the previous community planning in Monticello. The Comprehensive Plan uses the Land Use Plan to define the broad land use patterns in Monticello. The Land Use Plan seeks to: ► Organize the community in a sustainable man- ner. ► Make efficient use of municipal utility systems and facilitate the orderly and financially feasible expan- sion of these systems. ► Provide the capacity for the type of growth desired by the community. The Land Use Plan Map is only one piece of the land 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 use. Further, this map lays the foundation for land use controls that are used by the City to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Categories The Land Use Plan Map uses a set of specific categories to guide land use in Monticello. One element missing from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan was a description of the land use categories shown in the Land Use Plan. The ability to use the Comprehensive Plan as an effec- tive land use management tool requires a definition of each land use. These definitions provide a common understanding of the basic characteristics of each cat- egory used in the Land Use Plan. The 1996 Plan relies on three basic categories of private land use: residential, commercial and industrial. Each of these categories is further divided into subcategories that distinguish between the character, type and inten- sity of development desired in different locations. The 2008 update of the Comprehensive Plan uses a dif- ferent approach to achieve similar land use patterns. The Land Use Plan map depicts series of "places" for private development: Places to Live, Places to Shop, Places to Work, and Downtown. This approach is based on the following rationale.- 10- ationale: ► These broad categories more clearly illustrate the pattern of development and the plan for future growth. ► Although residential land uses vary by type and density, they share many public objectives. ► This approach makes a more enduring compre- hensive plan. The Plan can guide an area for the appropriate land use without the need to predict future community needs and market forces. ► The Plan relies on policies, land use regulations, performance standards and public actions to pro- vide a more detailed guide for land use and devel- opment. This approach conveys more flexibility and control to the City Council and the Planning Commission. Role of Zoning Regulations Zoning regulations play a critical role in implementing land use plans in Monticello. State Law gives zoning regulations priority over the Comprehensive Plan. If land uses are different, zoning regulations control the use of land. Zoning regulations are particularly important in the application of the land use categories in the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The "places to" land use categories set forth a broad and flexible land use pattern for Monticello. Zoning regulations (and other land use controls) will be used to determine the appropriate location for each form of development and other regulations on the use of land, consistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2008 Comprehensive Plan land Use 1 3-3 Figure 3-2: Land Use Plan Map 3-4 1 Land Use City ufMonticello Figure 3-3: Land Use Plan - Places to Live The remainder of this section describes the categories used in the Comprehensive Plan in greater detail. Places to Live The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create and sustain quality places for people to live in Monticello (see Figure 3-3). This category designates areas where housing is the primary use of land. The emphasis behind Places to Live is to help ensure that Monticello offers a full range of housing choices, while preserving and enhancing the quality of neighborhoods. Although a single land use category, Places to Live does not suggest housing is a homogenous commodity or that any type of housing is desirable or allowed in any location. When someone says "house" the most common image is a single family detached dwelling. This housing style is characterized by several features. There is a one-to- one relationship between house and parcel of land - the housing unit is located on a single parcel. The house is not physically attached to another housing unit. The housing is designed for occupancy by a single family unit. The typical neighborhood in Monticello is made up exclusively of single family detached homes. The primary variables become the design of the sub- division, the size of the lot and the size and style of the dwelling. Many older neighborhoods in Monticello (north of Interstate 94) were built on a traditional grid street system. Over the past thirty years, development patterns have moved to a new suburban curvilinear 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-5 pattern, characterized by curvilinear street layout with the use of cul-de-sacs. A variety of factors, including consumer preference and housing cost, have increased the construction of attached housing in recent years. Duplexes, twin homes quads and townhomes are common examples of this housing style. Although the specific form changes, there are several common characteristics. Each hous- ing unit is designed for occupancy by a single family. The housing units are physically attached to each other in a horizontal orientation. Places to Live will include some neighborhoods de- signed to offer a mixture of housing types and densities. Mixed residential neighborhoods create a pattern of that combines single-family detached housing with a mixture of attached housing types. Using good design and planning, these mixed residential neighborhoods can achieve a higher density without compromising the overall integrity of the low-density residential pat- tern. This integration strengthens neighborhoods by increas- ing housing choice and affordability beyond what is possible by today's rules and regulations. It also avoids large and separate concentrations of attached housing. It enhances opportunities to organize development in a manner that preserves natural features. A complete housing stock includes higher density residential areas that consist of multi -family housing types such as apartments and condominiums. In the near term, the Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate expanding the existing supply of higher density hous- ing. It is likely that Monticello will need additional higher density housing to: ► Provide housing suited to the needs of an aging population. ► Facilitate redevelopment in the Downtown or in other appropriate locations of the community. ► Provide housing needed to attract the work force required to achieve economic development goals of the City. Higher density residential land uses should be located where the setting can accommodate the taller buildings and additional traffic. Policies - Places to Live The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the following objectives for residential land use in Monticello: 1. Provide a range of housing choices that fit all stages of a person's life -cycle (see below). 2. Support development in areas that best matches the overall objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Develop quality neighborhoods that create a sense of connection to the community and inspire sus- tained investment. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain the quality and integrity of existing neighborhoods by encouraging the maintenance of property and reinvestment into the existing housing stock. Changes in housing type should be allowed only to facilitate necessary redevelopment. 4. Create neighborhoods that allow residents to maintain a connection to the natural environment and open spaces. 5. Seek quality over quantity in residential growth. Achieving the objectives for quality housing and neighborhoods may reduce the overall rate of growth. 6. Reserve areas with high amenities for "move up" housing as desired in the vision statement. These amenities may include forested areas, wetland complexes, adjacency to parks and greenways. Some of the City's policy objectives require further explanation. Life Cycle Housing Housing is not a simple "one size fits all" commodity. Monticello's housing stock varies by type, age, style and price. The Community Context chapter of the Comprehensive Plan describes the characteristics of the housing stock based on the 2000 Census and recent building permit trends. 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 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3-4: Life Cycle of (lousing Supply 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. 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 in the Vision Statement, Monticello's population will continue to become more diverse. This diversity will be seen in age, race, culture and wealth. These factors 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. This balance may not be achieved solely by market forces guided by this Land Use Plan. Actions by the City may be needed to promote the creation of housing in underserved segments of the market. Neighborhood Design A priority for the community is diversification of the housing stock by providing more "move up" housing. In this context, the term "move up" housing refers to larger homes with more amenities in structure and setting. 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 objectives for move up housing in the appropriate loca- tions. In this way, the objectives for move up housing and life cycle housing are compatible and supportive. While every community wants a high quality housing stock, this issue has particular importance in Mon- ticello. It is a key to retaining population. Without a broader variety of housing options, families may encouraged to leave Monticello to meet their need for a larger home. It is a factor in economic development. One facet of attracting and retaining professional jobs is to provide desirable housing alternatives. It must be recognized that creating move up housing requires more than policies in the Comprehensive Plan. 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 attract investment. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-7 Part of attracting move up housing comes from cre- ating great neighborhoods — places that will attract and sustain the housing options sought by the City. Neighborhoods are the building block of Places to Live in Monticello. The goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to create and maintain attractive, safe and functional neighborhoods. The following policies help to achieve this objective.- 1. bjective: 1. Neighborhoods should incorporate the natural characteristics of the setting. Trees, terrain, drainageways, and other natural features provide character to neighborhoods. 2. Housing should be oriented to the local street, minimizing access and noise conflicts with collec- tor streets. 3. The City will use public improvements to enhance the appearance and character of a neighborhood. Some examples of improvements that define an area include streets with curb and gutter, trees in the public boulevard, street lighting systems, and storm water ponding. 4. Sidewalks, trails, and bikeways will connect the neighborhood to other parts of the community. 5. Every neighborhood should have reasonable access to a public park as a place for residents to gather and play. All of these elements work together to create a desirable and sustainable place to live. Balancing the Built and Natural Environments The natural amenities of the growth areas (west and south) in Monticello should serve as a catalyst for residential development. The proposed regional park (YMCA property) offers the dual assets of natural fea- tures and recreational opportunities. Lakes, wetlands and other natural amenities exist throughout the or- derly annexation area. Studies have shown that parks and open space have a positive economic effect on adjacent development. An article published by the National Park and Recreation Association states that "recent analyses suggest that open spaces may have substantial positive impacts on surrounding property values and hence, the property tax base, providing open space advocates with con - Figure 3-5: Relationship Between Development and Natural Features - Parkway Figure 3-6: Relationship Between Development and Natural Features - Trail Corridor F wincing arguments in favor of open space designation and preservation." Balancing the built and natural environments should provide a catalyst to the types of development desired by the City and in the expansion of the property tax base. In attempting to meet residential development objec- tives, the City should not lose sight of long-term public benefit from access to these same natural areas. The original development of Monticello provides an ex- cellent illustration. The majority of the riverfront in Monticello is controlled by private property. Public access to the River comes at points provided by public parks. a8 1 Land Ulfse City of Monticello Figure Figure 3-7: Example of Conservation Design Development OPEN SPACE DESIGNNORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOO] - Pastures Total Housing Units: 98 It - Equestrian Facility Semi-Custorn. Single-Fanwly Homes - Wetlands Enhancements Lot Width: 82' Minimum LotSlze: 9,900 to 16,000 Sq. Ft,. Conservation Easements Wit House Sq. Ft.: 2,400 to 4,800 Sq. Ft. I # - Central Park Wi ' V', C�'' "t t Price Point Packages: $450,000 to ­Liki I p 27 Acre Park South of Lake $650,000 '4 OR OSLO' 1, NEIGHBORHOOD FEATURES NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD 7 Central Park Total Mousing Units.- 66 Cusloin, Luxury Twin.Homes Northeast Neighborhood Green Lot Width-- 45'x 90'Twinhome South Neighborhood Green LotSize: 4,05OSq Ft. Association Dock and Park House Sq. Ft.: 2,800 to 3.800 Sq. Ft, AV• Price Point Packages: $475,000 to $750,000 M FIE t z A well known example of balancing public use with private development is the Minneapolis chain of lakes and Minnehaha Creek. Public streets (parkways) and trails separate neighborhoods from the natural features, preserving public use and access. These neighbor- hoods are some of the most desirable in the region, demonstrating that public use and private benefit are not mutually exclusive. The figures below show two options for integrating housing, natural features and public use. Figure 3-5 is the parkway concept. An attractive street forms the edge between the park (or natural area) and the hous- ing. A multi -use trail follows the street while homes face the street and draw on the attractiveness of both the parkway and the natural amenities. The alternative is to use a trail corridor to provide public access to these areas (see Figure 3-6). The trail follows the edge of the natural area. Access to the trail between lots should come at reasonable intervals. There are a variety of real world examples of how Min- nesota cities have used conservation design strategies to promote high quality development and preserve the natural environment. The illustrations in Figure 3-7 shows elements of the Chevalle development in Chaska. Using open space design and rural residential cluster development techniques, HKGi's concept plan provides for a variety of housing options while preserving a ma- jority of the area as permanent open space, including public and common open spaces. Amenities would include access to protected open spaces (lakeshore, woods, meadows, pastures, wetlands), walking/biking trails, equestrian trails and facilities, common outdoor structures and an environmental learning center. The experience of other cities and developments can guide future planning and decision making in Monticello. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-9 Attractive Places Attractive physical appearance is one of the most common attributes of Places to Live in Monticello. Attractiveness is a combination of design, construc- tion and maintenance. These characteristics apply to buildings and sites. Attractiveness is relevant for both private and public property. Attractiveness reflects individual pride in property as well as an overall sense of community quality. The City may use a variety of regulatory tools to influ- ence the potential for attractive neighborhoods: ► Building codes and additional regulations to pro- mote quality construction. ► Subdivision regulations control the initial configu- ration of lots. ► Zoning regulations establish limitations on the size of lots, placement of the house on a lot, relationship of structure size to lot area, and building height. ► Nuisance ordinances enable the City to prevent and correct undesirable uses of property. ► Other City regulations control other ancillary uses of residential property. Maintenance of property is a factor in sustaining quality neighborhoods. The tenure (form of ownership) influ- ences the responsibility for housing maintenance. The owner -occupant of a single family detached home is solely responsible for the maintenance of building and grounds. If this same home is rented, maintenance responsibilities are often shared between tenant and owner. This relationship may include a third party property manager retained by the owner to perform maintenance duties. Owners of attached housing may act collectively through a homeowner's association. In multiple family rental housing, the tenants have no direct responsibility for property maintenance. This discussion does not imply a preference, but is intended solely to highlight the differences. This understanding becomes relevant when public action is needed to ad- dress a failure of the private maintenance approach. Nuisance ordinances are one tool used by the City to address failures in private maintenance and use of property. Economics also influences property maintenance. The greater the portion of income devoted to basic housing costs (mortgage/rent, taxes, utilities), the less money available for maintenance activities. Maintenance can be deferred, but not avoided. If left unchecked, this cycle of avoided maintenance produces negative effects. Safe Places Safety is frequently identified as the most desired characteristic of Places to Live. Several aspects of the Comprehensive Plan and city government influence safe neighborhoods. 1. The City will encourage existing neighborhoods and develop new neighborhoods where people are involved in the community, interact with their neighbors and support each other. 2. The City will design, build and maintain a system of streets that collects traffic from neighborhoods, allows movement within Monticello to) obs, shop- ping and other destinations and minimizes traffic that "cuts through" neighborhoods on local streets seeking other destinations. 3. The City will provide, directly or by contract, ser- vices needed to protect people and property. 4. The City will support the Land Use Plan with a water supply that provides clean water at pressures needed to support fire suppression. 5. The City will protect the natural environment by requiring new development to connect to the sanitary sewer system and by adequately treating all municipal wastewater. 6. The City will provide water that is safe to drink by protecting water supply sources. Places to Work This land use is primarily intended for industrial de- velopment. Places to Work seeks to provide locations for the retention, expansion and creation of businesses that provide j obs for Monticello residents and expan- sion and diversification of the property tax base. In order to be a center of employment with a wide range of job opportunities, it is critical that Monticello preserve sufficient land for Places to Work over the next twenty-five years. These land uses can be one of 3-10 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3-8: Land Use Plan - Places to Work OP x t A, .o n..r , FF n , r . r '•.• lF the most cnanenging to locate because of its need for convenient transportation access and influence on surrounding land uses. In planning for future Places to Work, the Comprehensive Plan considers the goals of the community; what type of industrial development is sought; and what factors should be considered when locating an industrial land use. In planning for sustaining existing businesses and at- tracting new development, it is necessary to understand why Places to Work are important to Monticello. The objectives for this land use include.- 00 - Expanding and diversifying the property tax base. 10 Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for people to work and live in Monticello. ► Promoting wage levels that provide incomes need- ed to purchase decent housing, support local busi- nesses and support local government services. 1* Take advantage of opportunities to attract corpo- rate headquarters/campuses and businesses that specialize in biosciences and technology. 00- Encouraging the retention and expansion of exist- ing businesses in Monticello. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-11 Figure 3-9: Land Use Plan - Places to Shop "IN R 1 -4 Nkll 1 v - Y I Policies - Places to Work 1. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to des- ignate and preserve a supply of land for Places to Work that meets current and future needs. 2. Consistent with the vision for the future of Mon- ticello, the Land Use Plan promotes the establish- ment of business campus settings that provide a high level of amenities, including architectural controls, landscaping, preservation of natural features, storage enclosed within buildings, and other features. The zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations and other land use controls will also be used to create and maintain the desired business campus settings. 3. Places to Work supports the City's desire to attract businesses oriented to bioscience, technology, re- search and development, corporate headquarters, business office, wholesale showrooms, and related uses. 4. The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that Places to Work should provide locations for other general industrial development in the areas of manufacturing, processing, warehousing, distribu- tion and related businesses. 5. Places to Work may include non -industrial busi- nesses that provide necessary support to the un- derlying development objectives of this land use. Examples of supporting land uses include lodging, office supplies and repair services. 3-12 1 Land Use City of Monticello Additional public objectives and strategies for Places to Work can be found in the Economic Development chapter. Places to Shop Places to Shop designate locations that are or can be developed with businesses involved with the sale of goods and services. Places to Shop may include offices for service businesses. Places to Shop guides land uses that are both local and regional in nature. Policies - Places to Shop In guiding land uses for Places to Shop, the Compre- hensive Plan seeks to: 1. 2. 0 4. 5. 91 7. The Comprehensive Plan seeps to attract and retain businesses that provide goods and services needed by Monticello residents. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to capture the op- portunity for commercial development that serves a broader region. Places to Shop with a regional orientation should be located where the traffic does not disadvantage travel within Monticello. Commercial development will be used to expand and diversify the local property tax base and as an element of a diverse supply of local jobs. Places to Shop will be located on property with ac- cess to the street capacity needed to support traffic from these businesses. Each parcel should supply an adequate supply of parking that makes it convenient to obtain the goods and services. Building materials, facades and signage should combine with public improvements to create an attractive setting. Site design must give consideration to defining edg- es and providing buffering or separation between the commercial parcel and adjacent residential uses. These policies help to create sustainable locations for Places to Shop in a manner that enhances Monticello. The Comprehensive Plan describes issues, plans and policies related to the Downtown in several sections of the Plan. Downtown Downtown is a unique commercial district that is part of Monticello's heritage and identity. It is, however, no longer possible for downtown to be Monticello's cen- tral business district. The mass of current and future commercial development south of Interstate 94 along TH 25 and in east Monticello along interstate 94 have replaced the downtown area as primary shopping dis- tricts. The future success of downtown requires it to be a place unlike any other in Monticello. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the vision and objectives described in the 1997 Downtown and Riverfront Plan. Downtown is intended to be a mix of inter -related and mutually supportive land uses. Businesses involved with the sale of goods and services should be the focus of Downtown land use. Residential development facilities reinvestment and places poten- tial customers in the Downtown area. Civic uses draw in people from across the community. During the planning process, the potential for allowing commercial activity to extend easterly out of the Down- town along Broadway was discussed. The Compre- hensive Plan consciously defines — as the eastern edge of Downtown for two basic reasons: (1) Downtown should be successful and sustainable before new areas of competition are created; and (2) The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain and enhance the integrity of residential neighborhoods east of Downtown. 2008 Comprehensive Pian Land Use 1 3-13 More than any other land use category, Downtown has strong connections to other parts of the Comprehen- sive Plan. The following parts of the Comprehensive 6. Plan also address community desires and plans for the Downtown area: C 00. 00, The Land Use chapter contains a specific focus area on Downtown. The focus area contains a more detailed discussion of the issues facing the Downtown and potential public actions needed to address these issues. The operation of the street system is a critical fac- tor for the future of Downtown. The Transporta- tion chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (and the related Transportation Plan) influence the ability of residents to travel to Downtown and the options for mitigating the impacts of traffic on Highway 25 and other Downtown streets. The Parks chapter of the Comprehensive Plan provides for parks in the Downtown and the trail systems that allow people to reach Downtown on foot or bicycle. The Economic Development chapter lays the foun- dation for public actions and investments that will be needed to achieve the desired outcomes. Policies - Downtown 1. Downtown is a special and unique part of Mon- ticello. It merits particular attention in the Com- prehensive Plan and in future efforts to achieve community plans and objectives. 2. Downtown is intended to be an inter -connected and supportive collection of land uses. The primary function of Downtown is as a commercial district. Other land uses should support and enhance the overall objectives for Downtown. 3. Wherever possible, street fronts should be reserved for businesses. 4. Housing in the downtown can facilitate necessary redevelopment and bring potential customers di- rectly into the area. Housing may be free-standing or in shared buildings with street level commercial uses. 5. Downtown is the civic center of Monticello. To the degree possible, unique public facilities (such as the Community Center, the Library and the Post 7. 0 a Office) should be located in the Downtown area as a means to bring people into the Downtown. Downtown should emphasize connections with the Mississippi River that are accessible by the public. Downtown should be a pedestrian -oriented place in a manner that cannot be matched by other com- mercial districts. Downtown should have an adequate supply of free parking for customers distributed throughout the area. The City will facilitate private investment in Downtown and, if necessary, use its redevelop- ment powers to remove barriers to desired private investment. All of these policies work together to attract people to Downtown and to enhance the potential for a successful business environment. Mixed Use The Mixed Use is a transition area between the Down- town and the hopsital campus. It has been createdin recogonition of the unique nature of this area. The area serves two functions. It is the edge between long-term residential neighborhoods and a major tranportation corridor (Broadway Street). It is also a link between the Downtown, the hospital campus and the east in- terchange retail area. The primary goal of this land use is to preserve and enhance housing in this part of Monticello. Any non-residential development should be designed to minimize the impacts on and conflicts with adjacent neighborhoods. Policies - Mixed Use. 1. Development should not have direct access to Broadway street. Access should come from side street. 2. Non-residential development should be limited to small retail, service and office businesses. The scale, character and site design should be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods. 3-14 1 Land Use City of Monticello 3. All non-residential development will be oriented to Broadway Street and not to 3rd Street or River Street. 4. Commercial development compatible with the Downtown should be encouraged to locate there. 5. More intense housing and commercial uses may be allowed if directly related to the hospital. Places to Recreate Places to Recreate consist of public parks and private recreation facilities. The land uses are essential ele- ments of the quality of life in Monticello. The Parks and Trails chapter of the Comprehensive describes the current park and trail system and the future plan to maintain and enhance this system. The Comprehensive Plan is only one aspect of manag- ing the land use for public parks and private recreation facilities. The City's zoning regulations place these locations into a zoning district. Often, the purpose of the zoning district is to guide private development, such as housing. Under current State Law, zoning regula- tions "trump" the Land Use Plan and govern the use of land. with the potential for the redevelopment of golf courses, it is important the Comprehensive Plan and other land use controls work in concert to achieve the desired outcomes. The City's plans and policies for parks, trails and open space can be found in the Parks chapter of the Com- prehensive Plan Places for Community Places for Community consist of public and semi-public land uses. Public uses include all governmental facili- ties (city, county, state and federal) and schools. This category also applies to churches, cemeteries, hospitals, and other institutional uses. It is important to note that these land uses relate only to existing land uses. The Comprehensive Plan does not guide the location of new churches, schools, public buildings and other institutional land uses. Places for Community will be needed in the Northwest area as it develops. 2008 Comprehensive Pian These uses are typically allowed in residential areas and governed by zoning regulations. These institutional uses (such as schools and churches) are important parts of the fabric of the community, but require guidance to ensure a proper fit with its residential surroundings. New institutional use should be allowed in residential areas under certain conditions. These conditions should address the aspects of the use that conflict with desired characteristics of residential neighborhood. Criteria for locating an institutional use in a residential land use area include.- 1. nclude: 1. Size. Large buildings and site areas can disrupt neighborhood cohesiveness. Use in lower density residential areas should not be more than [to be determined] square feet in lot area. 2. Parking. Parking may spill on to neighborhood streets without adequate on-site facilities. The parking needs will vary with the use of the facility. Each facility should provide adequate on-site or reasonable off-site shared parking based on the use of the facility. 3. Traffic. Institutional uses should be oriented to designated collector or arterial streets. 4. Lighting and signage. Site lighting and signage needs may resemble commercial uses. These site factors should be managed to fit the character of the surrounding residential development. Urban Reserve The Urban Reserve contains all property in the Orderly Annexation Area that it not shown for development in the near term in this Plan. The objective is to encourage rural and agricultural uses, preventing barriers to future development opportunities. It is anticipated that the City will grow into portions of the Urban Reserve as planned land use areas become fully developed and ca- pacity for future growth in needed. The Urban Reserve is not simply a holding area for future development. Parts of the Urban Reserve are likely to be preserved as natural resource areas or for agricultural purposes. Futureplanning will consider the locations in the Urban Reserve best suited for development. Land Use 1 3-15 Interchange Planning Area The Interchange Planning Area encompasses undevel- oped land in the northwest part of Monticello around the site of a potential west interchange with Interstate 94. The purpose of this land use is to preserve the area for future development and prevent the creation of development barriers. If built, the area should be planned to support a mix- ture of commercial, employment and residential land uses. The interchange location and the routes of future connecting roads are solely for illustration. Future land use issues in this area are discussed in the Focus Area for Northwest Monticello. Private Infrastructure This category applies to Xcel Energy's power plant and railroad right-of-way. This category recognizes the unique role of the power plant in Monticello. Greenway The Land Use Plan Map shows a "potential greenway" ringing the western and southern edges of Monticello. The Greenway is intended to provide an environmental corridor that connects large community parks and open spaces to neighborhoods, schools, shopping areas and places to work. They serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas such as natural habitat, wetlands, tree canopy, and drainage ways. Land within this corridor could be comprised of a combination of public and pri- vate open space. Development would not be prohibited within the greenway but would be reasonably restricted to ensure that development is carefully integrated with the natural environment. The Greenway is intended to shape development pat- terns in a manner that is sensitive to the existing en- vironment and harmonious with the landscape. The Greenway creates opportunities for a continuous trail corridor connecting neighborhoods with large parks and open spaces. A trail within this corridor is intended to be fully accessible to the general public. The following are the City's goals for the Greenway: 1. To provide (where possible) a continuous green corridor connecting large community parks and open spaces to neighborhoods, shopping areas, schools and places to work. 2. To connect people to significant places. 3. To protect the community's natural resources (trees, ponds, wetlands, slopes, etc). 4. To create environmentally sensitive development and design. 5. To provide opportunities for corridors for wildlife movement and ecological connections between natural areas. Focus Areas For certain parts of Monticello, the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan cannot be adequately described solely with the land use map and the related category descriptions. The following Focus Areas provide a more detailed examination of the plans and issues in key loca- tions that will shape the future of Monticello. Northwest Monticello This focus area includes the entire northwest corner of the community. The land use objectives in this area include: 1. Encourage development in this part of the com- munity to utilize infrastructure investments and to provide the capacity to develop in high amenity areas. 2. Provide for a variety of housing alternatives based on the natural features and the surrounding land uses. Areas with high natural amenities or proxim- ity to the planned regional park should be reserved for move up housing. 3. Expansion of existing Places to Work in a manner that creates more "head of household") obs. 4. Preserve and promote public use of natural areas, including the establishment of greenway corri- dors. 5. Identify and preserve key street corridors. 6. Preserve areas for future Places to Shop and Places to Work around a future highway interchange, if such an interchange proves viable. 3-16 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3-10: Land Use Plan - Northwest Monticello The Comprehensive Plan envisions that growth will ex- tend westward from existing development. The initial high amenity residential development is expected to occur along the eastern perimeter of the new regional park (YMCA Camp Manitou). No Places to Live are planned with the boundaries of this park. Future development will be influenced by the capacity of the street system, including plans for the construction of a highway interchange. The remainder of this section describes the land use issues and objectives for northwest Monticello in greater detail. West Interchange A new interchange with Interstate 94 is a critical vari- able in the future development of this area. While the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the potential for a future interchange, in 2008 it is only a concept. It is not part of the State's plans for future highway improve- ments for this district. This interchange could be a valuable part of the long- term transportation plan for Monticello if it is part of a new river crossing that removes traffic from Highway 2008 Comprehensive Pian 25. Without the bridge, the primary benefit is to pro- vide access to this area and expand the development opportunities. The Land Use Plan assumes that the interchange is a future possibility. For this reason, property adjacent to the interstate has been placed into a combination of places to Live, Work and Shop. The Plan seeks to prevent development from limiting the location of the interchange (or block it) and to preserve the area around the interchange for future commercial, indus- trial and residential development. Without the access provided by the interchange, commercial, industrial and residential development should not be anticipated in this area. Ideally, the City will pursue additional investigations following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. These investigations should be designed to resolve some of the unanswered questions related to the interchange. These questions include: Where should the interchange be located? ► What is the potential for a new river bridge con- nection? 00- How would the interchange be funded and what are the financial and land use implications for the City? ► What time frame should be used in planning for the improvements? The answers to these questions provide invaluable guid- ance to future land use and transportation in Monti- cello. The area included in future planning should not be limited to the property in the Interchange Planning Area land use category. An interchange and the sup- porting street system has future land use implications for a broader area. Regional Park Another critical factor in the future of the Northwest Area is the future of the YMCA camp. The City and Wright County are in negotiations with the Minneapo- lis YMCA to acquire the 1,200 -acre Camp Manitou. The Comprehensive Plan anticipates that the Camp will be converted into a regional park. Land Use 1 3-17 Figure 3-11: Community Connections to Regional Park The area around this park is guided for future Places to Live. No residential development should be al- lowed within the park. The amenity of this land and the regional park provide an excellent setting (around the perimeter of the park) for some of the "upscale" neighborhoods and housing desired by the City. In planning for this park, it is important to look be- yond the boundaries of the park and to its context in the broader community. The illustration in Figure 3-11 highlights several key community development opportunities: ► The City must create connections between the park and other sections of Monticello. ► Building streets in a "parkway" design emphasizes the desired qualities of a regional park and of the surrounding Places to Live and Work. ► The park is a critical piece in creating a "greenway" system that links to the Mississippi River and may, over time, ring the community. Industrial Growth The Northwest area is a critical location for current and future industrial development. The Monticello Busi- 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 covenants that address building materials, loading docks, outdoor storage, and landscaping. In order to provide sufficient land for Business Campus uses over the next 25 years, 3-18 1 Land Use City of Monticello 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- dential development. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create both high quality business parks and residen- tial neighborhoods in this area. Careful site planning 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 should be identified and preserved as development occurs. School Boulevard has several other Comprehensive Plan implications: ► This major collector street will influence the nature of adjacent land use. ► Streetscape improvements would help to define the high quality character desired by the City as a gateway to the regional park and to new neighbor- hoods. ► The street is a means for bringing trail connections to the park. Golf Course In 2006, the Silver Springs Golf Course was part of a development proposal ( Jefferson at Monticello) that would have redeveloped this property mixing golf and housing. The development did not proceed beyond the environmental review. The Comprehensive Plan shows the area as Places to Recreate based on the continued use as a golf course. This designation does not preclude a future proposal and Comprehensive Plan amendment for residential development. It is likely, however, that this scale of new development will require the access provided by a new highway interchange. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to fill in other development areas and make effective use 2008 Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan seeks to enhance the existing commercial core along Broadway by building strong connections with the riverfront and the civic/retail district on the south end of Walnut Street of other infrastructure investments before extending utilities for redevelopment of the golf course. Downtown Focus Area Downtown Monticello needs special attention in the Comprehensive Plan. Following the last Comprehen- sive Plan update, the community undertook a separate downtown planning process. This process resulted in the 1997 Downtown and Riverfront Plan. This Plan emphasizes the importance that the community places on Downtown. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update continues to rely on the 1997 Downtown and Riverfront Plan as a guide for public and private actions in the Downtown area. The 1997 Plan shows that a vision and a plan are not enough to create the type of Downtown desired by the community. While some actions have occurred pursuant to the 1997 Plan, much of its vision remains unfulfilled. The Comprehensive Plan will not, however, create any actions that will immediately transform the Downtown environment and achieve community objectives. Revitalizing and sustaining Downtown Monticello requires a collaborative effort of the City, businesses, property owners and other stakeholders. Planning for the future of the Downtown must recog- Land Use 1 3-19 Figure 3-12:1997 Downtown Plan - Land Use • 10*40,40*0 WWO" .. ......... mow*** ------ f!!=a yE.OWAWROM j­7,_TX 71 The 1997 Downtown Plan envisioned land use in eleven districts, each with varying targets for use and T-ransitiona - Mix of small office, personal and business services, multi -family residential and single character: family homes. Riverfront - Specialty retail, eating establishments, lodging, entertainment, multifamily residential, Neighborhood — Predominantly single family horns following existing neighborhood patterns. office; upper level residential or office, two or three story buildings; river orientation; emphasis on Industrial — Cargill Kitchen Solutions operations only; transition to Civic/Institutional, Walnut or public areas surrounding buildings (rather than parking lots). Transitional if Cargill Kitchen Solutions ceases operation. Broadway: Downtown - Small and mid-sized retail, specialty retail, personal and business services, Parks and Ooen Space — Parks, cemeteries, outdoor public spaces and gathering spaces. Civic/ eating establishments, lodging, entertainment and office; upper level residential or Ace,' two 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, tipper 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 1 Land Use City of Monticello The current end of Walnut Street is a barrier to improving connections between Downtown and the riverfront. nize the practical realities facing commercial develop- ment in Downtown.- 10- The configuration and traffic volumes of Highway 25 significantly reduce opportunities for direct ac- cess from the Highway to adjacent properties. 01- Traffic volumes on Highway 25 will continue to increase. Greater volumes and congestion act as an impediment for people living south of 1-94 coming to Downtown. 00- There is no controlled intersection on Highway 25 between Broadway and 7th Street. The lack of a controlled intersection combined with traffic volumes make pedestrian connections between Downtown and residential areas to the east very difficult. 00. 00. "Big box" and retail development continue to oc- cur in other parts of Monticello. These businesses directly compete with the Downtown and attract smaller businesses (that might otherwise consider a Downtown location) to adjacent parcels. These challenges influenced the recommendations in the 1997 Downtown Plan. Neither Broadway 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 Walnut Street. Walnut had the capacity to create more the qualities found on a downtown main street. More importantly, Walnut Street provides 2008 Comprehensive Plan a "bridge" between the traditional downtown/ riverfront and the highway oriented commercial uses to the south. Some actions have taken place in accordance with the 1997 Plan. The Community Center complex stayed in Downtown and anchors the south end of Walnut Street. Combined with the Library, the area has civic destination that attract people from all areas of the community. The commercial development east of the Community Center shows how new buildings can bring storefronts to the street. There are also examples of missed opportunities. The old library was replaced with a bank. This site seeks visibility from Highway 25. The parking lot and not the building is oriented to Walnut Street. Such sites cre- ate gaps and impair the ability to connect the existing Downtown core with the south end. Downtown Strategies Given current plans and conditions, the Comprehen- sive Plan recommends the following strategies for Downtown. 1. The Downtown land use area should be an area running from the River to 7th Street. It is bound on the east by Cedar Street and on the west by Locust Street. 2. Land use in the Downtown should be a mix of retail, service, office, civic and residential development. Although an industrial land use, Cargill Kitchen Solutions is an important and ongoing part of Downtown. Change in land use should only occur if Cargill Kitchen Solutions decides to leave this location. At such time, it would be desired not to perpetuate industrial use at this location. 3. With continued traffic along Highway 25, it is essential to work to establish a strong link along Walnut Street between the Community Center, businesses on Broadway and the River. The objec- tive is to establish strong connections between all of the factors that attract people to the Downtown. 4. To help move towards the creation of a new "main street" all new development on Walnut Street should have storefronts oriented to Walnut Street. Land Use 1 3-21 This development may be single story commercial or multi-level mixed use. 5. Orienting storefronts to Walnut Street is only one element of making the street more attractive for pedestrians. The City should also explore other ways to improve the pedestrian and bicycle experi- ence along Walnut Street. 6. It is essential not to allow Walnut Street to become a bypass route for Highway 25. As congestion increases on Highway 25, there is an impetus to seek other routes. Walnut Street is an attractive cut -through option. The orientation of buildings, on -street parking, boulevard trees, and curb "bump outs" are examples of means to calm traffic and discourage cut -through movements. 7. Housing is intended to supplement and support, but not replace, commercial development in the Downtown. All housing in the Downtown area (as identified in the Comprehensive Plan) should be multiple family housing. Land is a limited commodity in the Downtown and should not be consumed by single -story housing. Housing should only be allowed above street level on Broadway and Walnut Street. Housing should be encouraged on the edges of the Downtown, in locations needing redevelopment and not viable for commercial uses. 8. The Downtown benefits from strong connections with adjacent neighborhoods. These neighbor- hoods provide an important customer base for Downtown businesses. A vibrant Downtown en- hances these areas as places to live. Improved pe- destrian connections, particularly across Highway 25, are needed to strengthen and maintain these connections. Existing crossing points Broadway and 7r" Street should be enhanced. 9. Downtown would benefit from stronger connec- tions with the riverfront. Downtown is one of the few locations in Monticello that allows meaning- ful public access to the Mississippi River. This asset should be enhanced as a means of attracting people to Downtown. West Bridge Park lies in the Downtown area, but does not feel like an active part of Downtown. One possible improvement is a connection with Walnut Street. Currently, Walnut Street terminates south of River Street and is separated by a grade change. The potential for 3-22 1 land Use Figure 3-13: Land Use Plan - South Central trail and/or street connection should be evaluated. Community events and activities in West Bridge Park also build the connection between the com- munity, Downtown and the River. 10. Access to the Downtown would be improved by making trail and/or bike lane improvements along River Street to provide another means of reaching Downtown and take advantage of the controlled intersection with Highway 25. South Central Focus Area Continued residential growth to the south is an impor- tant element of the Comprehensive Plan. This growth achieves several objectives: ► It helps to facilitate the expansion of the sanitary sewer system in conjunction with the reconstruc- tion of Fallon Avenue. This sanitary sewer capacity is needed to support future industrial growth area along Highway 25. ► These areas encourage growth in areas that could use the new eastern interchange with I-94 rather than Highway 25. ► These areas provide appropriate locations for 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. City of Monticello _ .-., � y;,�t��- ,av ..::±': l..t�'<u'i"�'•EA: �'I'�'���rlT.:7•�4��i"'�'CS"�,rat3E��f�Er..i%i._i4�.x`,�>'�""'°-'�"" ��z`�.x�"a __.K,�..�21. �'� Figure 3-14: Land Use Plan - East Focus Area 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. ► Traffic congestion on Highway 25 that increases the need to channel use to the east interchange. ► The need to solve stormwater and drainage man- agement issues (Ditch 33) in this area. Solving drainage issues allows eastward expansion along County Road 18. Future growth in the east should continue to fill in the development area within the Orderly Annexation Area on the east side of Monticello. The natural features in these areas allow for higher amenity neighborhoods. This growth can occur with new collector/arterial street corridors. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-23 MEMORANDUM TO: Angela Schumann FROM: Alan Brixius/Stephen Grittman DATE: December 3, 2009 RE: Monticello –Housing Study Work Program FILE NO: 802 We have assembled a work program for a staged analysis of the City’s housing stock, with the objective being the ability to identify residential market conditions in the community. The first portion of the study would be an inventory of the Monticello’s multi-family market. The inventory is intended to gauge the impacts of the current market on multiple family housing, with a focus on the rental market. The second portion of the study would be an inventory and analysis of the single family market. This aspect of the study would utilize the City’s data on existing single family units, both occupied and vacant, and identify the current conditions of the vacant properties. As part of this analysis, we will include a summary of vacant residential parcels, and project an absorption rate. Where possible, we will work to ascertain the status of preliminary platted parcels, and their long-term likelihood of eventual final platting and development. The third portion of the study would be an overall examination of housing conditions, with a focus on longer term trends for both detached and attached residential types. I. Multiple Family Inventory According to Monticello rental housing registration, the City had 1,121 rental housing units in 2009. Of these units, the City had 13 buildings containing 10 -20 units and 14 buildings that contained 20+ units. The study would complete an inventory of these units to provide data that may be helpful to the City in the following ways: a. Identifying available labor force housing stock to prospective industries considering Monticello as a possible relocation site. b. Identifying current housing stock rent ranges and vacancy rates for multiple family housing developers interested in doing a project in Monticello. 2 c. Housing data to households interested in moving to Monticello. Currently, 16 properties comprise 60 percent of the City’s rental housing units. The following work program outlines a process by which the properties will be inventoried and the following data will be collected: 1. Location. Each of the City’s largest multiple family housing complexes will be identified by name and address and mapped by location. 2. Property Ownership. Ownership and management will be identified including contact information. 3. Housing Data. Housing data will be collected through site visits and interviews with property management data to be collected including: a. Total number of units. b. Number of units by number of bedrooms. c. Rent rates by unit size. d. Occupancy/vacancy rates. e. Site amenities: 1) Garages/parking. 2) Recreation amenities. 3) Party room. 4) Laundry facilities. 4. General Conditions. Site observation of site and building condition including photographs. 5. Report Summary. Preparation of inventory summary. II. Single Family Inventory a. Examine existing single family housing stock for occupancy rates. b. Inventory vacant single family housing for location and exterior housing condition. With the assistance of building department staff, this analysis may include interior condition where available. c. Inventory vacant platted lots (preliminary and fina l), including mapping and status. As noted above, we will attempt to determine the status of preliminary plats which have not been final platted through developer/owner interviews, where possible. 3 III. Analysis The analysis portion of the study would consist of trends and housing occupancy in the context of Monticello’s growth and development over the past 20 years, looking ahead for the next 20 years. As part of this analysis, we will include demographic and housing information for Wright County and the T win Cities area to provide perspective on the local housing economy. In the analysis portion of the project, we will summarize interview results, develop predictions for absorption trends in both markets, and discuss options for City action related to housing opportunity. The design of this study is intended to allow the City to choose either or both Stage I and II, and add Stage III if desired, dependent upon the market segment, and the level of analysis. Stages I and II are essentially inventory information which can be used for observation and independent analysis by City officials and/or development industry interests. Stage III would add NAC’s comments as to impacts of the economy on the housing market, and a summary discussion of options for City action, if desired. This work program may be modified to address any additional needs of the City. Please review this proposal and contact us if you have any questions or concerns. 300 250 M 150 100 50 (C Residential Lot Inventory -Post 2000 Developments N N C, 0, C - X IN TOTAL LOT COUNT * LOTS CURRENTLY FINAL PLATTED LOTS BUILT OUT * LOTS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE * LOTS TO BE PLATTED December 31 2010 Planning Commission Agenda –1/05/10 1 6a. Comprehensive Plan Review - Transportation Plan Update (AS) REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND As part of the annual review of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission requested an in-depth update regarding the status of Chapter 6: Transportation Plan. The Transportation Plan is a general system document that provides a framework for long-term development of transportation in the community, along with the relationship of the transportation system to the City’s land use patterns. The Plan inventories Roadway Conditions, highlights Planning Issues, identifies Roadway Needs, and sets out the Transportation Plan for the community, with the role of supporting the City’s recent land use plan as adopted in the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. In February of 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed the Transportation Plan and recommended approval and adopted of the Plan by resolution. Since that time, the City Council has had many discussions related to the contents of the plan and has not yet formally adopted the Plan. Although the Plan has not been adopted by the Council, actions have been taken to help move the document forward. For example, the City Council has acted on the River Street/Highway 25 matter, which was a major point of concern related to Highway 25 traffic circulation. Information on the traffic patterns resulting from the decision will be analyzed on an on-going basis. The City Council also called a regional transportation meeting to discuss a future river crossing. Attendees from Wright, Sherburne Counties, the cities of Big Lake, Monticello, Mn/DOT and Big Lake Township were in attendance at the meeting. The ultimate outcome of the meeting was that the majority of parties agreed a second crossing would be needed. The next steps for the group will be to determine how to proceed with a location analysis. City Engineer Bruce Westby will be attending the January Planning Commission meeting to review the Transportation Plan and discuss how the Plan will be moved forward, including an expected timeline for adoption. Mr. Westby will also be able to offer information on the seven primary focus areas of the Transportation Plan that received special attention within the Comprehensive Plan as follows:  New interchange location with I-94.  Traffic management on TH 25 between the freeway and the river.  Construction of the Fallon Avenue bridge. Planning Commission Agenda –1/05/10 2  Establishing future roadway corridors.  Evaluating transit opportunities.  Facilitating the City’s pedestrian system.  Coordination with regional transportation efforts, including future river crossing alternatives. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS No action required. SUPPORTING DATA A. Transportation Plan Draft, dated January 2009 (available online under City Departments & Services, Engineering - Transportation) B. Staff Memo, dated 1-16-09 C. Planning Commission Minutes, February 3, 2009 MEMO TO: Monticello Planning Commissioners FROM: Angela Schumann RE: Draft Monticello Transportation Plan DATE: 1-16-09 CC: Jeff O'Neill, Bruce Westby, Steve Grittman Commissioners, Please find enclosed your copy of the draft Monticello Transportation Plan. Planning Commission will hold a public hearing regarding the plan during its regular meeting on Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009. The Planning Commission is holding the public hearing in fulfillment of State statutory obligation as follows: M.S. Section 462.356, Subd. 2. Compliance with plan. After a comprehensive municipal plan or section thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement be authorized by the municipality or special district or agency thereof or any other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the municipality until after the planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal, or capital improvement and reported in writing to the governing body or other special district or agency or political subdivision concerned, its findings as to compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal plan. Failure of the planning agency to report on the proposal within 45 days after such a reference, or such other period as may be designated by the governing body shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of this subdivision. The governing body may, by resolution adopted by two-thirds vote dispense with the requirements of this subdivision when in its judgment it finds that the proposed acquisition or disposal of real property or capital improvement has no relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan. The Parks Commission, Police Commission and Industrial and Economic Development Committee are also reviewing the draft Transportation Plan. They will be providing comments and a formal recommendation to the Planning Commission on February 3rd. Outside and regional agency review and comment may also be provided during the hearing. City Engineer Bruce Westby and consulting engineering firm WSB & Associates will present the plan components during the hearing and will be available to answer the Commission's questions and to address concerns. Planning Commission will be asked to consider a resolution recommending adoption of the Transportation Plan to the City Council, as well as a recommendation on the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for the inclusion of the Transportation Plan. If adopted by the City Council, the Transportation Plan becomes the foundation for the City's transportation infrastructure and capital improvement planning. The full document becomes an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan, incorporated by summary as Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan itself. As Commission reviews the plan, it is recommended that emphasis be placed on the following initiatives highlighted within the Comprehensive Plan: • Evaluating of the feasibility of a new west interchange or interchanges with I-94. • Ongoing management and mitigation of traffic on TH 25 between I-94 and the River. • Planning for the construction of the Fallon Avenue Bridge, the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue and the related expansion of municipal utility systems. • Coordinating development projects to protect future collector street corridors. • Evaluating transit opportunities to maximize the use of the Northstar project and other transit opportunities. • Ensuring that pedestrian facilities are provided throughout the City and across major transportation corridors. • Coordinating with regional transportation efforts. Thank you in advance for your consideration of the plan. Staff looks forward to hearing your thoughts and comments on this document. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009 6:00 PM Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and Barry Voight Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski Staff Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman — NAC Call to orcler_ Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a quorum of the Commission, noting the absence of Commissioner Hilgart and the presence of Council Liaison Wojchouski. 2. Consideration to aunrove the Planning Commission minutes of J Community Development Director Schumann indicated that the minutes of the regular meeting of January 6th, 2009 would be provided at an upcoming meeting. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF JANUARY 6th, 2009. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT . MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 3. Citizen Comments. NONE. 4. Consideration of adding items to theagenda. NONE. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan for the adoption of Chapter 6: Transportation Plan. Applicant: City of Monticello Community Development Director Schumann introduced the Transportation Plan, noting that the State Statute allows for the Planning Commission's review of the Transportation Plan during a public hearing. She noted that if adopted, the Plan becomes Chapter 6 of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. A supermajority of the City Council will be required to adopt the plan formally as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 Planner Grittman indicated that a staff report had been prepared as an introduction to the document, summarizing the contents of the plan to serving to aid the Commission frame their recommendation. A proposed resolution had also been prepared in the event that Commission is prepared to recommend adoption of the Plan. Grittman stated that staff's recommendation is for adoption of the Transportation Plan. One particular aspect of the plan that staff focused on was Highway 25. Grittman noted that the Planning Commission had spent quite a bit of time discussing Highway 25 during the Comp Plan process, and this plan outlined options for alleviation of the current and future congestion. Staff is recommending a further study of roundabouts as the preferred option, as staff believes roundabouts provide the best alternative to solving multiple corridor issues over the long term. Grittman noted that multiple jurisdictions will be involved in the ultimate decision. The goal for staff was to encourage further detailed study of roundabouts for the corridor. The other major issues staff has reviewed relate to river crossings, a third interchange location, and overall transportation system function. City Engineer Bruce Westby thanked the Commission and emphasized the Transportation Plan is designed to assist the Commission, Council, property owners and developers as a decision-making document in transportation. It is a planning document, and as such it does not have a specific set of measures that has to be implemented in a certain order within a certain timeframe. Westby turned the detailed presentation of the plan over to Chuck Rickart of WSB & Associates, the plan preparer. Rickart stated that the primary purpose of the plan is to provide technical guidance to policymakers and staff on transportation issues within the community. Although it is not specific, it does provide a foundation for future transportation decisions. It also provides the ability for coordination between neighboring communities. The overall objective is to accommodate growth through transportation. This is achieved by maintaining access for business in both motorized and non -motorized traffic and doing so efficiently. Rickart stated that the previous transportation plan provided a basis for this preparation. From there, the recently adopted Monticello land use plan was incorporated, as well as long range plans from Big Lake. This was done to be able to review river crossing projections. The next step was to update traffic projections based on the long range documents. Rickart indicated that the plan provides a basic analysis of existing conditions in terms of what is there today and what issues exist. Then, the plan analyzes future roadway access, non -motorized traffic, transit, aviation and goods movement, and finally funding. Dealing specifically with Highway 25, engineering staff understood through the Comp Plan that Highway 25 was perhaps the largest single issue to be addressed by the Transportation Plan. Rickart stated that existing traffic at the river crossing is 27,500- 35,000 vehicles per day. At 2030, approximately 45,000 vehicles per day are projected. Rickart outlined the Transportation Plan's analysis of possible improvements to deal with this volume. 01 Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 Rickart reviewed short term improvement options. The first option was signal timing modification implementation. Rickart stated that with other recent improvements, signal timing could be improved in the corridor. Second, adding turn lanes could help improve the capacity of the corridor, primarily at 7th Street, I-94 and Broadway intersections. Third, the study looked at access modifications, such as closing off side street access in certain locations, concentrating access at Broadway, 4th and 7th Streets. Signals could be placed at these intersections as part of this. The plan also looks at roundabouts in lieu of signals. In a scenario including roundabouts, similar to access modification at 4th, 7th and Broadway, traffic would be concentrated to roundabouts at those intersections. Rickart noted that the study indicates that roundabouts illustrate the largest long term benefit and improvement to the corridor. Rickart also reviewed long-term solutions for the Highway 25 corridor congestion, including looking at a one-way pair option. Rickart described the function of one-way pairs. Ultimately, over the long-term, the options illustrating the most improvements to the corridor include a second river crossing and an additional western interchange to pull traffic to other routes. Rickart noted that timelines illustrated in the plan assume normal funding cycles for Mn/ DOT and typical project development. Improvements can move forward if funding situations change. Rickart reviewed the Highway 25 corridor improvement options in greater detail. In discussing signal timing changes and turn lane improvements, Rickart stated that as part of an upcoming mill and overlay project on Highway 25, Monticello work with Mn/DOT to add turn lanes as noted in the plan. For the medium term, access modifications such as median extension with signal additions or roundabouts could be implemented. A lot of these things could also take place timed with development. Rickart noted that again, although these improvements do have an overall improving impact on the corridor, the long term issue is that 45,000 vehicles will still be traveling Highway 25 and crossing the river. In order to mitigate delays due to that traffic, the options for alleviating problems at the river are to add an additional lane, a one-way pair, an additional river crossing and another interchange, or a combination of those improvements. In terms of interchanges and overpasses, Rickart stated that the Fallon Avenue overpass has been identified in previous plans. This plan assumes completion of that overpass in 2030. The Federal Highway Administration has indicated that prior to construction of any other interchange west of Highway 25, the Fallon Avenue overpass is required to be completed. It is estimated that about 11,000 cars would use that overpass. This plan anticipates up to two interchanges west of Highway 25, Rickart reported. These could be located anywhere between County Road 39 and Orchard Road and would divert about 6,000 cars per day from the Highway 25 corridor at I-94. However, eventually, that traffic would still find its way back to Highway 25 to cross the River. In short, these improvements would not impact the river crossing, but would improve functionality of the Highway 25 corridor. 3 Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 Rickart explained that river crossing options reviewed in the plan include a one-way pair with a corresponding river crossing or the widening of an existing bridge. These options would require improvement to the interchange at I-94. Rickart commented that staff had noted that the primary issue with a one-way pair is the creation of two high-volume barriers within the downtown. This creates problems for east -west traffic movements and pedestrian crossings. The Transportation Plan also reviews three additional river crossing locations. The first was at Orchard Road, connecting to Sherburne County Road 11. It is estimated that this crossing would see a traffic volume of 11,000 vehicles per day, and would divert approximately 7,000 vehicles out of the 45,000 crossing at Highway 25. With a possible County Road 11 interchange at I-94, it would also create a regional connection. Rickart suggested that the negative could be that the growth areas are on the other sides of the community at this time; this option would most likely not serve immediate growth areas. The second river crossing option was at Washington Avenue, connecting to Sherburne County 14. This option would see a traffic volume of 22,000 vehicles per day, and divert 16,000 vehicles out of the 45,000 in 2030. Although this route would not be a direct connection to I-94, it would align with the Fallon Avenue overpass. This would be a purely local connection providing access for local population. However, it would carry a significant amount of traffic. It also serves the growth area of south Monticello and Big Lake. The third option was a river crossing aligning with the interchange at CSAH 18. This crossing would carry 18,000 cars and divert about 10,000 trips from Highway 25. Primarily, the issue with this crossing is that it gets closer to the proposed Otsego crossing. The spacing then becomes unlikely to create as large of an impact on Highway 25 traffic, Rickart stated. It does provide a little bit more regional impact connecting to Highway 14 and directly to the existing interchange at CSAH 18. Rickart then explained that other item reviewed in detail within the plan included the collector roadway network. The expansion of this network includes extensions of School Boulevard west of Highway 25 to County 39, the extension of 7th Street west to eliminate the existing gap and improvements to 85th Street south of School Boulevard. Rickart also discussed completion of the north frontage road or 95th Street, which uses existing right of way from the old interstate ramp. He stated that other north -south and east -west minor collector improvements are also identified to improve the overall roadway network. For non -motorized transportation, Rickart stated that two plans were created within the plan. The first is a local plan identifying trail, sidewalk and on -road paths. The second connects those local systems to a regional plan. The creation and coordination of these two plans ensures non -motorized connections are provided. Rickart noted that the plans use the recently completed Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment as a foundation for trail opportunities. He commented that the non -motorized plans were developed with the Parks Commission with assistance from City Administrator O'Neill and Schumann. In terms of transit, Rickart indicated that the plan discusses the existing park and ride facility along south Highway 25 and the existing service provided by RiverRider. The study did look at possible connections to the Northstar commuter rail service in Big Lake. Working with River Rider, it was determined that the primary obstacle to expansion of M Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 transit service to Northstar is the bottleneck at Highway 25. River Rider has commented that getting across the river in bus is no different than in a car in terms of congestion. Rickart suggested that a future river crossing could change that scenario. The other connection reviewed within the plan was to connect to the Metro system coming out of Maple Grove. Again, the drawback is funding sources. Rickart relayed that River Rider indicated that they are able to acquire only so much funding for service design. Providing a metro connection would take almost their whole budget. They have commented that if their budget expands, they would also consider a system expansion. Rickart summarized the plan's analysis of funding and financing. He stated that the plan envisions that the City will work with Wright and Sherburne Counties and the State wherever possible. He reported that a regional coalition has been formed to review river crossing alternatives, as the more involved with surrounding communities for solutions, the more likely Monticello is to gain funding support. Rickart stated that federal funding exists and cycles will be coming up; Monticello will work with Mn/Dot to get some projects into the funding priority list. The other option for improvements funding is through local assessments. Rickart cited CSAH 18, which was built with a local assessment program. Rickart concluded by outlining the next steps, which include the incorporation of public hearing comments. Staff will bring those comments, along with results of meetings with outside agencies, forward to the City Council. He reported that staff is looking at Council adoption in March of this year. Engineer Westby clarified that when staff discusses a recommendation as related to roundabouts, staff is recommending a detailed study on the level of service these types of improvements would provide to the corridor. In short, the goal would be to provide a much better foundation of knowledge before recommending that the City move forward with an actual implementation alternative. Westby also introduced the outside agency representatives present, including Terry Humbert with Mn/DOT, John Mentor, the Sherburne County Public Works Director, and Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Highway Engineer. Chairman Dragsten inquired if all of the Highway 25 improvement options would be further studied, or is staff recommending that just the roundabout study move forward. Westby stated that there may be elements recommended that do not require great study. However, with any major improvements, a larger study is commenced to cover environmental impacts and design impacts and to look at costs and benefits. Westby stated that the study would look in detail at whatever options the City directed. Community Development Director Schumann again addressed the Commission, stating that the Police Commission has reviewed the document and would forward comments to the City Engineer. The Parks Commission has also reviewed the plan, in particular the Trails portion. They recommended approval, with some comments. Schumann entered into the record the draft minutes of the Parks Commission for that purpose. Schumann reported that the IEDC had also reviewed the plan. While the IEDC did not provide a formal recommendation, they did provide general comments for the Commission's 5 Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 review. Other formal written comments from the public had been received and were also entered in record. Commissioner Gabler provided her thoughts on the plan, stating that she thought the plan functioned very well. She stated that in some areas, it was perhaps too vague and could have been more detailed, for example in the area of transit. Gabler noted that Monticello has strong potential for growth, which should cross beyond residential into other development sectors. This notation was made in relationship to the plan introduction. Gabler stated that table 5.1 seemed to provide a good task list for future transportation improvements. She also noted that in terms of a possible river crossing at Washington Avenue, the IEDC commented on the proximity to the hospital and she noted that further study ion relationship to hospital expansion would be needed. Finally, in looking at the timeframe presented in the plan she asked if there was a way to look at the interim picture, for example projections at 2015. Rickart stated that the 2030 timeline was selected due to a complete land use plan for development to that point. Rickart explained that the City would need to determine a land use picture for 2015 in order to determine a transportation projection for that timeframe. Gabler inquired if an analysis of what impact another interchange in the west would have in terms of impact on the City's industrial park. Rickart stated that typically, the development would drive the interchange location. Rickart noted that the interchange would obviously provide an improvement for access to those industrial developments. Gabler suggested that a better clarification of timing on an interchange was needed. Commissioner Spartz began his comments by stating that he thought transportation in many ways dictates land use. Spartz stated that the Highway 25 corridor is his biggest concern and found this plan addresses that issue in depth. He indicated that he would support working with neighboring communities to improve transit options. There is a great need to look at how to make transit function better and he believed that it should be a 0-5 year option. Spartz stated that his other suggestion related to river crossing. He indicated his discouragement at it being a long-range solution. Spartz commented that a researching a second river crossing needs to be a clear direction for the City. Spartz continued, stating his personal view as a user of the current roundabout in Monticello. In that regard, he is not a big fan, as it doesn't seem to function as it should. While he understands it is a public acceptability issue, he commented that he is struggling with understanding its application in Monticello. For example, how a large vehicle with a camper or boat is going to maneuver through a roundabout. If another bridge will help alleviate the volume of traffic, perhaps the roundabouts will accentuate what happens downtown. Everything he has read about roundabouts indicates they are safer and allow traffic to move better. However, he would like to know about situations where they don't work for comparison purposes, as he is concerned about the volume of traffic coming for multiple directions. Commissioner Voight stated that after reading the plan, he thought that as Chapter 6 of the Comp Plan, this is the best chapter in the entire plan. In his opinion, it is far and above the quality of the balance of the comp plan because it lays out specific analysis and potential modifications. While it does not prescribe a specific route, it lays out the options, along with likely impacts. He stated that it provides guidance with foundations C Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 for that guidance. Voight explained that he also approved of the solid justification for the Fallon Avenue overpass. Before reading this document, that improvement seemed like a bridge to nowhere. After reading this plan, he indicated that he understands the need. Voight reaffirmed that preparing the plans for the Fallon Avenue overpass and for a second bridge crossing is critical. While the river crossing may be a 30 year project, it is essential to have a plan in place. He cited stimulus funding and that if funding becomes available in such scenarios, Monticello needs to be prepared. He commented that he thought the plan was well organized, but that overall, the City needs more aggressive in planning. Voight inquired about extending frontage roads along Highway 25; if there was a reason the roads aren't named. Rickart responded that they are commonly referred to as frontage roads, but they are extension of Cedar and Deegan, so they could be labeled that way. Dragsten re -stated that Fallon Avenue needs to be a top priority. Dragsten agreed that the plan was well prepared. He cited Table 5-1 with the listing of priorities as an important tool. He noted the combination of intersection improvements along Highway 25 could be lumped as one improvement, as they all aid in the functionality of that corridor. Dragsten questioned whether the City would look at all of the options further, and then narrow them down. Rickart stated that the next step in a detailed study would be an intersection control evaluation (ICE). In this case, the ICE would be at 4th Street, 7th Street and County Highway 75. The City will look at all options for those intersections from signals to roundabouts. Mn/DOT then reviews the options and from there formal recommendations will be developed based on the analysis. Dragsten inquired what the timeline would be for immediate options noted, such as signal timing and River Street modifications. Rickart answered that District 3 does have an application in for Highway 25 signal retiming through the first stimulus allotment, which is about a 12 month timeline. River Street's most recent study will be brought to Council next week. Pending that review, something may move forward there as well. Rickart also noted that as far as turn lanes, County 11 will get dual left turn lanes in Sherburne County in 2010. The Transportation Plan identifies right turn lanes at 7th , I-94 and County 75 to also support Highway 25 corridor improvements. Those could be completed with the Highway 25 overlay project, which is expected in 2010. Gabler commented that if the City is considering turn lanes and also roundabouts, isn't the City spending money twice? Rickart indicated that would be true. If roundabouts are truly something the City is interested in considering, it would be important to accelerate study timing in order to avoid duplicative spending. Dragsten inquired why the old Highway 75 off ramp doesn't get used as 95th street. Westby responded that the existing ramp was left in place because Mn/DOT is looking at replacing the twin bridges and wasn't sure if they would need those ramps for traffic control, so they were left in place. They will be replacing the bridges in July of 2009 — 2010. Staff will continue to talk with Mn/DOT on whether the City will be able to use those once the project is complete. 7 Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 Dragsten asked Mr. Humbert and Mr. Fingalson to comment on the overall plan and roundabouts in particular. Mr. Terry Humbert, District 3 Project Development Engineer, thanked the Commission and City staff for the opportunity to review and comment on the plan. Humbert stated that he had reviewed plan and in general concurred with the results of the plan. Regarding roundabouts, Mn/DOT is generally in favor of them as they have shown to reduce crashes and improve travel speeds. While they don't work everywhere, Humbert stated that extra analysis would be completed to include how semi -trucks or large vehicles would move through at this location. Dragsten asked Humbert to comment on Monticello's application in terms of roundabouts. Humbert stated that two-lane roundabouts are not yet functional on Minnesota highways, although they are under construction at Highway 95 and 65. He noted that similar to dual lane left turns, people will learn how to drive them. Dragsten inquired about bridge funding. Humbert responded that it is most likely that trunk highway funds would not be eligible because a second bridge would carry local traffic, which is not on the trunk highway system. There may be State Aid or other local funding options and federal funding may be available. Spartz asked Mr. Humbert about multiple roundabouts within a short distance. Humbert replied that although multi -lane roundabouts are somewhat limited, there are interchange locations where roundabouts are used at closer spacing. Spartz inquired if those are in Minnesota. Humbert replied that they are located in Minnetonka and Medford. Wojchouski stated that she was under the impression that the State is recommending roundabouts at locations such as Highway 75 and Highway 25. Humbert answered that in general, it is the favored option for intersections, although there is a caveat that other constraints that may not yield it as the final option. Spartz inquired what some of those constraints might be. Humbert responded that it might be right of way acquisition issues, spacing, or excessive traffic movements in one direction. Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Engineer, addressed the Commission. Fingalson stated that although they have not reviewed the plan in great detail, the plan provides a good framework in terms of how transportation improvements would be constructed. Fingalson stated that in response to the questions about roundabouts, there is a place for them, but there is a learning curve as to how they function. There is a good system in place for evaluating all options. Spartz inquired about the possibility of partnering with other communities to expand park and ride and transit options, as this would ultimately take vehicles off Highway 25. Fingalson commented on the initiative coming out of Wright County Economic Development to support further study of metro transit expansion. Fingalson stated that although increasing transit options make sense, getting people across the bridge is still a problem. Voight indicated that he believes that people will continue to use I-94 to commute over Northstar as a quicker option. Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 Fingalson commented that funding is always a factor in any transportation improvement. Fingalson noted that federal and state funding limitations do exist. While the stimulus will help, there are still too many projects for the amount of funding. Westby expanded on roundabout locations on multi -lane roundabouts, noting the two- lane roundabout in Richfield. The 2020 volume there are projected to be 40,000 vehicles. There are also multi -lane roundabouts in place in Woodbury on Radio Drive. These are not on the State Highway system, but are in existence for reference on how these types of roundabout systems function. Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing. Bob Viering, on behalf of the Monticello Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Commission. Viering echoed the comment that the Plan is well written and researched. It provides a good analysis of the current situation and laying out options. He indicated that the only long-term solution to the Highway 25 issue is the construction of a second bridge. The Chamber would support seeing steps taken to make this a priority. In regard to Highway 25, the Chamber would also encourage working with Mn/DOT to implement the other short-term solutions. Finally, in looking at commuter patterns, Viering cited a recent study indicating that currently approximately 50% of those living in Monticello commute into the 7 -county metro area. The vast majority of that is on I-94. Only 20% of people who live in Monticello live in Monticello. So, as I-94 does impact residents and those coming in to work in Monticello, Viering stated that the Chamber would add the improvements to 1-94, including possible expansion, be added as a priority. Viering noted the presence of Sherburne and Wright Counties, as well as the State, as a positive to start working on the bridge project. John Mentor, Sherburne County Public Works Director, addressed the Commission. He noted that Sherburne County has been working closely with Big Lake, Big Lake Township, Mn/DOT and the City of Monticello on the dual left turn lane on County 11. It will be a step to improving congestion on Highway 25. As the last gentleman had suggested, these entities have already been meeting for a little over a year on these mutual transportation issues. One of the topics of discussion has obviously been the bridge. In that regard, while there is a need for the local connection, he encouraged continued cooperation with the City of Big Lake, Big Lake Township and Sherburne County. Mentor did not that the County Board does have a current policy prohibiting condemnation for transportation, which is important to note in terms of a local bridge project. Dragsten agreed that mutual cooperation will be essential in getting the bridge project completed. Shannon Bye, Monticello Township, addressed the Commission. She commented that relying on the freeway is not always a good option, especially on Fridays and weekends. She encouraged a closer look at transit. She noted the Chamber's previous comment on I-94 commuter traffic. In light of that, she stated that the transit option should be viewed as a part of any I-94 improvement priorities. Charlie Pfeffer, addressed the Commission representing Ocello, LLC. Pfeffer referred to carbon -related issues in terms of where development will occur. He stated that as 9 Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 developers, it adds a significant issue as to where people will choose to live and work. Pfeffer encouraged the Commission to be aware of that and to view the plan as somewhat fluid in light of those impacts. Chairman Dragsten asked if it would be possible to clarify comments as related to I-94. Rickart stated that they could add comments related to the I-94 coalition into the plan. Terry Humbert indicated that right now, looking at traditional funding, the addition of lanes to I-94 is probably beyond 2030. Mn/DOT has identified the six -lanes of I-94 as a `tier -two' project for the stimulus. He explained that an issue to be dealt with is lane balance. When adding lanes, Mn/DOT needs to be aware of lane transitions. South of the Crow River, the Metropolitan Council also has some jurisdiction. Dragsten asked when Mn/DOT may find out about such funding. Humbert stated it would most likely be 2010. Hearing no other comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing. Wojchouski sought confirmation from Westby that the Chelsea Road traffic counts would be included in the final plan. Westby confirmed that they were inadvertently omitted and would be included in the final plan. Spartz commented that although roundabouts may not be his favored option, if it works best for the Highway 25 corridor, then the essence of moving the plan forward is most important. Dragsten suggested that no matter what occurs in short-term on Highway 25, the need for the bridge crossing is clearly a priority and that it should be moved from 2030-2050 timeline to 2015-2030 timeline. Dragsten inquired if a bridge crossing was included in the Sherburne County plan. Mentor indicated that it was not. Wojchouski stated that for Big Lake, this is not an immediate, perceived problem as it is in Monticello. Dragsten concurred, although it can ultimately impact their commuting residents. Gabler agreed, noting that as it takes a long time to plan for such improvements, and as such plan for the improvements from 2009-2015. The Commissioners agreed that the emphasis should be on planning for this crossing. Gabler also recommended that the Fallon Avenue Bridge remain the number one priority for 2009-2015. Dragsten suggested grouping all of the Highway 25 improvements into one category. Rickart clarified that Fallon Avenue overpass only needed to be completed before any other interchange be considered. The Commissioners agreed that it was still a priority. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2009 MONTICELLO TRANSPORTATION PLAN, WITH THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AS NOTED, INCLUDING: • ALL OPTIONS FOR HIGHWAY 25 IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE IMMEDIATE STUDY OF A SECOND RIVER CROSSING, BE TAKEN AS A 10 Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09 FIRST PRIORITY FOR STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO. • THE COMPLETION OF THE FALLON AVENUE SHOULD REMAIN A HIGH PRIORITY FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AS STATED WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THIS MOTION MAY BE BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENT PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN, AND FURTHERS THE CITY'S LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES THROUGH THE PROVISION OF VITAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES. MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for final plat for Union Crossings Fourth Addition and amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Union Crossings_ Applicant: Ryan Companies Planner Grittman presented that staff report for the request, stating that Ryan Companies is seeking a subdivision of the existing Union Crossings Lot 2, Block 2 to create two parcels from what is currently one. Grittman reported that the purpose of the subdivision is to separate the property occupied by the Office Max building from the easterly remainder of the property. The Office Max parcel will be Lot 1, Block 1 Union Crossings 4th Addition, and the remainder will be Lot 2. Lot 2 will be set up to accommodate future development, and may be split again at that time. Grittman explained that Union Crossings was developed as a Planned Unit Development to provide for a variety of retail buildings in a shopping center arrangement. The zero - lot -line subdivision in this case does not raise any issues from a planning standpoint, since the site was developed to provide utilities and stormwater control on a comprehensive basis, rather than lot by lot. As such, the engineering staff have recommendations as to easements and similar issues, but there is no concern with forgoing the easements that would have otherwise Grittman stated that staff is recommending approval of the plat as proposed. Dragsten inquired as to the reasoning for the irregular lot lines. Grittman responded that it is most likely these jogs are due to carving out lot lines based on needed parking and private utility connections. Dragsten stated that it would seem this configuration may eventually lead to property issues. Grittman agreed that is true for residential property, but in this case, the overall development is under the control of a single property manager. Gabler asked if the applicant is familiar with the conditions noted. Grittman indicated that they are. 11 Planning Commission Agenda – 1/5/10 1 7. Community Development Director’s Update. (AS) Chief Building Official Appointment Ron Hackenmueller has accepted the position of Interim Chief Building Official and was officially appointed by the City Council on December 14th. Ron brings to the department a great amount of experience, knowledge, communication, and leadership skills. While the Building Department is adjusting to the new staff level, they are working on closing out building permits, working on closing out the 2009 rental units and collecting the 2010 rental applications. Budget and CIP Adoption The City Council adopted its 2010 budget on December 14th. Finance Director Tom Kelly did a tremendous job of explaining the 2010 budget picture and providing context on how this budget compares to previous years. The City Council also adopted a 2010- 2014 Capital Improvement Plan. This is the first CIP approved by the City. It lays out a plan for capital expenditures for the City over the next five years. This document is an incredibly important tool as the City makes fiscal plans for major expenses including land acquisition, equipment purchases and possible facility development. The full copy of the CIP is available online. You can view it from a link on the City’s Home page. MOAA Activity During its November meeting, the MOAA Board approved a conditional use permit allowing for a flea market use at the Golf driving range located off of Highway 25 south of the City limits. The CUP was approved under very narrow conditions, including the prohibition of any permanent structures for the use. Final minutes for the meeting are attached. Zoning Ordinance Revision Community Development staff have completed a thorough review of the last version of the draft since the time of the December meeting and have provided those comments to MFRA. MFRA will be presenting the code update process to a joint meeting of the Economic Development Commission and Industrial Development Commission at 7:00 a.m. on January 5, 2010. The meeting will be held at the Monticello Community Center and the public is welcome to attend. Later that month, the steering committee will reconvene to review draft language on zoning districts and uses on Tuesday, January 19th (tentatively set for 5:00 p.m. at the Community Center). Off-Street Parking Ordinance: Public Information The off-street parking ordinance summary was published twice in the Monticello Times legal section in satisfaction of Statutory requirements. That code is now in full effect. The amendment information has also been provided to MFRA for code update purposes. Planning Commission Agenda – 1/5/10 2 The City Council has also set up an interim parking space for these large vehicles in the I-1 zoned old bowling alley parking lot. Interim parking for large commercial vehicles will be allowed on this site until May 1, 2009 to Monticello residents only. The City Council also requested that staff research additional means of publicizing the new code. An advertisement in the Shopper and/or a flyer in the upcoming utility bills will be completed in that regard. Additionally, links to the new ordinance will be placed in a Home page website item. Kjellberg CUP Mr. Kjellberg has paid his fees and fine in full. He has indicated that it is his intent to install a screening fence as directed by the City Council in the spring of 2010. CGI Productions – Monticello Web Site Video The City of Monticello is excited to announce the launch of a new program that we feel will have a significant impact on the promotion of the community. We have entered into a three year agreement with CGI Communications to produce a series of streaming online videos highlighting all our community has to offer its residents, visitors, and businesses. With an easily viewable interface on the official city website (www.ci.monticello.mn.us), the video showcase will engage viewers in learning more about area attractions, economic development opportunities, quality of life, and so much more. The City of Monticello is dedicated to highlighting the advantages of living and working in our community, and we feel that this program can do just that! The videos will rely on local testimonials to help the final product feel more authentic rather than just an “infomercial”. The first draft of the script to be used in conjunction with the City’s promotional material has been prepared and is in the review stage. 2010 Street Reconstruction Project A feasibility study for reconstruction of west River Street from Chestnut to Hwy 25, associated side streets, and Walnut Street Parking lot is anticipated to be presented to the City Council in January. Staff will begin holding public meetings and communication efforts to affected businesses and residents in early January. Joint EDA/City Council Meeting – TIF and Redevelopment The EDA and Cit y Council will be holding a joint workshop on January 13th at 6:00 PM to review current TIF district fund balances and outline priorities for these funds. If you are interested in how TIF funds can be used to help further the City’s development and infrastructure goals, particularly in relationship to downtown, you are welcome to attend. 0 T� 0 N W C� D In i w J x a C� �-+ U) • E Ll' _� CCS O J i (n r) O� N cn � -� � 0 N CLS Q_ O Q_ �-- L O O Q_ L � > Q R5 Q � _ N Q N •U U •� •U O N CLS cm J co U U� Uma u - C) _0 co tet- O u co 04 QU) � Q O OcoQ C C/) C`7 r 00 U -E-a 00 ,.- p = 00> ti . _ d= CO N O o pp 4-a L6 CN�I cN p 00 000 00 N � M .. m U) O m O 00 .(D o O L -0 O :3 LO m o c w N N O N L � � � X W � N ry N N o x o _ 0 W o W cu o " U) (3) cu� CU cu 4-a _ U C� L- 0) p > om N E•- -0 -o E H- N U) r- . c o c:M (� �o :3° o 0 U- Lo U- Q � —� o N J p U N (D 69- - z CD��ry•E � I- c O co U) N 0 U O C N LO 4- O m F-- `°T O o ti O _ O o O O pO � Q p N m O O O NCN LL W Q -0 2 -0 O U U U N C: -0 -0 E -0 0� W Of c O co U) N 0 U O C N LO 4- O m F-- `°T LL O T— C) N C`7 ti O 04O a QL W rm iff I% 4-0 W 0 M� W M H ^L W 4-0 W 1 M_ J �- .E m E E O U O O N N 4-- O U) N L a w TIA (D t'J LO (Y) N 0) O m i N O o � N N °? N 4-0 O Q� 00 N cn � .� � U) ea 4- 0 O U > W N 4-j O - 4-a O � p o CD O O o - O U- .� LL O C`7 � --' U a O ° _ CN N 4-a : p N C6 x o a� a c: a� cn I— D 0 U N co ti O N p O L6Nt U)o 00 m o 00 . L6 Cfl C0 — O O > I` O to Mme- O v Ul 0 It Q x Nc a) O (1) N.� cu 6q 0) a) z U) r V .> Q� C (1) :3 O V) L- C/) (3) � N X -1 `� O o OT- z L O c- O LO O N L40-- cc N O Op > -in QJ Co 4-00 O U)_N O to .C: � X 4- O N C O N 4-,.0 c- E � (ll c Co (ll (n U U) 0 (D Q O a � N }' O O 4-0 O O (D s= o O Q C ` •� dj O j O : N C: LL Q -CZ Q (3)C: �a� aOo =3 � W 0 0� O .cr -D U 6 Cfl U Q N LO E u O O N (Y) CM U �- co M CN CO � N �>' U C� L- 0 (n :�-� Eft 6 4-a 70 00 d- -0 Cy) 00 U) L- Q�O >00X �= N _I N mU) U oCo X C: — c6 LOa� CL >> ku > 0U U -� 6q — a� > m co 4., 0- — N .� N N U > L L, L CCS X :3� O I� I U 0 U= a) LL I� O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 O O N O O O N 00 O O N ti O O N O O O N LO O O N d O O N M O O N N O O N O O N O O O N O O O 00 O O N A u OO O O O O O O O O LO O In O LO Eft N N I r- Eft EFt Eft U:? O Eft O 0 O 0 O M O O O L N O O O O N Ln d N � f0 O O 6. O o � O N fft O O O U') ti T - Eft O 0 O LO M T - Eft 0 0 N O O O N 00 O O N O O N m 0 0 N LO O O N O O N M O O N N O O N M v - c .0 4—a m E 0 4— 0) C= O 0 U O WE 0 00 m O O O (3') N O O O 06 O ti (9 W LO 64> 6p.� 6C.)- 6c> Q U .m m C O (� E — LO co 0 oi N U O (13 �+— a� (D • j U O ccO � G C _o 0S G M () O (D c LO (D •C: c U C9 >, N c O N OU O O 00 �O Q U O EC N O C:Ca OU (� N OU V � U N U N U a.., O cn CU a) N Cc/) U_ co E c� U C`7 r r 00 00 Ni C`7 60- 0- 4- 4- 0 0 -- N C= N U :3 4-0, o C`- m (D C) � : ti r* --C`- U oLo � 0- �. .�..., CD � o �- o -. U) a � c m J Ca O � U) X O �-j Organization and regular monthly meeting of Monticello Joint Planning Board Wednesday, November 18, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. at the Monticello Township Hall at 8550 Edmonson Avenue NE, Monticello, Minnesota. Board members present were Brian Stumpf, Pat Sawatzke, Franklin Denn and Clint Herbst. Brett Holker was absent. Others Present: Tom Salkowski, Nancy Kopff, Harlan Peterson and daughter. Sawatzke called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Stumpf moved to accept the agenda as presented for November 18, 2009; Herbst seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Minutes of October 14, 2009: Stumpf moved to approve the minutes of September 9, 2009 as presented; Denn seconded and motion passed unanimously. Salkowski reviewed the proposal for the Peterson property. An outdoor flea market is allowable as a conditional use under the Outdoor Recreation, General Agricultural zoning district. The Monticello Joint Planning Board reviewed the proposal at the October 14`x' meeting and identified 12 conditions that members felt should be addressed in the final motion. As such, a motion approving the proposed flea market has been drafted and was presented to the board. Stumpf questioned if signage on Highway 25 was needed. Salkowski said that the applicant will have to work with MNDot, but the state department has not requested no parking signs yet. Denn stated that he is extremely concerned with safety at this intersection; turning on and off of Highway 25 here is very difficult. Stumpf pointed out that on weekends there is less traffic, and said that really no matter what this property is used for, the road hazards exist here. Mr. Peterson was asked if he had any additional information to provide. He said, no. Salkowski asked if the existing driveway will be used, and Peterson said it would be, although some improvements will need to be made on it. Hersbst said that he can support the plans with the proposed conditions; he wants to see a low investment in the business so that there is no pressure to continue the CUP if there are problems with the operation. Sawatzke said that it should be pointed out that food sales would be limited on this site — a tavern or restaurant is not allowed. Peterson said that only vendor food sales would be used. Herbst said alcoholic beverages should also be prohibited; Peterson agreed. Denn thought this should be included in the motion. Sawatzke asked that Condition #13 be added, stating that no alcohol consumption or sales will be allowed on site. Sawatzke asked if there were any other public comments. There being none, the public hearing was formally closed at 7:50 p.m. Herbst stated that he felt that the discussion and conditions make it clear that this permit will not be renewed if there are problems with the operation. Board also agreed that MNDot should be notified of the conditions of this permit and notified that if no parking signs are needed on Highway 25 the applicant will be responsible for the cost. Herbst moved to accept the motion as follows: The Board finds that the proposed use by this applicant can qualify as a Conditional Use in the Agricultural Zoning District as "Commercial Outdoor Recreation" if certain conditions and operating terms are met. However, based on the limited plans and narratives submitted by the applicant, the unique nature of the proposal and the inability to fully predict the potential impacts, the Board finds that it is necessary to review the operation after one year to determine if new or expanded terms and conditions are needed, or it there prove to be significant impacts to public safety or welfare, or violations of the terms of this permit, it may be revoked. Pending a review at the first meeting of the Board after September 15, 2010, the permit is issued subject to the following conditions. 1) Advertising and signage shall comply with County zoning regulations. 2) No earthmoving shall take place until drainage/excavation plans have been approved by the zoning office. 3) Garbage and any waste materials on site must be disposed of properly, with an appropriate number of receptacles on site at all times. 4) The permit is for a series of "one -day" markets and the items/materials to be sold must be in accord with usual items found at a flea market or farm market, including items such as antiques, used household items, curios and secondhand goods, farm and garden products, and other wares which can be displayed on tabletops. No vehicle sales, carnival rides, live entertainment, loud music or any other uses not specifically allowed herein is granted approval by this permit. Under no condition shall any camping, overnight -stays, or the overnight storage of materials on site he allowed. 5) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 9 am and 6pm on Saturdays and Sundays and legal holidays which fall on a Friday or Monday, April 0 to October 1St. 6) All sales areas must be set up in the morning and removed the same evening, in accord with the plan on file. No permanent structures are approved, with the exception of a screening fence which is required to surround the area used for temporary bathroom facilities. Solid fencing, such as wood, will be required around the portable toilets. Toilet facilities will be required on-site in accord with the guidelines discussed and held on file. . 7) The existing access will be used, no new access the the Township Road or State Highway will be allowed. "No Parking" signs shall be posted along State Highway 25 and 85t" Street, at the expense of the applicant/owner, in accord with MnDOT and Township standards. 8) The Board reserves the right to require an upgrade of the parking lot surface to comply with County standards at the annual review. At no time may any parking take place on any public road right-of-way. 12) At least one employee or representative of the applicant must be on site at any time the operation is active. The applicant shall be responsible to provide the township with a phone number of a responsible person who will be available in case of any problem or emergency while the operation is active. 9) No alcohol consumption or sales will be allowed on site. Stump seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. Peterson thanked the Board. Bills: Salkowski presented the Monticello Joint Planning Board Expenses for 2009 to the board. Denn moved to approve the bills for 2009 as presented; Herbst seconded and motion passed unanimously. Motion to adjourn was made 8:05 p.m.