The URL can be used to link to this page

EDA Agenda 06-14-2017 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) Wednesday, June 14th, 2017 – 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: President Bill Demeules, Vice President Bill Tapper, Treasurer Steve Johnson, Tracy Hinz, Jon Morphew and Councilmembers Jim Davidson and Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Executive Director Jim Thares, Jeff O’Neill, Angela Schumann, Wayne Oberg and Jacob Thunander 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Consideration of additional agenda items 4. Consent Agenda a. Consideration of approving Regular Meeting Minutes – May 10th, 2017 b. Consideration of approving Special Workshop Meeting Minutes – May 31st, 2017 c. Consideration of approving payment of bills Regular Agenda 5. Consideration of Adopting 2017 Housing Study 6. Consideration of Preliminary Comment/Feedback of Downtown Small Area Study Draft 7. Consideration of Appointing EDA Member to Ellison Property Evaluation Sub- Committee 8. Director’s Report 9. Closed Session – Consideration of recessing to closed session to develop or consider offers or counter-offers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13D.05, Subdivision 3(c)(3). PID # 155010067100 & #155010036090 10. Adjourn 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (EDA) Wednesday, May 10th, 2017 — 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Present: Bill Demeules, Bill Tapper, Steve Johnson, Tracy Hinz, Jon Morphew, Jim Davidson, and Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Jim Thares and Angela Schumann 1. Call to Order Bill Demueles called the meeting of the EDA to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Consideration of additional agenda items None. 4. Consent Agenda BILL TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. JIM DAVIDSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 7 -0. a. Consideration of approving Special Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 12, 2017 Recommendation: Approved the Special Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 12, 2017. b. Consideration of approving Regular Meeting Minutes – April 12, 2017 Recommendation: Approved Regular Meeting Minutes – April 12, 2017. c. Consideration of approving Special Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 24, 2017 Recommendation: Approved Special Workshop Meeting Minutes – April 24, 2017. d. Consideration of approving Special EDA Meeting Minutes – April 25, 2017 Recommendation: Approved Special EDA Meeting Minutes – April 25, 2017. e. Consideration of approving payment of bills Recommendation: Approved payment of bills through April, 2017. f. Consideration of approving payment to Cuningham Group Recommendation: Approve payment for $20,000. Regular Agenda 5. Consideration of Update and Review Process of 2017 Housing Study Jim Thares provided the completed iteration of the Housing Study to the EDA for review. He asked that the EDA to not approve the plan, but simply review it and provide comments before the next meeting. During the June 14th EDA Meeting, WSB would present the plan. 2 Bill Tapper asked if a workshop could be held prior to the regular Ju ne meeting to review the study in depth. Thares confirmed with Schumann adding that some of that discussion should occur during t he regular EDA meeting because it is open to the public and televised. The board concurred. 6. Consideration of Outdoor Storage Ordinance Revisions Angela Schumann reviewed proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance for outdoor storage that were developed by staff and reviewed by the Industrial and Economic Development Committee. Schumann explained that it started with discussions regarding industrial land availability to accomplish comprehensive plan goals of creating and retaining jobs and growing tax base. The goal with the proposed amendments was to seek balance between the City and developer expectations. The EDA and IEDC are cognizant of the need for outdoor storage. Presently, the existing ordinance allows open outdoor storage as an accessory use in the I-1 (Light Industrial) and I-2 (Heavy Industrial) Zoning Districts when adjacent to other industrial land uses. When outdoor storage is proposed adjacent to residential and commercial, it requires a conditional use permit. Outdoor storage is not allowed in the IBC District. Staff and the IEDC had differing approaches to the size allowable for outdoor storage . Staff proposed permitting outdoor storage in the I-1 of up to 30 percent of the building and a conditional use permit for up to 50 percent of the building. In the I-2 Zoning District, outdoor storage would be up to the size of the principal building. IEDC believed the I-1 and I-2 Districts should allow outdoor storage up to 50 percent of the building and same square footage of the building with a conditional use permit. Fencing and screening would also be incorporated in the new ordinance. The proposed ordinance would allow a fence up to 15 feet and provided specifications for landscaping. Fences and walls also had materials specifications. Schumann also stated that changes to the setback were proposed. The proposal was to adjust the setbacks to be 15 feet on the side and rear, and 50 feet when adjacent to properties other than industrial (consistent with the building setbacks). Schumann noted that there was no clear concept of where outdoor storage should occur on a site. City staff proposed including language in having outdoor storage only in the rear or interior side yards. Schumann explained that if screening included trees that could reach 30 -35 feet high, storage could be as tall as those trees. Storage and shipping containers would be allowed in screened areas on asphalt or concrete. 3 Schumann clarified that the amendments would go to the June 6th Planning Commission meeting which would include a public hearing. Demueles asked what considerations were made in regards to stormwater runoff and MPCA standards. Schumann stated that the majority of industrial outdoor storage users receive permitting from the MPCA. The City Grading and Erosion Control M anagement Plan are modeled from the MPCA standards. Demueles asked if fabric type buildings would be allowed for outdoor storage. Schumann responded that tarp, hoop, or fabric buildings are no longer allowed for building materials. Tracy Hinz asked how a discrepancy gets sorted out between City Staff and IEDC . Schumann responded the Planning Commission and City Council would decide the final course of action. Bill Tapper expressed the increased difficulties for businesses to locate in Monticello. He asked for clarification on the tree plantings. Schumann responded that the proposal included one tree for every 6 feet of fence. Steve Johnson asked about a provision in the proposed impervious surface requirement for outdoor storage and the Atlas 14 stormwater standards. Schumann stated that through the MPCA’s standards, the impervious surface is required. She also explained that t ypically a crushed rock locat ed in areas of outdoor storage creates similar runoff and drainage issues. Johnson expressed that additional costs would be associated with developing outdoor storage areas. Schumann confirmed for new users. Johnson expressed concern with this amendment and its effect on the competitiveness of Monticello. Tapper asked how trash en closures would be affected. Schumann stated that trash enclosures would need to be screened appropriately. The area for trash enclosures would also be counted against the total allowable area for outdoor storage. Jon Morphew asked if refuse containers currently counted against outdoor storage. Schumann declined. Morphew asked if tall equipment (e.g. boom trucks) could be stored, even if trees were not fully grown. Schumann confirmed. Lloyd Hilgart asked if any current businesses were looking to expand their outdoor storage needs and if feedback had been received. He also asked if businesses would be going into compliance under the proposed amendment . Schumann declined. Schumann recognized the concerns of the EDA Commissioners and stated that staff did not intend for the proposed amendment to have opposite effects on creating jobs and tax base. 4 Hinz asked what would happen to businesses that would not be conforming to the proposed amendments. Schumann stated there is existing lawful and unlawful non- conforming section of the code. Schumann stated if the storage was existing today according to the current ordinance, they would be considered existing lawful nonconforming to the new ordinance as long as they do not expand. Tapper asked about screening from the public right of way and from the angle that would need to occur. Schumann stated that would be determined during site review. Hilgart expressed concerns for balancing the need for outdo or storage throughout the city with the comprehensive plan goals. Demueles asked if covenants were placed on industrial land if that would override City Ordinances. Schumann declined, stating that the City Ordinances are first then the covenants. Morphew expressed concerns property owners of undeveloped industrial land may have. Schumann summarized the comments of the EDA. She said there would be concerns for landscaping, trash enclosures, and size of storage. Johnson and Tapper preferred the IEDC recommendation. 7. Consideration of Otter Creek Business Park Land Sale Pricing Guidelines Jim Thares reminded the EDA that the guidelines were reviewed at a previous EDA workshop meeting. Thares stated that the changes to the guidelines were taken from the comments at the past meeting. Thares also showed the EDA the City of Burnsville and the City of Elk River’s scoring worksheets. The two cities use the scoring sheet for TIF Districts, rather than for pricing at an industrial park. He noted that the main reason for the guidelines was to create a rational approach to pricing land in the industrial development park. The criteria includes: number of new employees, number of jobs per acre, average wages for new jobs, public assistance per new jobs, development assessed value per acre, business retention, ratio of private versus public investment in project, and significant community impact. A total of 36 points would be available. Thares noted that the Burnsville and Elk River examples could be used by Monticello for TIF or Tax Abatement funding, too. Bill Tapper asked for clarification on ‘new employees’. Thares responded that meant new employees that come to Monticello for work. Bill Demueles asked why new jobs where not ranked as high as retained jobs. Thares explained that was how Burnsville’s gui delines were set up. Demueles asked that they be weighted equally. Tapper stated that there should be different guidelines for existing businesses that are expanding. Thares confirmed that could be created. Hilgart also agreed that business retention and job creation should be considered equal. 5 Johnson stated concerns with subjective criteria and analysis. Thares thought they could also look at other comprehensive plan goals to boost the ranking analysis, which may be considered subjective. Johnson voiced concerns with bias and liability issues. Morphew suggested talking to the City Attorney regarding equal protection. Demueles preferred the Elk River approach, which does not provide specific financial amounts, but rather uses a scale from high, moderate, low, or ineligible. BILL TAPPER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION. STEVE JOHNSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 7 -0. 8. Consideration of Director's Report Jim Thares explained the schedule for the Small Area Study. A joint meeting workshop to review the draft plan with the Planning Commission, City Council, and EDA would occur on May 31st from 5 -7 pm with an open house following immediately after the workshop. The public would also be able to provide input during the City’s Walk ‘n’ Roll Event. The EDA would have the opportunity to review and approve the plan on either June 14th or 21st. The Planning Commission would review the plan on June 11th for recommendation for adoption to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The City Council would review for final approval on July 24th. Thares also reviewed current prospects in the city. He noted that Shred-n-Go was provided an offer from the EDA for land in Otter Creek Business Park. Shred-n-Go responded with a set of questions. The DEED prospect and Project Novus are still awaiting a response from the City. Thares noted that he attended the DEED Shovel-Ready workshop. Thares also stated that he would like to attend the EDAM Conference June 28th – 30th. The board agreed that he should attend. Bill Tapper suggested moving the Small Area Study meeting to June 21st because of the lengthy housing study discussion on June 14th. The board agreed. 9. Adjourn BILL TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:20 PM. LLOYD HILGART SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 7-0. 6 Recorder: Jacob Thunander ____ Approved: May 10, 2017 Attest: ____________________________________________ Jim Thares, Economic Development Director 1 MINUTES JOINT WORKSHOP- MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL, PLANNING COMMISSION, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION Wednesday, May 31st, 2017 - 5:00 -7:00p.m. West Bridge Park Shelter Present: Mayor Brian Stumpf, Jim Davidson, Bill Fair, Lloyd Hilgart, Brad Fyle, Bill Demeules, Bill Tapper, Steve Johnson, Jon Morphew, Larry Nolan, Nancy McCaffrey Absent: Charlotte Gabler, John Alstad, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, Lucas Wynne, Tracy Hinz, Jack Gregor, Tim Stalpes, Brian Stoll Staff: Jeff O’Neill, Tom Pawelk, Angela Schumann, Jim Thares, Jacob Thunander, Ann Mosack, Andrew Dresdner (Cuningham Group), Thomas Leighton (Tangible Consulting) 1. Call to Order Brian Stumpf called the meeting to order at 5:05 pm. 2. Consideration to Review the Draft Small Area Study of the Downtown Andrew Dresdner, Cuningham Group, introduced the preliminary plan of the Small Area Study to the boards. He stated that he expected that there would be revisions made to the plan before final approval. Dresdner provided history on downtown studies and summarized that the last plan was completed six years ago and many ideas of how the downtown should develop has changed since that plan. Dresdner explained several of the basic principles of downtowns that his company believes in. He stated that downtowns are many things, for man y people and are best when they are compact and walkable. Downtowns are places to meet and be. Condensed mix of uses that keep the area busy, with ample parking is also important. He also stated that downtowns are well connected, flexible, and quirky as they grow in time. Dresdner noted that public outreach was sought during the planning process and a steering committee was formed to lead the direction of the plan. Thomas Leighton reviewed a market analysis for attracting development to the downtown. He added that as they were crafting the plan, they focused particular attention on retail and housing development. He noted that in conversations with developers, they indicated that they were interested in exploring options in Monticello especially housing projects. He noted that developers strongly voiced that it would be more challenging to redevelop land in the downtown than to locate on a greenfield site. Leighton explained that public funding would need to occur for redevelopment in the downtown (e.g. for relocation costs). He also stated that some of these developers also noted interest in mixed use development, but that it would need to occur in special places in the 2 downtown. Another developer noted that they wanted commitment that Broadway would be energizing and vibrant. Leighton also mentioned that they completed a retail vitality analysis which looked at aspects like storefront density, retail mix, walkability, sense of safety, building conditions, identity branding, and activation. He stated that Broadway has a strong storefront business representation, but that there was a lot of opportunity for that area. Dresdner then reviewed the four main goals of the small area study. They include: shifting the center of the downtown from Pine and Broadway to Walnut and Broadway; engaging the river and to make the City as much of a river town as possible; to improve the Pine Street experience for everyone; and to make many small scale investments and a few medium scale investments. Brian Stumpf asked if the plan accounted for any of the problems traffic presents to the city. Stumpf noted the amount of traffic after 4 p.m. as being a major concern. Dresdner stated that the study did take into account traffic. The goal was to make traffic clearer, tamer, and allow downtown to flow smoother. New traffic signals along Pine Street and a few new street connections are proposed. He noted that the grid works best when the grid is loose and can absorb some of the conditions such as rush hour traffic. Stumpf noted that the traffic that goes through the downtown was unhealthy. Dresdner agreed. Jon Morphew asked if public financing wouldn’t be available, especially for housing, could the City still move forward with other projects. Leighton suggested implementing the retail vitality goals, street reconstruction projects, and traffic signals. Bill Fair noted in the 90’s the City provided funds to upgrade storefronts. He noted there was many things the City could start on to make the downtown more viable, especially with the land the City owns in the downtown. Fair explained that they needed to see the opportunities to improve the downtown as an investment in the community, rather than just an expense. Leighton stated that he believed that residents of Monticello have a sense of community and that a pent up demand existed. Hilgart expressed concern with having a four way stop sign at the intersection of Broadway and Walnut Street. He asked if the consultants have come across having a bridge walkway. Dresdner dissuaded the City from completing a project like that in the downtown. Dresdner explained that open space, transportation, and land use were important elements that need to work well together for a successful downtown. Starting with transportation, Dresdner said the most important things are to have access to property and connectivity between places. Walking is just as important for circulation as any other mode of transportation. He suggested connecting Walnut Street through to River Street. He also did not suggest expanding Broadway Street and noted importance of maintaining the current width. He said that widening the street would cause similar circumstances seen on Highway 25. Reducing property access from Pine Street and having many small lots rather than a few large lots were other recommendations. Traffic calming on River Street traveling west was also suggested. 3 Dresdner than moved on to explain about the importance of open space in the downtown. He stated that the plan expands the definition of parks by including small pocket parks in vacant lots. River Street and Walnut Street were also suggested being closed down occasionally to hold festivals or special events. Dresdner then explained about the land use plan. He noted that the plan is very supportive of housing development along Walnut and Cedar Streets. He explained that the proposed housing helps to transition to the single family housing surrounding the area. Dresdner noted the importance of keeping the plan flexible in certain places of the downtown. Dresdner than discussed how each of the geographical regions of the downtown would be proposed. They were broken down by the Riverfront region, Broadway region, Walnut/Cedar region, and Pine region. Dresdner noted that the greatest opportunity may be the river front area. He explained about a signature development for Block 52 that could be up to a five story structure. He also suggested moving West Bridge Park to the east side and replacing with an amphitheater and potentially a bridge that could reach the island located in the river. Dresdner noted that he expected changes to occur on Broadway Street with buildings coming down and going back up. The plan proposed a development at the northern corner of Broadway and Pine Street. Dresdner reiterated the importance of maintaining the width of Broadway and keeping a single lane until Locust Street traveling west. A four way stop sign was proposed at Broadway and Walnut Street. Curb extensions and pedestrian refuges were also proposed along Broadway. Dresdner stated as Pine Street redevelops, buildings should be encouraged at the corners of lots with mid-block parking. Dresdner stated that they believed Pine Street was sufficient and didn’t need to be expanded along with the current traffic signals. Bill Tapper explained concern with retail being able to thrive besides food service. Leighton recommended that the community support and encourage entrepreneurship. Steve Johnson asked if new entrepreneurs could handle the expenses to opening a new business. Tapper also expressed concern with traffic with opening up River Street. Leighton understood the concerns, but noted that with a signature development the opening of River Street may be necessary to keep efficient circulation. Fair asked that the City be more flexible with public and on-street parking. He suggested that businesses shouldn’t have to always provide their own parking. Dresdner explained the importance of having people be able to park once and be able to go to multiple places in the downtown. He suggested not having parking as the dominant land use in the downtown. Brad Fyle asked what made some downtowns work and others not. Dresdner stated that access sometimes can affect the vibrancy of downtowns. Leighton suggested that the city work on getting the highest quality developments especially as many of them are around for over 75 years. Johnson asked for more information about the success of mid-block parking. It was noted that Chippewa Falls, Osseo, Anoka have good examples of where most of the parking occurs mid-block. 4 Leighton stated that the local market is strong and that developers would be interested in looking at development opportunities in downtown Monticello. He proposed concentrating development on Walnut Street. Two or three developments on Walnut Street would change the feeling of the downtown. He noted the importance of keeping details flexible and by having public financial support available. Leighton noted that most of the parcels would need to be purchase through private buyers. He explained that current property owners should not be frightened. Leighton explained the importance that collective will for the success of the plan. Hilgart asked if most redevelopment in downtown communities occurs if the city owns the property or private parties own the property. Leighton stated that developers prefer fewer property owners to be involved. Leighton explained that it was a key asset for the City to own property in the downtown. Brad Fyle explained that a mixed use development was proposed near the State Farm building and accepted by the Planning Commission. The developer received approval, but came forward and said that retail was very difficult to complete the project. Dresdner noted that any revisions that the boards would like to see should be sent to Angela Schumann or Jim Thares. The plan would be completed the end of June or July. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. Recorder: Jacob Thunander ____ Approved: June 6th, 2017 Attest: ____________________________________________ Jim Thares, Economic Development Director EDA Agenda: 6/14/17 4c. Consideration of approving payment of bills (JT) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: Accounts Payable summary statements listing bills submitted during the previous month are included for review. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve payment of bills through May 2017. 2. Motion to approve payment of bills through May 2017 with changes as directed by the EDA. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Alternative #1. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Accounts Payable Summary Statements The preceding list of bills payable was reviewed and approved for payment. Date: 6/14/17 Approved by _____________________________________ Steve Johnson - Treasurer The preceding list of bills payable was reviewed and approved for payment. Date: 6/14/17 Approved by ______________________________________ Steve Johnson - Treasurer The preceding list of bills payable was reviewed and approved for payment. Date: 6/14/17 Approved by ______________________________________ Steve Johnson - Treasurer The preceding list of bills payable was reviewed and approved for payment. Date: 6/14/17 Approved by ______________________________________ Steve Johnson - Treasurer 0061791/1---noinserts--------- manifest line --------- . 0025138.0001 * EDA Agenda: 6/14/17 5. Consideration of Adoption of the 2017 Housing Study (JT) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The EDA is being asked to consider adopting the 2017 Housing Study. The Housing Report contains information about the community and market area population demographics, growth trends and pairs that with information regarding the available housing inventory, trends, occupancy and affordability measures to arrive at a market demand for several specific housing categories. Those categories consist of entry level and step-up housing and general occupancy market rate rental and senior rental products. The report provides recommendations to fulfill the current and projected unmet demand as well. WSB staff will be in attendance at the meeting to present the report and answer questions. A1. Staff Impact: City staff have been involved in reviewing drafts of the Housing Study and providing comments and edit suggestions. A rough estimate of time spent in this role is approximately 40 to 45 hours among three key staff members. This review work is part of the normal duties of staff as part of oversight of materials and work products performed by contractors. A2. Budget Impact: There is no current budgetary impact in completing the Housing Study by WSB since it was included in the original 2014 and 2015 WSB Market Matching Contract scope of work and all payments were received by WSB for the 2014 and 2015 contract time periods. Upon learning of this deliverable oversight, WSB has made a diligent commitment to fulfill the contract’s uncompleted work item (the Housing Study). B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to adopt the 2017 Housing Study. 2. Motion to deny adoption of the 2017 Housing Study. 3. Motion to table consideration of the 2017 Housing Study for more research or information. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the report provides acceptable information about the housing inventory, conditions, trends, affordability and market demand for various types of housing in Monticello. If the EDA agrees that the report is complete and ready for adoption, then staff feels adoption at the Regular June 14, 2017 meeting is appropriate. SUPPORTING DATA: A. 2017 Housing Study, authored by WSB & Associates B. May 2017 EDA Meeting Staff Report �. � ,��pMP�ll��k �',��.� �� „r ., _' - - _ � _...�-.- I�ti_ ti. ,� 'i � �'�� - .4��. � _ - ;� :, ,� .� —� - — � �� .i ■ � a � `_' � ,g, �� : , � � �� '� �� Ili�rr�e�� u��,�i�l�lf �n_ � - - . . �i� �� .� . �— ,�....... -- - =er+�: ' ' � � � . . car�r o� � � rl l � �tC�� Prepared for City of Monticello 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 (763) 295-2711 Project No. 2596-34 Acknowledgements We would like to thank everyone who participated in the development of the Monticello Housing Study, including the Monticello City staff, Wright County Assessor's Office and the various realtors in the community. Completed in coordination with: � � WSB & Associates, Inc. , ► 1��'age � � � Montic;ello WSB PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF RESEARCH Housing is an important component of all communities. Housing quality, availability, affordability and diversity enhances the quality of life, supports economic development, and contributes to a community's sense of place. WSB & Associates, Inc. was engaged by the City of Monticello to conduct a Housing Study to assess the housing market conditions and provide recommendations for housing needs within the City of Monticello. The market analysis focused on the housing needs within the City of Monticello including market rate, subsidized, and move- up housing for various age categories including owner-occupied and renter occupied housing options. Monticello's Housing Market Study ("Study") should be used as a reference to guide planning efforts, financial initiatives and strategies, and provide direction to the City regarding the approach it should take; the types of housing opportunities the City should promote, and the roles in providing those opportunities. This Study is intended to be flexible to meet unforeseen housing needs and future land use decisions. It should be noted that the findings presented in this report should not be used to determine the market feasibility of any single development or project; rather, it is designed to be a broad analysis of the entire Monticello housing market and is intended to guide planning efforts, especially as they relate to future land use designations. The Study contains data from both primary and secondary research. Primary research includes interviews with local officials, and the real estate community. Secondary research data includes data from the US Census, American Community Survey, Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), Wright County, Business Analyst', and other local planning agencies. Secondary research is always used as a basis for analysis and is carefully reviewed along with other factors that may impact projections. All the information on pending developments was gathered by WSB & Associates, Inc. and is accurate to the best of our knowledge. INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS This section looks at the demographic characteristics that underlie the need for various types of housing in Monticello. The U.S. Census and Business Analyst served as the primary sources forthe demographic overview. While population projections are an effective planning tool when used correctly, their accuracy is dependent on several factors including assumptions for birth rates, death rates, migration, and economic conditions. Assumptions are based on past trends and the best information available at the time, but assumptions do not always remain true, and unexpected changes can occur. Therefore, Monticello should use the population projections presented in this Market Study as a general guide and not as an absolute certainty. Moreover, the City should periodically review and update the population projections based upon new conditions. WSB & Associates, Inc. determined the Study Area to be used as comparison points. The area was based on geographic and man-made boundaries, community orientation, our knowledge of the area, and the dictates of the proposaL Considering these factors, we determined a Study Area to include the cities of Monticello, Big Lake, Buffalo, Elk River, Becker, and Rogers. In addition, Wright County and the State ' Business Analyst is a data processing service that uses ESRI technology, U.S. Census data, and American Community Survey data. 2I ��c�� MOTItIC;el10 WSB of Minnesota are also included as part of the analysis in the report. Though outside the scope of this report, it is important to note that surrounding communities' populations and available housing stock may affect Monticello's housing market. Figure 1: City of Monticello, MN � �: HISTORIC P(�PL1��A'I'��N CHANGE The total population of Monticello has grown substantially since the 1980s. Between 1980 and 2010, the City has grown by 597% adding 10,929 new residents, accounting for 18% of the study areas total growth. During the last U.S. Census period (2000-2010), Monticello saw a 38% growth with the addition of 4,891 new residents. Please refer to Table 1 A for further details. 3��age � � � Montic;ello WSB � Place 1980 Monticello N 1,830 Big Lake 2,210 Buffalo 4,560 Elk River 6,785 Becker 601 Rogers 652 Study Area 16,638 Total Wright Couniy 58,681 Minnesota 3,806,10 3 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Table 1-A: POPULATION CHANGE 1980-2010 US Census 1990 2000 4,941 7,868 3,113 6,063 6,856 10,097 11,143 16,447 902 2,673 698 3,588 27,653 46,736 2010 12,759 10,060 15,453 22,974 4,538 11,197 76,981 1980-1990 No. % 3,111 170.0% 903 40.9% 2,296 50.4% 4,358 64.2% 301 50.1 % 46 7.1 % 11,015 66.2% Change 1990-2000 No. % 2,927 59.2% 2,950 94.8% 3,241 47.3% 5,304 47.6% 1,771 196.3% 2,890 414.0% 19,083 69.0% 2000-2010 No. % 4,891 62.2% 3,997 65.9% 5,356 53.0% 6,527 39.7% 1,865 69.8% 7,609 212.1 o� 30,245 64.7% 68,710 89,986 124,700 10,029 17.10% 21,276 30.90% 34,714 38.50 o� 4,075,907 4,375,09 4,919,47 269,804 7.10% 299,19 7.30% 544,38 12.40 9 9 2 0 % Monticello's age distribution has remained relatively consistent from 2000 to 2010 with the largest age group being 25 to 34 in both census periods. The percentage of people 19 and younger decreased from 33.7% to 32.8% while the percentage of those 65 and older increased from 8.9% to 9.8%. Keeping with national trends, the median age increased in Monticello from 2000 to 2010 from 29.8 to 31.6. Please refer to Table 2-A for further details. Total Population Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 74 years 75 to 84 years 85 years and over Median age (years) Source: U.S. Census Bureau Table 2-A: MONTICELLO HISTORIC AGE DEMOGRAPHICS 2000-2010 Number 7,868 799 725 610 511 547 1,571 1,215 719 271 202 316 260 122 29.8 2000 � � � % 100.0 10.2 9.2 7.8 6.5 7 20 15.4 9.1 3.4 2.6 4 3.3 1.6 (X) ■ � � � Number 12759 1292 1101 969 823 731 2255 1991 1505 490 395 584 394 229 31.4 2010 � % 100.0 10.1 8.6 7.6 6.5 5.7 17.7 15.6 11.8 7.0 3.1 5.0 3.0 1.8 (X) 4��'age � �� Monticello WSB AA. ��ii� 1 dl. � �.FJ��AA.I.@��.f ��vA_ib> i�l �..IA_.e� l. l.�'4..^r"R.�.Fd��iT�.�.'�A".:. 4� Population projections are an effective planning tool when used correctly. They are based upon assumptions for birth rates, death rates, migration, and economic conditions. In 2010, the U.S. Census reported Monticello's population as 12,759. Monticello's estimated population was 13,568 in 2016, and is projected to increase to 14,383 in 2021. Again, it is impossible to know with certainty what Monticello's future population will be, but it is reasonable to believe that any future population increases resulting from new housing development or redevelopment in Monticello will be offset (to some extent) by population trends resulting from an aging population and diminishing household size. However, based on available data, Monticello's population will likely see a continued increase through year 202 L It is anticipated that Monticello will account for 18.8% of the Study Area's population growth between 2016 and 202 L Monticello's expected rate of population change is roughly equal to the County and double the State. Refer to Table 1-B: Projected Population Change: 2010-2021 for additional information. Place Monticello Big Lake Buffalo Elk River Becker Rogers Study Area Total 2010 12,759 10,060 15,453 22,974 4,538 11,197 76,981 TABLE 1-B: PROJECTED POPULATION CHANGE: 2010-2021 Change U.S. Census Bureau 2010-2016 2016 2021 No. °fo 13,568 14,383 809 6.3% 10,629 11,080 569 5.7% 16,093 16,699 640 4.1 % 23,984 24,891 1,010 4.4% 4,858 5,253 320 7.1 % 12,675 13,844 1,478 13.2% 81,807 86,150 4,826 6.3% Wright Couniy 124,700 132,801 140,895 8,101 6.5% Minnesota 4,919,479 5,541,669 5,720,647 622,190 12.6% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts 2016-2021 No. 815 451 606 907 395 1,169 4,343 8,094 178,978 % 6.0% 4.2% 3.8% 3.8% 8.1 % 9.2% 5.3% 6.1 % 3.2% The City of Monticello has developed its own projections based on building permits and certificates of occupancy over the past two years. The Minnesota State Demographer's 2015 Annual estimate was utilized as base reference point. It indicated the City had 13,311 residents at the end of 2014. During the 2015-2016 time-frame, the City issued permits for 307 additional housing units. Using ESRI's estimated household size of 2.72, this yields an estimated population of 14,146 at the end of 2016. In recognition of the trend of increasing household size and the moderate pace of new residential development and household formation in the City, the projections for the 2017-2021 period indicate an increase of 893 people (2.74 persons per 326 new units or 65 +/- units per year). The annual population increase of 179 is si�teen (16) people higherthan ESRI's annual projections based on U.S. Census Bureau data estimates. Again, ESRI's figures appear to have under-accounted for the sizeable number of new units in the community during 2015-2016. Basically, ESRI does not factor in the steady recovery in building permit issuance in this period and applies its projections to a lower beginning population figure than a more realistic number. Refer to Tables 1-C and 2-C for more information. S��age � � � Montic;ello WSB Year: 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total TABLE 1-C: MONTICELLO HOUSING PERMITS & POPULATION FORECAST CALCULATIONS Single-Family Detached 2 2 22 49 70 38 61 244 Single-Family Multifamily Attached 0 0 0 � 0 � 0 0 = 3 = 0 � 3 0 = 6 = 136 T 0 66 12 202 POPULATION FORECAST CALCULATIONS Time-Frame "' New Housing Average HH Size New Residents Units (Permits x HH Size) 2015 - 2016 307 2.72 835 Time-Frame New Housing Average HH Size New Residents Units (Permits x HH Size) 2017 - 2021 � 326 (65.2 x 5) 2.74 893 Source: CityofMonticello, Minnesota State Demographer TABLE 2-C: POPULATION PROJECTION DIFFERENCE City of Monticello ESRI Difference Source: ESRI forecasts, The City of Monticello 2016 14,146 13,568 578 � 2021 15,039 14,383 656 Total 2 2 22 52 73 180 127 458 2014 Pop 13,311 2016 Pop 14,146 H��1SE�I�I,I� C;�It� �C;TE�`�� _" S AND F012E�ASTS Average 65.2 per year End of 2016 Pop 14,146 End of 2021 Pop 15,039 Annual Growth 179 163 16 In 2010, the US Census reported 4,693 households in Monticello and 3,164 families. A household refers to a housing unit occupied by at least one person. A household can involve a family living in a housing unit or it can involve unrelated people sharing an apartment or housing unit. A family refers to a household consisting of a householder and one or more other people related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. In the future, it is likely that the percentage of married couples without children living with them will increase. The percentage of single parent households will also increase. Family households with no spouse present accounted for approximately 30% of the family households in Monticello in 2010. The average household size in Monticello in 2000 was 2.64 persons compared to 2.68 in 2010 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. These figures were projected to increase, according to ESRI, to 2.72 in 2016 and 2.74 by 2021. According to the American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Monticello has seen a decrease in family households, a decrease in households with children under the age of 18, and an increase in non-family households (see Table 1-D: Household Occupancy Characteristics for further details). These trends held true from 2009-2014 aside from an outlying year (2014 - highlighted in gray on Table 1-D) when there was an increase in family households, an increase in families with children, and a decrease in nonfamily households. This may have been caused by an increased availability of single- family housing units. These trends have implications for the demand of future housing types in Monticello. Since the average household size is projected to decrease and the trend of family households has been decreasing, a shift in demand will likely occur less for 3-4 bedroom, single-family homes and more for smaller housing units, and multi-family units. 6�Y�age � �� Monticello WSB TABLE 1-D: HOUSEHOLD OCCUPANCY CHARACTERISTICS - 2009-2014 Family Family with Children Nonfamily 1-person 2-person 3-person 4-or-more-person 2009 72.2% 47.0% 27.8% 22.0% 29.8% 18.8% 29.4% 2010 69.6% 46.4% 30.4% 25.1 % 25.8% 18.6% 30.6% 2011 68.5% 45.3% 31.5% 25.8% 26.9% 16.9% 30.9% 2012 66.8% 43.8% 33.2% 26.5% 25.3% 19.1 % 29.1 % 2013 66.2% 42.3% 33.8% 27.0% 27.0% 16.4% 29.6% 2014 68.8% 43.8% * 31.2% 24.9% 29.0% 13.7% � 32.4% Source: American Community Survey 5-year Estimates Between 2010 and 2016, the number of new households (4,693 and 4,936 respectively) has grown proportionally to the increase in population (12,759 and 13,568 respectively) suggesting stability in household size (see Table 1-E: Historic and Projected Households: 2010-2021). The number of households in Monticello is projected to increase by 5.3% by 2021 accounting for 182% of the study area's projected household growth. Place Monticello Big Lake Buffalo Elk River Becker Rogers Study Area Total TABLE 1-E: HISTORIC AND PROJECTED HOUSEHOLDS: 2010-2021 � US Census 2010 4,693 3,377 5,700 8,080 1,526 3,748 27,124 2016 4,936 3,566 5,872 8,452 1,635 4,232 28,693 Wright Couniy 44,473 46,817 Minnesota u 2,087,227 2,176,475 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts u 2021 5,199 3,720 6,058 8,780 1,772 4,610 30,139 49,383 2,258,733 2010-2016 No. 243 189 172 372 109 484 1,569 2,344 89,248 % 5.2% 5.6% 3.0% 4.6% 7.1 % 12.9% 5.8% 5.3% 4.3% Change 2016-2021 No. 263 154 186 328 137 378 1,446 2,566 82,258 % 5.3% 4.3% 3.2 % 3.9 % 8.4% 8.9 % 5.0% 5.5% 3.8% 7��age � � � Montic;ello WSB :�� 1�� Iri`� � I�1F:�C�T � �I L1�II��'� In addition to knowing how many people currently live and will likely live in Monticello, an understanding of the population's age composition can help the City plan for and provide necessary and desired services for its residents. The following provides an overview of the e�sting age composition of Monticello's residents and the anticipated changes in age composition that will occur through the year 2021 (see Table 1-F: Age Composition 2010-2021). Composition will remain relatively consistent outside of a slight decrease in the 25-34 age category (by 2.1%) and slight increase in the 55-64 age category (by 2.5%) which reflects aging baby boomers and a smaller succeeding generation. Extrapolating further past year 2021, Monticello can expect a surge of 7,438 residents entering the over- si�ty-five (65) age group as is indicated by the red box in Table 1-F. The age cohort closest to age si�ty- five (65) typically is comfortable downsizing their living situation. This is a substantial number of households who will be causing the demand in housing types to change in Monticello for future years as current projections do not have a corresponding offset in future age groups. TABLE 1-F: AGE COMPOSITION 2010-2021 _ � 2010 2016 Age Number Age 0 - 4 1,292 Age5-9 1,101 Age 10 -14 969 Age 15 -19 823 Age 20 - 24 731 Age 25 - 34 2,255 Age 35 - 44 1,991 Age 45 - 54 1,505 Age 55 - 64 885 Age 65 - 74 584 Age 75 - 84 394 Age 85+ 229 Median Age 31.6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts HOUSING SUPPLY % 10.1% 8.6% 7.6% 6.5% 5.7% 17.7% 15.6% 11.8% 6.9% 4.6% 3.1 % 1.8% Number 1,206 1,150 1,033 924 901 1,968 2,065 1,771 1,240 751 372 185 33.1 % 8.90% 8.50% 7.so°i 6.80% 6.60% 14.50% 15.20 % 13.10% 9.10% 5.50% 2.70% 1.40% Number 1,293 1,226 1,163 949 903 2� 2� 1� 9 353 836 404 171 32.3 2021 % 9.00% 8.50% 8.10% 6.60% 6.30% 15.60 % 15.00 % 11.70% 9.40% 5.80% 2.80% 1.20% Number and Types of Housing Units The US Census indicates that there were 4,693 households in Monticello in 2010: 1,749 more units than identif�ied in 2000 (2,944). Data describing the household type, as shown below in Table 1-E, was only available as an estimate. The most recent data is from the 2014 American Community Survey. Roughly, 54.5% of the housing units in 2014 were single-family detached houses: this is considerably lower than Wright County (76.4%) and lower than the State of Minnesota (672%). In 2014, roughly 182% of the housing units in Monticello were single-family attached units (townhouses): this is almost double the figure for Wright County (9.8%) and much higherthan the State (7.5%). In 2014, the City also had a considerably higher percentage of multi-family housing than Wright County but was consistent with the State of Minnesota. Refer to Table 1-G: Housing Supply by Type - 2014, for more information. 8��jage � � � Montic;ello WSB TABLE 1-G: HOUSING SUPPLY BY TYPE - 2014 Housing Type Monticello Monticello Wright County Wright County Units % Units % Single-Family 2,663 54.5% Detached Single-Family 889 1820� Attached 2-4 Unit Multi- 123 2.5% Family 5+ Unit Multi- 787 16.1 % Family Mobile Home 422 8.6% Other - 0.0% Total Units 4,884 100% Source: 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 37,715 76.4% 4,863 9.8% 799 1.6% 3,609 2,335 50 49,371 7.3% 4.7% 0.1 % 100% � State State Units % 1,589,773 67.2% 176,173 7.5% 104,411 4.4% V 410,648 82,441 703 2,364,149 C;a��i�c�� z��1 _F`�r��t c�f ��x•-(��upi��i ��d I��t��:;v�,��i��i TJr�i�� 17.4% 3.5% 0.0 % 100% It is important to have a balance of owner-occupied and renter-occupied units. In general, many communities strive to have roughly 65-70% of their housing units owner-occupied and 30-35% renter occupied. In 2010, approximately 68% of the housing units in Monticello were owner-occupied; this is slightly lower than Wright County (75%), and about the same as the State of Minnesota (68%). During 2016, the City of Monticello's housing occupancy ratio (owner:renter) has changed slightly, with 69% of the housing units being owner occupied and 25% being renter occupied. In 2021, the housing occupancy ratio is forecasted to remain consistent with past trends. Refer to Table 1-H: Housing Tenure by Type - 2010, for additional information. Please be aware that there is roughly a 6% gap between owner occupied housing units and renter occupied housing units; this gap will be addressed in the following section. TABLE 1-H: HOUSING TENURE - 2010 - 2021 Owner Occupied Housing Units % Location: 2010 2016 2021 2010 Monticello 68.2% 68.7% 68.1 % 26.2% Wright Couniy 75.8% 74.7% 74.7% 14.9% State of MN 64.9% 64.0% 63.9% 24.0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts Renter Occupied Housing Units % 2016 2021 25.3% 24.9% 15.8% 15.9% 24.8% 24.9% Vacanci�s Today, the City of Monticello faces an overall housing vacancy rate of 6.0%, which is 3.4% lower than the vacancy rate for Wright County, and 5.2% lower than that of the State. Monticello's vacancy rate has increased by 0.4% since 2010 and is projected to increase by 1% in 2021 which will still be significantly lower than the County and State. Both the County and State are projected to remain consistent through year 2021. The increase of vacant housing units in Monticello can partly be explained by the fact that the number of housing units in the City increased by nearly 6% from 2010-2016, and the housing market experienced a significant decline. Please see Table 1-I for further details. 9�Y�age � � � Montic;ello WSB TABLE 1-I: VACANT HOUSING FORCAST & COMPARISION — 2010-2021 Year City Vacant Units City Percent Vacant County Percent Vacant State Percent Vacant� 2010 280 5.6% 9.2% 11.1 % 2016 315 6.0% 9.4% 11.2% 2021 � 391 7.0% 9.4% 11.2% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts The rental housing vacancy rate is fairly low in Monticello. Table 2-I indicates specific vacancy rates for eight of the rental properties in the City. Ridgemont Apartments River Park View Apartrnents Ridgway Apartments Hillside Terrace Cedar Crest Apartments Broadway Square 7th Street Townhomes Monticello Crossings TABLE 2-I: RENTAL APARTMENTS — VACANCIES AND RATES � � Vacancy 0.0% 0.0% � 2.3% � 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% � I _ 6.7% 11.0% � � Source: WSB & Associates � Rates $566 - $610 30%of income $460 - $725 30%of income 30%of income 30%of income $825 $925 - $2,535 V�l�e of �ol�sin� The median value of owner-occupied housing units in Monticello in 2016 was $179,095 and is projected to increase by $30,314 in 202L Most housing in Monticello is valued in the range of $150,000 to $199,999, which is consistent with the County and State. In comparison to low and moderate valued housing, there is a relatively limited choice of higher valued housing units in Monticello. Only 16.5% of owner-occupied housing units have a value of $250,000 or greater compared to 38.8% in the County and 36.7% in the State. The median value of owner-occupied housing in Wright County was $216,395 and $205,288 in the State of Minnesota. Monticello needs to focus on later-stage housing opportunities to meet the demand for higher valued housing units. Refer to Table 1-J: Owner-Occupied Housing by Value -2016 for additional information. Table 2-J illustrates the affect that the Great Recession had on housing values in Monticello. Note that median sale price fell below median appraised value in mid-2007, then recovered and surpassed appraised value in 2011to regain a more traditional relationship. Data from Table 2-Jcame from the Wright County Assessor. lO�Page � � � Montic;ello WSB Value Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 to $199,999 $200,000 to $249,999 $250,000 to $299,999 $300,000 to $399,999 $400,000 to $499,99 $500,000 to $749,999 $750,000 to $999,999 $1,000,000 or More Median Value V Source: ESRI Forecasts $zio,000 $zoo,000 $i9o,000 $iso,000 $i�o,000 $i6o,000 $i5o,000 $i4o,000 $iso,000 TABLE 1-J: OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING BY VALUE - 2016 City Units 411 240 407 1282 672 269 217 65 18 22 5 $179,095 ■ � � City % 11.4% 6.7% 11.3% 35.5% 18.6% 7.5% 6.0% 1.8% 0.5% 0.6% 0.1 % � Wright County % 6.5% 4.8% 11.8% 21.4% 16.7% 11.5% 13.2% 6.4% 4.5% 1.8% 1.4% $216,395 � ■ � State % 6.5% 9.4% 14.7% 17.9% 14.7% 10.3% 12.2% 6.1 % 4.9% 1.9% 1.3% $205,288 CHART 2-J: MONTICELLO HOUSING VALUES THOUGH THE GREAT RECESSION 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Median Sale Median Appraised Owner Monthly Costs as Percentage of Household Income Housing decisions should not be based solely on the value of housing, but also the cost of housing expenses in relation to household income. In general, housing costs (taxes, insurance, principal, interest, etc.) should not exceed 30% of total household income. In 2014, only 19% of homeowners in Monticello had monthly costs that were more than 30% of their household income, compared to 27% in Wright County and 29% in the State of Minnesota (see Table 1-K: OwnerMonthly Costs as Percent of Household Income -2014). These figures suggest that housing was more affordable in Monticello than in Wright County and the State of Minnesota in 2014 possibly due to age and livability of housing units. This is an important strength for the City is it continues to grow and evolve into a regional center linking the Twin Cities Metro with the St. Cloud MSA. Monticello should consider a goal to maintain appropriate amounts of affordable housing to mitigate the negative impacts of a housing price correction like that seen during the Great Recession (2007-2010). This will allow for the community to see steady and modestly increasing home values and reduce the 11�Page � � � Montic;ello WSB likelihood of rapidly increasing home prices causing homeowners to be required to spend a larger portion of their income on housing. While the provision of affordable housing is one side of the coin, the City should also incorporate a plan to encourage the development and attraction of livable wage employment opportunities in the City. TABLE 1-K: OWNER MONTHLY COSTS AS PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME - 2014 Percent of Household Income City Units* City % Less than 20% 1,286 47.0% 20.0 to 24.9% ' 611 � 22.3% 25.0 to 29.9% 611 11.4% 30.0 to 34.9% 169 � 6.2% 35.0%or More 361 13.2% Total 2,738 100% Source: 2010-2014 American Community Survey *Housing Units with a Mortgage � County % 39.0% 18.9% 14.8% 7.6% 19.6% 100% � State % 41.3% 17.8% 12.3% 7.9 % 20.8% 100% Contract Rent In 2014, rental housing units accounted for roughly 25% ofthe occupied housing units in Monticello. In 2014, roughly 88% of units had a monthly rent of $500 or more, which is higher than Wright County (87%), and the State of Minnesota (79%). See Table 1-L: Renter-Occupied Housing Units by Gross Rent - 2010, for additional information. Monthly Rent Less than $200 $200 to $299 $300 to $499 $500 to $749 $750 to $999 $1000 to $1,499 $1,500 or more No Rent Paid Median Rent Paid TABLE 1-L: RENTER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY GROSS RENT - 2014 � .. - = City County State Units % Units % Units % 23 2.0% 141 2.0% 24,764 4.2% 57 4.9% 233 3.3% 31,166 5.3% 66 5.6% 582 8 2% 68 601 11 6% 367 31.2% 322 27.4% 306 26.0% 34 2.9% 0 0.0% $ 773 Total Specified Units ` 1,175 100% Source: 2010-2014 American Community Survey 2136 30.1% 2012 28.3% 1514 21.3% 188 2.6% 300 4.2% $ 778 7,106 100% 159,802 27.1 % 139,386 23.6% 105,182 17.8% 34,297 5.8% 27,938 4.7% $747 590,136 100% Renter Monthly Costs as Percentage of Household Income In 2014, 46.5% of renters paid over 30% of their household income in rent (see Table 1-M.� Gross Rent as Percent ofHousehold Income - 2014). This number is slightly lower than Wright County (47.7%) but higher than the State of Minnesota (46.1%). This suggests that there is not an abundance of affordable rental units in Monticello and efforts should be made to decrease rental costs. 12�Page � � � Montic;ello WSB TABLE 1-M: GROSS RENT AS A PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME - 2014 Percent of Household Income Units Percent Wright County Less than 10% 0 0.0% 3.2% 10 to 14.9% 73 6.2% 8.1 % 15 to 19.9% 205 17.4% 13.6% 20 to 24.9% 262 22.3% 13.1 % 25 to 29.9% 72 6.1 % 9.1 % 30 to 34.9% 194 16.5% 9.7% 35 to 39.9% 86 7.3% 8.1 % 40 to 49.9% 102 g.7% 9 8% � 50.0%orMore 164 14.0% 20.1% Not Computed 17 1.4% 5.2% Total Specified Units � 1,175 100% 100% Source: 2010-2014 American Community Survey State 3.5% 8.2 % 12.3% 12.5% 11.4% 8.8% 6.1 % 8.1 % 23.1 % 6.0 % 100% �g� �nd :��ir�i��n�� i�1a��in� �t��l� In 2014, roughly 39% (1,910 units) ofthe City's units were constructed before 1990 (greater than 27 years old). Just 5.4% of the housing units in Monticello were built before 1939. Monticello has a relatively new housing stock in comparison to Wright County and the State of Minnesota, with 60.8% of housing units being built since 1990 compared with 50.4% for the County and 29.0% for the State. TABLE 1-N: YEAR STUCTURE BUILT � � Year Structure Built Monticello Units Percent Wright County 2010 or later 0 0.0% 0.7% 2000 to 2009 1,697 34.7 32.2% 1990 to 1999 1,277 26.1 % 18.5% 1980 t01989 748 r 15.3% 12.2% 1970 to 1979 654 13.4% 16.0% 1960 to 1969 63 1.3% � 4.9% 1950 to 1959 � 96 2.0% 4.1 % 1940 to 1949 86 1.8% = 2.3% 1939 or Earlier 263 5.4% 9 2% Total Specified Units 4,884 100.0% 100.0% Source: 2010-2014 American Community Survey LIFE-CYCLE HOUSING AND PROFILE OF HOUSEHOLDS � State 0.8% 14.6% 13.6% 13.0% 15.6% 9.8% 10.4% 4.8% 17.3% 100.0% The housing needs of a community relate to the demographic profile of the household. Typically, households move through several life-cycle stages; including entry-level households, first time homeowners, move-up buyers, empty nesters/young seniors, and senior citizens. The following describes each of these household types and the effect that they have on housing demands in Monticello. 13�Page � � � Montic;ello WSB E�akr��-1J��1 ��us�ia�l�s People in the 18 to 24-year-old age group typically leave their childhood home and establish their own household. They often rent a house or an apartment because they generally do not have the income and savings needed to buy a home. In addition, many people in this age group move frequently, so they are hesitant to buy a house. They are also more likely to share housing with other unrelated people of similar age. The entry-level household population in Monticello will fluctuate annually. Many Monticello residents that graduate from high school move to other communities to attend a university or to pursue other job opportunities. In the long term, unless current conditions and trends change, Monticello is projected to see a 0.5% decrease in the 15 to 24-year-old age group by year 2021 (Table 1-F�. Job opportunities aimed at retaining this age cohort need to be strongly considered. Nevertheless, there will always be a strong need to provide affordable housing for people of all ages. First-Time �Iomeowners First time homeowners are typically in their 20s and 30s. They are usually "move-up" renters, meaning they "move up" from an apartment to a home. They are often married with young children, but increasingly, first time homeowners are single. They are prone to moving within several years of buying their first home for several reasons; including, increased salaries allow them to move to more expensive housing, children may require larger housing, and job opportunities may require that they move to another community. Monticello is projected to see a 0.3% increase in the 20-44Z age group by year 2021 (Table 1- F�, which could translate into an increased demand for lower-end housing units. I�1a��-�LIp I��r� Move-up buyers are typically in their 30s and 40s. They move up from the smaller, less expensive house that they had previously purchased. From an economic growth perspective, this is an important age group of people. Typically, move-up buyers have children in school and an established career. They are less likely to move to another community and start over. Also, professionals who are moving to a community to advance their career are generally looking to move to a more expensive house than what they had in their previous community. Monticello is projected to see a 0.5% decrease in the 25-543 age group by the year 2021 (Table 1-F�. This is 0.3% lower than the study area average of a 0.8% decrease. This may be an indicator that there is a shortage of available units for move-up buyers. Monticello must continue to ensure that it has adequate choices for those who are looking for move-up housing that will satisfy their needs until they are in their SOs and beyond. E�aa�t�� r� ��d �'��aa� ��ni��°s Empty nesters and young seniors are generally in their SOs, 60s, and early 70s. Often, their children have moved out of their house and left them with a larger house than needed. Empty nesters and young seniors often want to live in a smaller home, like a townhouse or patio home, that has less maintenance. The baby boom generation in Monticello is projected to increase by 0.6% by year 2021 (Table 1-F�. A notable increase in apartment rentals in Monticello by members of this population segment is likely to occur. A large portion of these individuals will likely desire higher-end apartment complexes with quality z People in their 40s were included due to U.S. Census age groups. 3 People in their 20s and SOs were included due to U.S. Census age groups. 14Ii�� MOTItIC;el10 WSB amenities so they can maintain their current lifestyles. �enir�r ��z��s This age group is generally in their late 70s and older and are often looking for low maintenance or assisted living housing. As the population ages, Monticello must continually ensure that it has adequate housing to meet the needs of seniors. The City is projected to see a 0.1% decrease in the 75 and older age group by year 2021 (Table 1-F�. Monticello should continue to strive to be a senior-friendly community that values the contributions of seniors, promotes positive intergenerational interactions, considers the needs of seniors in community planning, supports the efforts of seniors to live independently, and acknowledges the role that family, friends, and neighbors play in the life of seniors. �p��i�l .�T��is Housing for those with special needs includes housing for those with mental and/or physical disabilities or health issues and those who need temporary or transitional housing. The number of people with special housing needs is expected to increase as the population of Monticello continues to age and grow. ��r�i��° I��si�� _�r�� Monticello City staff inembers have identified a need for senior housing market analysis. Based upon population growth forecasts, household forecasts, and the current age of householders, we can extrapolate what the senior housing market will require. Table 1-O: Senior Housing Projections 2010-2021 illustrates how the change in the sixty-five and older population will affect the number of occupied housing units. By year 2021, Monticello will need 940 units suitable for senior residents to meet demand, which is an increase of 136 units from 2010. We consider senior housing to be any housing unit (affordable, renter, duplex, patio house, etc.) that meets the needs of residents si�ty-five (65) and older. Year Total Population Total Occupied Units 65+ Population TABLE 1-0: SENIOR HOUSING PROJECTIONS — 2010-2021 � � 2010 2016 2021 65+ Population Percent Units Occupied by 65+ Population Percentage of Units Occupied by 65+ Population Source: U.S. Census, ESRI Forecasts, WSB & Associates 12,759 13,568 4,693 4,936 1,207 1,308 9.5% 9.6% 804 871 17.1% � 17.7% � 14,383 5,199 1,411 9.8% 940 18.1 % 15�Page � � � Montic;ello WSB AFFORDABLE HOUSING Affordable housing is important to a strong economy and a healthy community. Increasingly, housing is not affordable for many working families and the lack of affordable housing for people of all ages and incomes causes families stress, dampens productivity and stifles job growth. Various organizations define "affordable housing" in many ways. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) generally defines housing as affordable if it costs less than thirty (30) percent of a household's income. However, HUD's Section 8 Income Guidelines are the basis for most affordable housing programs. Section 8 guidelines define low and moderate incomes on a sliding scale, depending on the number of persons in the family. For example, a four-person household is considered "moderate income" if their family income is eighty (80) percent of the area's median family income. Most housing affordability programs and data place emphasis on creating owner-occupied units at eighty (80) percent of the median family income (moderate income) and rental units at fifty (50) percent of the median family income (low income). Since low income persons are typically renters, the definition of "low income" is tied to the number of persons in each unit. This study identifies "affordable owner occupied units" as those affordable for moderate income families (eighty (80) percent of inedian income). Affordable rental units are based on fifty (50) percent of the median income and reflected on a per capita and per family basis. It is very important to note that the definition of "affordable" in terms of a dollar amount will continue to change as the cost of living increases and interest rates change. Therefore, the City should periodically review income/housing statistics and update the definition as warranted. Factors such as interest rates will impact housing affordability in both a positive and negative manner. In��rr�� :�� f _F��_ �'�� ,�_� Looking at income data is also important when predicting future housing demands in the City of Monticello. In 2010, the median household income in Monticello was $68,135 ($67,963 in the County) and the largest employment industries were educational, health and social services, manufacturing, and retail trade. By 2016, the median household income increased significantly to approximately $76,954 ($73,798 in the County) and the top employment industries were the same. Monticello's median household income is projected to increase to $85,218 by 2021 ($83,257 in the County) according to ESRI Business Analyst. Income distributions as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau can be compared to affordability standards to determine how many households and families in the City of Monticello may require affordable housing. Table 1-P: Monticello Affordable Housing Units Requirements — 2016 & 2021 depicts the number of households (renter and owner) that may require affordable housing (based on family income). The gray shaded area indicates family incomes of 80% or less of the median household income ($61,449 in 2016 and $68,174 in 2021). The red box indicates family incomes of 50% or less ofthe median household income ($38,406 in 2016 and $42,609 in 2021). By 2021, 2,214 owner households may require affordable housing, and 1,629 renter households may require affordable housing. 16��age � � � Montic;ello WSB Annual Household Income Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $49,999 TABLE 1-P: MONTICELLO AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS — 2016 & 2021 2016 2021 � Number of Households 378 286 332 543 % of Total 7.7% 5.8% 6.7% 11.0% $75,000 to $99,999 887 18.0% $100,000 to $149,999 1,262 25.6% $150,000 to $199,999 341 6.9% $200,000 and over 74 1.5% Total Households 4,937 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts Number of Households 411 271 316 631 937 1,564 472 85 5,199 % of Total � 7.9 % 5.2 % 6.1 % 12.1% 18.0% 30.1 % 9.1 % 1.6% 100% The following table illustrated the maximum affordable housing costs for renters and owners based on median income. A direct relationship exists between monthly affordable housing costs and median income. Steps should be taken in Monticello to keep housing costs affordable as housing values increase such as maintaining current affordable housing stock and assuring opportunities for the construction of new affordable housing units. TABLE 1-Q: MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE HOUSING COSTS (RENTER & OWNER) - 2016 & 2021 Year Median Income Affordable Income: 50%Renter, 80%Owner 30% of Affordable Income Monthly Housing Cost Source: U.S. Census Bure+ 2016 $76,811 $38,406 $11,522 $960 �u, ESRI forecasts Renter � _ Owner 2021 $85,218 $42,609 $12,783 $1,065 2016 $76,811 $61,448.80 $18,434.64 $1,536.22 OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS 2021 $85,218 $68,174.40 $20,452.32 $1,704.36 This section analyses the City of Monticello's owner occupied housing market. Analyzed in this section are single-family home resale trends, home foreclosures, actively marketing subdivisions, pending subdivisions, interviews with local real estate professionals and others involved in the local housing market to gain their feedback on existing market conditions and trends. The Wright County Assessor's Office provided data on resale trends. The following are key findings regarding the owner-occupied housing market. Home Resale Trends The average resale price of single-family homes in Monticello in 2016 was $202,073 and there were 342 sales. This was an increase in price from 2015 ($169,025 and 266 sales). While some ofthe price changes from year to year can be attributed to the age and quality of the homes sold during a year, an 17�Page � � � Montic;ello WSB interview with a realty expert indicated the average resale price likely bottomed out in 2011 and slow price appreciation is expected to continue to bring prices back to a more market-neutral level. Median sale price is often a more reliable measure of price trends. In Monticello, the median sale price of single-family homes increased from $171,500 in 2015 to $185,269 in 2016, which reflects an increase of 8% for that period. TABLE 1-R: RE-SALE TRENDS OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES � � — Year Number of Sales Median Sale Price Average Sale Price 2015 266 $171,500 $ 169,025 2016 342 185,269 $ 202,073 Source: Wright CountyAssessor's Office; WSB & Associates, lnc. Table 1-S shows the number of home sales in 2016 by the decade the homes were built. In 2016, 181 of the 342 (52.9%) single-family homes sold were built during year 2000 or later. Similarly, Table 1-N showed that approximately 34.7% of Monticello's owner-occupied single-family homes were built after 2000. Only 11.7% of the sales in 2016 were homes built prior to 1980. This highlights the relatively large supply of newer homes available to potential new residents moving to the community. Table 1-S also highlights how the median sale price decreases as the homes get older. Most homes sold in Monticello in 2016 for under $170,000 were built before 1980. Homes priced above $180,000 were generally built since 2000. TABLE 1-S: HOME SALES BY DECADE BUILT 2016 Decade Number of Sales 1970 and Older 27 1971-1980 13 1981-1990 23 1991-2000 2001-2010 2010-2016 Total: � Source: Wright CountyAssessor's Offrce 98 132 49 342 � Percentage Median Sale Price 7.9% $151,509 � 3.8% — $166,000 6.7% $157,500 28.7% $181,467 38.6% $193,951 14.3% $221,050 100.0% - I Beginning in the middle ofthe last decade, home foreclosures began to have a significant impact on housing markets across the nation. Initially, most foreclosures occurred among buyers with lower credit ratings who had sub-prime mortgages. Gradually, foreclosure activity increased as jobs plummeted and home prices sank precipitously. Foreclosures have gradually decreased over the past few years as housing markets have stabilized. Table 1-T presents foreclosure data for Wright County and Minnesota. The data are considered "Sheriff's Sales Foreclosures" and was compiled by the Minnesota Homeownership Center and published on their website. There were 7,212 foreclosures in Minnesota in 2015. This was down from 8,313 in 2014 and significantly lower than 11,834 in 2013. Wright County had 205 foreclosures in 2015, down from 240 in 2014 and 372 in 2013. 18�Page � � � Montic;ello WSB Wright County has maintained a higher foreclosure rate than Minnesota. The foreclosure rate, as shown in Table 1-T, is defined as the number of foreclosed mortgages as a percent of total residential parcels. In 2015, Wright County's foreclosure rate was 0.49% compared to 0.40% in Minnesota. Foreclosures have hindered Wright County's housing market as they have other areas of the State. Out of 87 counties in the State, only 6 had a higher foreclosure count than Wright County. Those counties were Saint Louis, Washington, Dakota, Anoka, Ramsey, and Hennepin. TABLE 1-T: HOME FORECLOSURES WRIGHT COUNTY, 2013 to 2015 Wright County Minnesota � Year Number of Foreclosures Foreclosure Rate Number of Foreclosures Foreclosure Rate 2013 372 0.89% 11,834 0.64% 2014 � 240 0.57% 8,313 0.46% 2015 205 0.49% 7,212 0.40% I Sources: Minnesota Homeownership Center, HousingLink �,i��l��"��a�i�y I�i�� Based on a review of various Realtor websites, there were 77 single-family homes actively listed for sale in Monticello in November 2016. The homes were unevenly distributed by price range; weighted heavier toward higher priced homes. Only two (2) homes were priced below $120,000 and 68 priced $150,000 or higher listed for sale. Four (4) homes were listed for sale between $100,000 and $150,000. The average list price of homes on the market was $271,759 in November 2016. While homes typically sell for less than the list prices, the current prices suggest that Monticello should continue to see appreciation in home prices since the low point in 2011. Existing Lot S�u�apl� There are currently a limited number of lots available to accommodate new single-family homes in Monticello. The City is experiencing a shortage in buildable lots as bank owned lots have been purchased and developed. As of the end of 2016, there are a total of 74 single-family lots and sites that can accommodate up to 101 multi-family units. Permit numbers have steadily recovered from the 2010 and 20111ow point (two single family permits issued each year) to the issuance of 61 single-family permits in 2016. Prior to the recession, the City issued more than 300 permits annually. During that time (2002- 2007) housing lots were selling in the $70,000-$90,000 range. The sale price of lots fell by more than 80% after the recession. Bank foreclosures of developers resulted in existing lots becoming bank owned and ultimately being developed quickly. Many of the approved single family pre-plats were not completed due to the diminished demand for new homes. Refer to Table 1-U for full details. 19�Page � � � Montic;ello WSB TABLE 1-U: AVAILABLE PLATTED & UTILITY SERVICED LOTS Development Single Family Lots Multi Family Lots Featherstone 15 0 Hunters Crossing 0 0 Hillside Farm 22 0 Spirit Hills 0 5 SunsetPonds 21 0 Carlisle Village 7 � 17 Autumn Ridge 0 79 Eastview 1 � 0 Club West 7 0 Pine View 1 0 Total � 74 101 Source: CityofMonticello In mid-2016, the average price of a lot was about $20,000. As the housing market has improved and lot prices have increased due to the limited supply, it has allowed for an increase in prices for new single family lots. The new housing price situation is further aggravated by the limited number of remaining small home builders which have either closed or changed professions due to the recession and is now resulting in higher construction costs. According to a Monticello realty expert, another critical factor impacting the demand for single family homes is the degree to which first-time home buyers are riddled with college debt and unable to afford the price of a new home. The interest rate for new home loans has increased slightly from an all-time low of 3.4% during the depths of the recession to appro�mately 425% in late 2016. Monticello's average re-sale price currently sits in the five to seven percent range and is expected to go up. There are no major complaints or concerns among current homeowners looking to move up into more expensive homes. However, Monticello currently lacks availability of lots that are attractive for higher end housing. The community should focus on the development or attraction of a high-end housing development. The two-major upper-bracket areas (Carlisle Village and Briar Oakes Boulevard) have limited availability of undeveloped lots and are surrounded by agricultural uses. City-annexed land west of Monticello provides development opportunities but is unattractive to developers looking to build higher-market homes due to the lack of natural amenities and features generally associated with high end housing areas. �i�a�i�-f�rrril�� I��a�zsia�� 1'�i•mits The City of Monticello issued si�ty-one (61) building permits in 2016. This number is up 38.6% from 2015 when forty-four (44) permits were issued (6 attached and 38 detached). To meet demand, the City will need to continue this trend. Please refer to Table 1-C for additional information. 20��age � � � Montic;ello WSB RENTAL HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS �i%r�i��k�l� F2��i�1 [-�4rasifi� This section of the report analyses the affordable rental housing market in Monticello. The analysis includes data collected from Affordable Housing Online. All the properties in this section are general occupancy. As shown in the demographic and housing stock overview sections, there are approximately 1,175 renter households in Monticello which is down 127 households from 2010. The overwhelming majority of renters live in larger multifamily properties. There are approximately 2,923 renters (24% of total population) living in Monticello. As of 2014, 25% oftotal Monticello households were renter-occupied, compared to 15.6% for Wright County, and 28% for the State of Minnesota. Properties that include units assisted by federal programs were surveyed as part of this analysis. In total, eight (8) properties with 322 units were surveyed. Twenty-six (26) percent of the City's rental units are federally subsidized. Monticello's federally assisted affordable rental housing stock includes properties financed through the following programs: TABLE 1-V: FEDERALLY ASSISTED AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING STOCK Program Properties Section 8 2 LIHTC 3 � RD 515 6 Units 74 102 189 Total � 9 307 Note: The total does not necessarily equal the sum of each program as some properties may participate in multiple funding programs Source: Affordable Housing Online The average number of units per property for affordable rentals in Monticello is 34. The largest federally assisted affordable rental community in Monticello is Ridgemont Apartments at 48 units and the smallest is Hillside Terrace II at 12 units. Two apartment properties provide housing for seniors totaling 59 units. A11307 units include some form of rental assistance (like Section 8) to make rent more affordable for very low income families. In Monticello, a family of four must earn $42,900 or less to qualify for Section 8 housing. See Table 1-W.� Federally Assisted Units by Property for details. Name Broadway Square Cedar Crest Apartments Hillside Terrace -- Monticello Hillside Terrace II Ridgeway Apartments River Park View Apartrnents Ridgemont Apartments TABLE I-W: FEDERALLY ASSISTED UNITS BY PROPERTY Sec 8 LIHTC RD 515 38 - � - 36 - - - � - � 12 - - 44 - 31 31 - - 48 Source: Affordable Housing Online Note: Not all unit counts are available from HUD � � Senior 28 31 21�Page � � � Montic;ello WSB Photographs of Monticello Apartment Buildings Image 2: River Park �'�e� ' �:, '�ents ;ici»s�c .r: �..�xus�i �.. � a �. _ _ ,<v� ��_ r .��, � �� ' �+�1 r► - � � �i�� Ill�l�il[I�� '�� W� � _ra::ia.i: + _ :laz.ica��•�±�,•�',- Image 6: Ridgeway Apartments :�'� r r , - 1 . � � ��(i . � I �I I'-J „ '� , r�� . � '_ -'— _ . � -_ " ` - �� . . ` .. ,_"" �-1 Y : - ^'�` � �' � . _ " �--�-�=��"`'�- - �I�Y�y � � Montic;ello Image 1: Ridgemont Apartments �rw.�-- �'. ,w'.x.. , Image 4: Cedar Crest Apartments 0 � � ti !-, ' �� e� �r�?� ��..* �`1��¢ _ ��,,: � r ..�t.: �. '�' �'`; � ' � � �-��, r,�*r� � — �� `?"y r�-= � � �, . �._ - � �+ � � � :�'�. ' �� 4 � . : � � J� �� t. � � �� — �� -`=�' _ — _ _ ---- . Ima�e 5: Broadway Square �� il- „�rar; t�.,� � , � �! - �` �9 -.� �=� - �,.-.-.. � 22�Page � WSB a ?�t � � —?CPiv�d�i�ir— � ia �' , :,�, u . ,�� ;("%y v.., �+, x+-'"' �ii�� :�.� t �. . F.� 6 �t�".��.. Housing Development Opportunities �&s��a<,�c �. R�=.�r�di�;�!!�a �'��c��F�s„,�� 1■�"i�� 'J��`�I� _ . ■. o�, ; ■r ,� � �, o.�a � o, . �, . � "� �. - •�. , ° ,'� �q� .� . � . �� --�� I�+'^`it a.: �� " —:� k� -i�l� f-' ' . �.__ `�� " .. � � '">Ai.W.�'��.a --""�r � f 7�� J,� i ..� �! ' �. � I lyl'R'�� ` ' •.,r.... �1y � — .... � � �.�.� -- � �'_ There are currently three future housing development sites that have been identified in Monticello. Site A is an 11.93-acre area located at 506 Territorial Road and is the site of the historic registered Rand House which was the home of the Minnegasco founders. This site is zoned low density residential (R-1) and performance-based overlay and may be used for the development of a senior housing apartment complex with si�ty to eighty units (60-80) in addition to forty (40) patio homes. The Rand House would be used as a community center and guest home for the development. Rezoning this area using the planned unit development (PUD) process may be the best option to allow for this higher density development. The uniqueness of the property and the City's need for additional senior housing units could be used to justify the PUD. Also, we believe the proposed housing development is consistent with the purpose of the performance based enhancement district. Site B is a 6.4-acre area located north of the lake on the corner of Elm Street and 7t'' Street West. It is zoned for medium density residential (R-3) and may be used for multifamily, senior, or market-rate development. It is within proximity to the Cub Food Store and the Community Center. The site's southern exposure to the wetland pond offers an attractive natural amenity. Finally, Site C is located at the corner of Locust Street and 3rd Street West and has already been approved for the construction of a twenty-three (23) unit three story residential development. As stated earlier in the "Senior Housing Market" section, from 2010-2021 Monticello will need to construct 136 new senior housing units to meet the forecasted demand. Sites A and B have both been identified as ideal locations for senior housing development. Depending on the number of units permitted on each of these sites, and on how many senior housing units have been constructed from 2010-2016, Monticello may need to identify more sites suitable for senior housing. 23�Page � � � Montic;ello WSB Image 9: Site � \ ,.� C � �� 7 � � �_ 7sesasno�u�a �' .._ 7 'e' 4;�hr. '►. :t'�� A'°� v S { �i� y,� �� a.. �� t5i5l/Di�i�3G11�• . ` �r _ ' ; y�"' �. _ ` :.. ��. !� ' ''., j. +" i }�, ..,�ti � � 1 � ! �' �� i � � ` :" issiisooso^�/'� E • ��I � / �.�?...�,... --.� --- � " --�:,.75511�::._— . � � ' ` � r , � � °1 ,vu.. ^�' �nLF�COURSE RD * 4 �i5550u1� a1=00��* ` ` ,_� �_� arks W .�� r� t � o ' g r.'r a "' y w� r ,� f a ' S m. .tiQ 'u:., ,r� . ,i Md ' - - �. THs��., �� o : -,wi � , .0 �, r N 2� - � ,� ; a i ,-ro v� � .y � ' � u, �. �r- � �� ,�i�so��sr�atn�o� � � .'"�+y� - �`,Ir— y-E': ,i`., ' , .,"� u o , f �4. W .' �, � -pph�'� 1 C f � ;:C' , .- � � `�- 2 \ j � 'a I 2 T��'F •+�,a � �W� 1 � �' i� 4,� w r r. V'i10- i�. . _ . .: _ ' � . ;;P, 2 , ' F15 033 1`� 155509101402 '� '. �.� }5550�101s�N � y ..1 ,S� ' � �. �` ) 6 7 2 5 T' ti `._ #� 355033900074� � ��`�'y��, ��f � i P :. � n '_ , \ 5`l�� - � f ' ,.,. �r� . � g � � I-1.� �I.`+ . r,�sssuo�ao rssz2�aooaio . � . ' � �1 � �. .3 ` �155y5�Vby5�'—tdlt:f 5550U11]1�5 • /`�� .�� j � -� - �'� " 4 ..� 3 � �4� a } � .. _. r. zY� t ; .: �,��e/ .. . •'�':� , � ':" fs•1 � � g ��15522600d029•�..� � i55b68 � ``4 �� D _ !L_ _ IiSR �' . �'y�+•. -.� . -� . -,:. �^-..` .,. �.�-_ - .. . .. . . , . Image 11: Site C 24�I�age � — � Monticello tNSB DEMAND ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS This section of the report utilizes data collected in the previous sections to calculate demand for owned and rental housing in Monticello through 2021. �lc��u�ing 1)��t��r�d w�nnl��is Table 1 X outlines our calculations for owner and rental housing demand in Monticello from 2016 to 2021. Demand for additional housing in Monticello will come primarily from household growth. Pent-up rental will also be a source of housing demand. Monticello is projected to add 267 households between 2017 and 2021. This correlates to the need for 267 housing units to accommodate the household growth, or an average of about 53 new units annually. As discussed above, Monticello will experience strong growth among older adults through the end of this decade; it will also see strong growth among younger populations (25 to 34), as it did last decade. The growth of these younger households is creating demand for rental housing and entry-level homes. TABLE 1-X: POTENTIAL HOUSING DEMAND OVER NEXT 5 YEARS � 2017 to 2021 A. Household growth 267 B. Replacement Demand � 10 C. Total housing growth (A+B) 277 D. Percent rental demand E. Rental housing demand (C x D) F. Pent-up rental demand G. Total rental housing demand (E+F) Range to occur over ne� 5 years: 25% to 35% 69 to 97 40 to 60 109 to 157 H. Percent owner demand 65% to 75% I. Total owner housing demand (C x H) 180 to 208 Sources: US Census Bureau, ESRI forecasts, WSB & Associates, lnc. Replacement demand is generated from the loss of housing or the need to replace housing units that are physically or functionally obsolete. A review of Monticello's housing stock from the U.S. Census revealed that there are about 340 housing units built prior to 1950. It can be assumed that these homes' values are decreasing at a faster rate relative to other types of housing. Most of these homes are in good condition4, and we estimate that only about one-half percent per year should be removed annually from the housing supply because of obsolescence, which equates to two units every year or ten units over the next five years. A healthy rental market is expected to have a vacancy rate of about 5% to allow for sufficient consumer choice and unit turnover. With pent-up demand, persons who would normally form their own rental households, instead decide to move in with other persons in a housing unit, live with their parents, or live in housing outside of the area. In 2016, Monticello issued a building permit for a 202-unit multi-family complex indicating pent-up rental demand. Based on past apartments buildings (95 units built in 2000/2001); this newest apartment should meet the pent-up demand for the next fifteen years. The pent- ' Good condition meaning that these homes do not need renovated or demolished. 25Ii�� MOTItIC;el10 WSB up demand range of forty to sixty (40 to 60) in Table 1 X is the result of a 95% occupancy rate and the average pent up demand caused by a11297 units. We predict an annual pent-up demand of ten (10) units per year. Over five years, that would be fifty units, giving us the range of forty to sixty units. Based on demographic and market trends, we project 25% to 35% ofthe housing demand from household growth and replacement-need in Monticello between 2017 and 2021 will be for rental housing. There is a total of demand for appro�mately 109 to 157 rental units. This demand is for all types of rental housing — from subsidized to market rate general occupancy housing to senior housing. An estimate of 65% to 75% of housing demand in Monticello between 2016 and 2021 is projected to be for owner-occupied housing. This equates to demand for 180 to 208 homes from 2017 to 2021 (45 to 52 homes annually.). This would equate to the projected demand for single-family homes and townhomes. Please see Table 1 X for more details. (Jih�r i-��:��i�� a�inm��ti�r�� Proj ected demand for new housing products in Monticello through the remainder of the decade from current and future residents is outlined on the preceding pages. In addition, there are other programs that Monticello can implement to assist in meeting local housing needs and improving the quality of the existing stock. The key programs/initiatives that Monticello should pursue are outlined below. • Monticello should work towards converting vacant housing units into renter-occupied to reach 30-35% of total housing units. In its current state, the rental housing inventory sits at 25% of total housing units. As seen in Table 1-I, the City is projected to have seventy-six (76) additional vacancies. • Monticello needs to maintain its low housing costs and low percentage (19%) of residents paying more than 30% of their monthly household income on housing to reduce the negative impacts from another housing correction like 2006-08. This percentage is much lower than county and state averages (27% and 29% respectively). • Monticello should make efforts to increase affordable rental housing inventory so they are available for younger generations of citizens as well as baby-boomers and empty-nesters. The latter two cohorts of residents are downsizing their living spaces and need affordable places to live. Combining affordable housing options with job opportunities could lead to an increase in 19-24-year-old residents. • Monticello should also ensure an adequate amount of higher-end rental units for higher-income individuals looking to retire and downsize their living quarters. While these individuals are looking for smaller spaces, they are not willing to surrender the amenities to which they have grown accustom. • With the expected increase in the percentage of residents over the age of sixty-five (65), Monticello needs to increase their stock of senior housing units. Refer to Table 1-O for projected figures. • Monticello should consider the development of housing in the downtown area to accommodate young seniors and millennial residents. Both cohorts share the same preference for areas that are rich with amenities and walkable, and housing properties that have lower maintenance requirements. Providing residents with downtown housing options is critical if the city wishes to achieve population age diversity and a complete life-cycle housing environment. 26�Page � � � Montic;ello WSB � - �,:� ��':"� .:—�r.� _ ''�_�- . _ - - - - � ,�w- � �--"• W.:.� �,�;ei: `^ . , �.� . �. �.�.�. `� _ •, �e�. � - _ { _�� ' ._i .'"".�+�. . ...- . � : •. . �.. .. - - - " �'�_ � . . _ . � � � nw/ I - . -�� " �� w�i''�� --�� _ _'. � _. � ... . _r_ -.�. - , y� ,e/� � f��'.n��1�a�� `� t�a..F - � � �-; �.�+� �,' . ` �_�. _ xf -r s''E��=�• - _ ' n�rn�a..A..� -°'�i-__ ` - _ ` � ` 7rz y��.,v �•�A` _ _ `a--:'4� .�f ci�L X�, � . . �pt°,Y. _.c� � �.i�� ,f�, � ��a+ +� �''•''� � - p ••� t�) +� i' '�,`; - �* , �. , ,a _ �-�.`..�'.�i;�.�� r� ,y �,, �,,,,�u ��,y,� �� .� �- . . .,. - �. .. .� � �r , -� 'f�'u_r'S' �`" .i. �Y. .. �� y� �„r,,,,#�'�';�1�:�5�%? �+e� ,��'er►t �{�� 3i�� "�r4 �' �, '��L*1�:' �'.�'„� �„�s��,A�`��RA� C� .`* 4y+�T'{� �.�r�i�°" rr �� t`r�� r .r: s��r�'-.�i� s{-� � �;.� �;�"'_ �.�•`�' � -�`�'�� _ , . � . � ._„�, � .t. � # k, �L <� � ? � � �� , -z.- ,�'� , j.,F � 't ;��, � - �y. , - � _�� _ . M� � - ' r � `��..J� '��-`�`' '- � � t ` � . � y�y.,,, LS' , . :. _ ��'' ys �i - . . � 1.,fy'^ 4� _"ys • i �pAa-? +!^ ��y� " _ � . i-� . Y�e► a"'.,��:��'� � - . �" � _ _. � i. a y�- '-�. � _ �..�s..r� - � .t s. s�.. . ��.�...�r lsk4 �;� � R�. _ ti'. �,y� - � ,� �F � `�� r �^ L ... - . - - � - �s"��.'�'. �� . { jis'�' -" �� "'y -. , ir-"=C � �.Z. _ - -_ y � .,. _ _ . _ ' . � ` � � �_l�� .�� • � � _ . -. ; � ' __ - -e-� � '�� +y�x�- ,,,jy,'r^, "�"_" � � � �� ,� e _ - - ��! � _ � ` �_� � , � ` !r, _ ' - �� -. _'� . . . � ��..,,�'^�"�r - - ��`'. � .. �'� � ,._..�. . .ti'� �� - -- • � -. -- _ Y C'' �.�� > "�T ° . `� ' � --�, � - � �1/ a . . . � _ R.. � ��''�R�..rT` _ "q,ti . ,� ��'�.� � ��• � _� � 'w� . �M . - .�:�r ,- ` � � � ' ,._k.i/ �-��.�F '.''�,5 '" �� .r r � �-;. �f- �� - _ -- Y ��'` � �f- , .Y �� '�� + - �'!�'�'�� F,i• � ,s. �_ �• � �r a~ 9 � � �` �� ,_ r _ � . :� Y � "yr'Te � � � 4 � _ X . i l _ . � t� J" -'^�. �� '-/� •"J� -x �_ � �.�� .� y��F�� __ r• ' . .�I _ . yr {,-,J�. � , y�r �_ - ��'��'� � �T`��.,y��+ � .-. '-''� �, P t�r� ,y`, �r` -'� ��,�,� - � �� . � P� , � � � �. x.l� � ,�' �rv� , � � � � � i ._ �y � �X � �:� I��, .}�� '� � _ � • y,.`�1 '1��.`�tiyy�-�^� Y�• � -.� '1�A1, �+�YY � �� ' �r i' � �� `''� �� f 4 '',�,1C� � ��° _i� � � � ! a s�� r� � °�►� � � � . � .. '.� •�t„ - ;.� ;'�`_,�� r _ s/ .� ,�, . � - . �, .- _ ,�`� 5# ''� � ;. - . � • • �.=� l .�}y,..wy" ''" +` ,,,{� +- ' �� • _ � .''t s ��` — ,�,y. - - s , � - +� r t �Y �,�� s!X -� �� . � � - i " . .��.Rl�� IT .a � �. ' _ ' - � ,�F. v� .� �' ' ,�� 41..y.� � '*� :}'. i. "�.�`�' • � � . '�� • r , , � � ��-. . � �y �� 1'� ��.� �� ! • e,f � • ' r _. . � - r 4 �c � �~�� ' � - '�#��' � +� J '�.. � _ `'",,.+Y`� 11 s"d..�' . i� "� � - � Jfi" } '� � '�� G�'' i �,�,-!n� ��-"'r..._ _ � �+r T.��"� �. f :�� 'S �,c � '-• , �,� � � _.;r��. .� s:�. �� , ai�.�{ .�- x� `!�. '?. �, � . .,� '�w�� Y ."�.� � ��.�� . � � '� � t- t�,.__-. �. ��y��-�,�"•�� .�� ,� `� �'��` `.�,,�s.:.�, r ,� -�. ��. -?��, ^-_ � �r :r ,; �•�!'ra . � � f � �, � p �. y�, �'/ ;"~'�" ,�� !' ...• � � ' . � +� � , - � � . „ ".� +r'.1 �� . � �i'� - � , . � �� ,.�;�LF � - ^� {. �� :1 E 'R . � � � . r � �'�-• . ,�. . • ~ tr µ , . r � i . ,_ . =�� .:�.. '.�" � �,� "�� _�+�' - - �' � �' ) �,, �:� �r' � ,� }' ''.`�'� ' �yt-�� .�� r . i,�. � . . � 5 '.r w � , I`� � � � � � ��. • iT J„ "� 7 �, � f �' -� � � �Y � �� s � � �_ �1�� I �� ` �� . 9" +� � , � F�. �°' ,� 'r�1ir. �s•� �"� . . y � �� ;,� , ' , _ � �� " _ � x „ � - . �` `� } ._�' . ,�. � ��.Y � �M�.� �` ....�'- r F� t, . 1� � } • , � � -�,. � F�� r r �rF' � �� ' �`�� ,�� , -�� r' ' t.� - . f .'� ,� •+- � ! � . �` . ' � �. II" ` i ,� , _I x � � ' ' - � ��f� �� r� .. ��,,�/ �' � �,�� &� � �,� �,. IAii �� „f � J� T,{�' ' • +R � �h ` s• . r_ ;��jl� � �- : ��r;� .� '� �' � : � ' � ��.. �� _ � .� _`� �, 7�� . � � "� ��[._y,,y�� . � � .�'� r,.''� f `1'i� . - � �. _+ 3 `�' �� n � '` ..`�+, � '�'" � .' ' +`!' �, . � �`,. ; �r . . . , . �- �� ' I�� r� �" , � �` t� " * .../�* � _ . � •�' � .•�� -� 4 �� - � � 'sr � `� � ` � - ,�` �- " �,� a , -as �'"'rr �;� � `�'i� , , s+44 'r , - �,� . J �-- �_. , �, . t �`'� J � ' .^�� _ .�� _ . _s i�' • -, ' ' � �•' - I " 4• ^, `'• • . "'':�� ". .- . �, r.__ -_ �� * • ' � - ' �i 1��f _ . �. •.�� ., , � � `��''��y, ' '� '�,.� ;,�� , . �''�;��► �, . �! �'� j�` '"��"�G 2�� ;� L �� Monticello WSB EDA Agenda: 5/10/17 5. Consideration of Update and Review Process of Draft 2017 Housin� Studv (JT) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: In December 2016, the EDA was made aware of the unfulfilled deliverable "Housing Market Demand Study" per the 2014 and 2015 W SB Market Matching contract. Upon learning that point and arriving at a consensus that the contract work items should be completed, WSB community development and planning staff was duly informed of this expectation. Since that time, WSB staff have been conducting research on Monticello's housing inventory, conditions and trends as well as a review of occupancy and affordability measures. The attached draft Housing Report contains a lot of information about population demographics, growth trends and pairs that with information regarding available housing to arrive at market demand for several specific housing categories. Those categories consist of entry level and step-up housing and general occupancy market rate rental and senior rental products. The report provides recommendations to fulfill the current and projected unmet demand as well. Staff is asking the EDA to review the report over the next month and formulate questions and possible suggestions for edits which will be reviewed at the June EDA meeting (6-14-2017). WSB staff will be able to attend that meeting to present the Report and take comments and complete the final edits from the EDA at that time. Al. Staff Impact: City staff have been involved in reviewing drafts of the Housing Study and providing comments and edit suggestions. A rough estimate of time spent in this role is approximately 40 to 45 hours among three key staff inembers. This review work is part of the normal duties of staff as part of oversight of materials and work products performed by contractors. A2. Budget Impact: There is no current budgetary impact in completing the Housing Study by WSB since it was included in the original 2014 and 2015 WSB Market Matching Contract scope of work and all payments were received by W SB for the 2014 and 2015 contract time periods. Upon learning of this deliverable oversight, WSB has made a diligent commitment to fulfill the contract's uncompleted work item (the Housing Study). B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. No motion being sought from the EDA at this meeting. To be considered at the June 14, 2017 meeting. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the process of reviewing the draft Study is best served by giving the EDA members time to read and think about it and allow them an opportunity to formulate questions and/or suggestions for WSB at the June 14, 2017 meeting. The goal would be to have the Study adopted at the June meeting after the formal presentation by WSB. SUPPORTING DATA: A. 2017 Housing Study, authored by WSB & Associates EDA Agenda: 6/14/17 6. Consideration of preliminary comment and feedback on the draft Downtown Small Area Plan (AS/JT) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Downtown Small Area Plan has been evolving over the last five (5) months and was recently presented in draft form to a joint workshop of the EDA, City Council, Planning Commission and Parks Commission. At this time, staff is seeking any additional feedback or questions of the EDA as related to the Plan draft. Comments will be forward to the consultant in anticipation of a formal presentation and review on June 21, 2017. The expected Downtown Small Area Plan review schedule is as follows:  Planning Commission Public Hearing and Review – July 11, 2017  Plan Implementation Workshop – July (exact date to be determined)  City Council Review and Consideration – July 24, 2017 The attached Plan Document has been reviewed by City staff and the Cuningham Gro up for additional edits/suggestions to enhance clarity and useability. Those changes are currently being incorporated into a new Draft Plan version which will be provided to EDA members at the meeting on Wednesday, June 14, 2017. A1. Staff Impact: City staff have put many hours into the effort to create a Small Area Plan for the Downtown. The work began last fall (2016) and continued through the winter of 2017 and into the spring (May and June). Staff have worked diligently to guide the consultants, answer questions and provide background information and documents in support of their efforts. There have been a considerable number of meetings attended by staff as well. No additional staff is required to complete the Plan at this point. This type of collaboration and review of consultant work/tasks is part of the normal duties of staff as part of oversight of materials and work products performed by contractors. A2. Budget Impact: The contracted amount for completing the Small Area Plan is $50,000. This amount is included in the 2017 EDA budget under Miscellaneous Professional Services. The plan preparation and all deliverables and meeting coverage has been performed in line with the approved contract with Cuningham Group. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. No motion required. Staff is requesting preliminary comments at this time. 2 C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. Draft Downtown Small Area Plan, including 1. Plan Document 2. Market Context 3. Retail Vitality City of Monticello Small Area PlanMonticello, MNDraft Report as of May 26, 2017 Prepared for: The City of MonticelloPrepared by:Cuningham Group Architecture, Inc. AcknowledgementsConsultant TeamTable of ContentsExecutive Summary 3Background and Purpose 1Character Areas 2Frameworks 3Background 7Demographics 5Market and Development Context 6 Retail Vitality 7Physical Analysis 8Public Process 9Goals and Objectives 12Project Goals 11Character Areas 14 Riverfront 13 Broadway 1 4 Walnut and Cedar Street 16Pine Street 18Frameworks 22Frameworks: Purpose 23Frameworks: Parks and Open Spaces 23Frameworks: Circulation and Access 24Frameworks: Land Use and Development 25Implementation 22Implementation 27City CouncilBrian Stumpf, Mayor Jim DavidsonBill FairCharlotte Gabler Lloyd HilgartCuningham GroupTangible consulting ServicesEconomic Development AuthorityBill Demeules, PresidentBill Tapper, Vice PresidentSteve Johnson, TreasurerJim Davidson, Council RepresentativeLloyd Hilgart, Council RepresentativeTracy HinzJon MorphewPlanning CommissionBrad Fyle, ChairJohn AlstadSam Murdoff Marc SimpsonLucas WynneCharlotte Gabler, Council LiaisonPlanning CommissionJack GregorNancy McCaff rey (Vice Chair)Larry Nolan (Chair)Tim StalpesBrian StollBill Fair, Council LiaisonSteering CommitteeCharlotte GablerJim DavidsonTracy HinzSteve JohnsonMarc SimpsonDon RoberstLarry NolanMarcy AndersonLisa ChernickTom Turner John and Lucy Murray How does the Plan Balance Flexibility with PredictabilityTh e Plan describes a Vision for Downtown as a lively place with pedestrian scaled spaces and building. Th e Plan favors human scaled spaces over vehicular scaled spaces; multiple small investments over single large investments and coordinated actions over individual directions. Th e Plan is based on time-tested approaches to town building and urban design. Th is vision is described in words and illustrations throughout the document. Generally, the Character Area Section uses illustrative drawings to describe the feel and image of a place while Frameworks section generally uses conceptual diagrams that convey broad ideas and concepts. Together, the Plan gives directions for how to arrange buildings, infrastructure and open space so the resulting ensemble is consistent with the Vision. Th e use of both illustrative, precise, and diagrammatic illustrations is intentional in an eff ort to create predictability and off er fl exibility. Th is is a long range plan that relies on a multitude of investors working in a coordinated manner. Th erefore the correct balance of predictability and fl exibility is important because a balance of predictability and fl exibility attracts investment while the lack of predictability and fl exibility repels investment. Adoption of this Plan by City Council is intended to be a strong statement of predictability because it sets in motion several public actions designed to implement the Vision of the Plan. So, while the Plan in locations, is exact and precise, it recognizes that the end result may or may not look exactly like the illustrations because individual investors and developers will interpret the Plan slightly diff erent. Each adding their own expertise and nuance to the Plan Th is is encouraged because it will add richness and nuance to the end result. Executive Summary 1 Become a River TownImprove Pine Street for All Users Encourage Small and Medium Scaled InvestmentsShift the Center of Town to Walnut and Broadway Background and PurposeGoalsTh e purpose of this Plan is to attract and direct investments on the core blocks of Downtown Monticello, MN over the next 10 years. Th e Plan advocates for solidifying Downtown as the heart of the community with a series of coordinated public and private investments. Together, these investments will create a human-scaled environment that encourages gathering, socializing, visiting and enjoying on a daily basis - throughout the year. Th e improvements outlined in this Plan aim to build on the unique qualities of Monticello to make the Downtown yet more attractive to those who have chosen to live and do business in the community. Specifi cally, the Plan seeks to promote Broadway Street as a storefront district with restaurants and specialty retail, celebrate the River for its recreational, connective and economic qualities, reinvigorate a downtown housing market with multiple, appropriately scaled, infi l projects, and improve the experience of Pine Street for all users.Th e Plan is ambitious, but achievable over the next 10 years. Upon completion, approximately 500 new units of housing, new restaurants overlooking the river, unique retail and services on Broadway (CSAH 75), will be added to Downtown Monticello. Primary projects to be completed within fi ve years include : redevelopment of Block 52, Walnut Street connection to River Street and infi l housing on Walnut Street. Implementation of this Plan will create two legacies. Th e fi rst will be a revitalized Downtown with an economy and attractions that benefi t all residents of Monticello. Equally important, however to the physical improvements described above will be the legacy of new partnerships and civic cooperation that are essential to and will result from implementations. Th e ideas set forth in this Plan come from the vested interest of the Monticello community. Th e realization of these ideas rely on a coordinated, cooperative, and active public sector working in tandem with an entrepreneurial private sector Th e result will be a lively Downtown for all in Monticello, a place that embodies both its history and future aspirations. Pine StreetWalnut StBroadwayCity of Monticello Small Area Plan | Executive Summary 2Character Area: Pine StreetTh e community will reclaim Pine Street by maintaining it’s width and adding pedestrian amenities and local serving commercial uses. Character AreasTh e Plan divides the study area into four diff erent Character Areas. Th e purpose of this is to create sub-areas in downtown, each with its own identity and purpose and direction. Th e character areas are developed based on their context and their future role in the downtown. Typically each character area is a mix of uses, but also has a dominant use. Character Area: BroadwayMonticello’s Main Street will transition over time from a street with primarily services, to one with unique retail and restaurants. Character Area: RiverfrontA redesigned Park with an amphitheater and better relationship to Downtown will help connect the River to DowntownCharacter Area: Walnut StreetWalnut and Cedar Streets will fi ll in with new housing (2-4 stories) that adds to the market strength of downtown and provides additional housing choices for new and existing residents of Monticello. Th eir intersections with Broadway will be improved to make it easier to walk to the Riverfront Illustrative Master PlanTh e Plan above describes long term build out of the core blocks of Downtown Monticello. DACit’ idthABCDBCity of Monticello Small Area Plan | Executive Summary Walnut StCedar StBroadway3rd StreetPine StreetRiver Street Existing BuildingsNew Buildings 3 FrameworksFramework: Open Space and Parks• Improve Riverfront Parks to accommodate more programming and events• Redesign Walnut Street and River Street to allow for park expansion and events• Convert vacant lots on Broadway to small pocket parks• Utilize islands for additional park space• Create pedestrian refuges or enhanced building entry ways on the corners of blocks along Pine Street• Enliven open spaces with public art wherever possible Framework: Access and Circulation• Emphasize connectivity throughout the Core, with pedestrian and bike friendly streets, a complete sidewalk system, and connectivity to the in-town neighborhoods. • Promote a “complete streets” policy that balances the needs of all users in the Downtown.• Manage and improve the grid system to support connectivity and access throughout Downtown • Work with MinnDOT to improve Pine Street for users of Downtown Monticello, including additional signals, maintaining the River Street signal and supporting for an additional river crossing• Improve pedestrian crossings of Broadway at Walnut and Cedar to improve access to the Riverfront• Reconnect Walnut Street with River StreetFramework: Development and Land Use• Riverfront District with destination restaurant and entertainment uses• Broadway District with shopfront retail and restaurant uses beneath housing and offi ces• In-town neighborhoods extend to Walnut and Cedar Street with new infi ll housing 2-4 stories (apartments and townhouses)Land Use, Open Space and Transportation are the three frameworks that organize and defi ne the physical environment. As with systems in the human body, each must function independently - and together with - the others. If one fails, they all fail. Th is is why it is important to understand frameworks as individual systems that must function as part of a single Downtown. Th e Plan is also divided into frameworks in order to allow diff erent agencies, departments, and investors act in concert with each other. Th is will help ensure public and private investments are coordinated, less risky, and more publicly acceptable. How is This Plan Related to the Embracing Downtown Plan and the Comprehensive Plan? In 2010, the City of Monticello completed the “Embracing Downtown Plan”, a guide to redevelopment of downtown Monticello. Th e full area considered to be “Downtown Monticello”, or the “Central Community District” extends from Interstate I-94 at its southern boundary to the Mississippi River in the north, and generally from Cedar Street on the east to Maple Street on the west. Th e Embracing Downtown Plan was adopted as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan, and included three supporting documents, a Design Guideline, Transportation Analysis, and Market Analysis. Changes in the retail marketplace overall, and more specifi cally market changes and reinvestments in downtown Monticello, have created a need to develop a new planning perspective for the core blocks of the downtown.Th e Downtown Small Area Study document therefore serves as an update to the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan and to the Embracing Downtown Plan for a specifi c portion of the downtown. Similar to the Embracing Downtown plan, it is proposed as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan, although the primary goal will be recommended for insertion directly into the “Downtown” portion of the Land Use Chapter of the plan. For the geographic area encompassed by the Downtown Small Area Plan, the Downtown Small Area plan supercedes the 2010 Embracing Downtown plan. While the three supporting documents to the Embracing Downtown plan continue to inform the Comprehensive Plan and Small Area plan, where the Downtown Small Area plan provides specifi c guidance, the standards therein prevail. As a fi nal note, for the geographic area outside the Downtown Small Area plan boundary, the Embracing Downtown Plan still applies.Character AreasOpen Space and ParksAccess and CirculationDevelopment and land UseCity of Monticello Small Area Plan | Executive Summary Background 5City of Monticello Small Area Plan | Background DemographicsDemographicsIntroduction Monticello is a center of growth, and a local service center, for the surrounding areas. In recent years, Monticello’s growth has largely come in the form of single family homes and apartment development at the edges of the City, and in surrounding areas, as well as retail development oriented to Interstate 94. Th is is true, even though developable land exists in the heart of the downtown area.Downtown Monticello off ers a distinctive environment for housing and retail development. Th e beautiful Mississippi River, with public parks along its banks, serves as the northern border of downtown. Th e River is only two blocks from the storefront district along Broadway Street, the historic center of town.Downtown is compact. Th e interstate highway is only 6 blocks to the south of Broadway Street, with a Cub Foods and other stores alongside it. Th e City’s marquee public facilities—its community center and library—are only three to four blocks south of Broadway Street. Th is is an Population Growth (2000-2015)St. MichaelSauk RapidsBuff aloOtsegoElk RiverWright County40%80%120%MonticelloMinnesotaMedian Household IncomeSt. MichaelSauk RapidsBuff aloOtsegoElk RiverWright County$60,000$40,000$20,000$80,000$100,000MonticelloMinnesotaPopulation Growth: Monticello has experienced signifi cant growth over the past years, attracting new households even through the course of the recent economic recession. Median Household Income:According to the US Census Bureau, the median household income in Monticello is $70,254. Th is is above the state average, whose median income is $61,492.Housing CharacteristicsMonticello has a more diverse range of housing options then many comparison cities. Just 54% of Monticello’s housing units are single-family homes. It off ers more townhomes, apartments, and mobile homes than other cities in Wright County. Nevertheless, there is a culture of homeownership. Around 70% of Monticello households own their home—a high rate considering the diversity of housing types. Homes are on the modest side, with an average value of about $160,000—a result which is infl uenced by the greater than average number of owner-occupied mobile homes and townhomes in Monticello. Housing Unit by TenureSt. MichaelSauk RapidsBuff aloOtsegoElk RiverWright County60%40%20%80%100%MonticelloMinnesotaHousing Unit by TypeSt. MichaelSauk RapidsBuff aloOtsegoElk RiverWright County60%40%20%80%100%MonticelloMinnesotamobile home and otherapartment (> 10 units)apartment (< 10 units)townhouse/condominiumsingle family homeTh e information on this page and the following two pages is summarized from the companion document - Demographics and Market Context and Retail Vitality Study conducted by Tangible Consulting Services. Th is report and can be downloaded on-line at ___________. 4,2861,1655,294Employment and Commuting Due to Monticello’s location relative to the larger cities of St. Cloud and the Twin Cities, it’s not surprising that many residents of Monticello work outside the city. Of the 6,459 employed residents of Monticello, 82% work outside of Monticello.Monticello is not just a bedroom community though. It off ers roughly 5,400 jobs, and provides employment to around 4,300 people who live outside the city. Major employers include Xcel Energy and Cargill.unusually strong collection of attractive off erings within the walkable center of a small city.Downtown Monticello also has conditions that serve as deterrents to new development. Th e width of Pine Street, and the traffi c it carries, serve to bisect the downtown into east and west downtown neighborhoods. Most Broadway Street buildings are occupied, but many of the buildings are business offi ces rather than stores or restaurants that serve walk-up customers. And some buildings and storefronts are in visible need of improvements. Parts of downtown are dominated by surface parking lots, which give a sense of emptiness, and convey a lack of energy and activity.On balance, downtown Monticello has great promise for attracting development, and revitalizing its storefront retail, in ways that will build on its historic role as the heart of the City. 6City of Monticello Small Area Plan | Background1964 - 19801981-19901991-20002001-2017 Market and Development ContextResidential Market ContextApartment ConstructionAverage Multifamily Rent (psf)Vacancy Rate Multifamily Units2012 2013 2014 2015 2016$.90$1.00$1.102012 2013 2014 2015 20164%5%6%7%Residential MarketTh e housing market context matters for the prospects of attracting new housing to Monticello’s downtown. Similar to the housing market in the US at large, apartment rents have been rising in Monticello over the past fi ve years, and the vacancy rate has declined—both of which are indicators of demand. However, average rents in early 2016, in existing apartment buildings tracked by Costar, were only around $1.00 per square foot. Rents of around $2.00 or more per square foot are needed to support new construction, in the absence of public subsidy. Th is high demand, low rent, scenario is common in small cities. It raises the question whether new housing will be able to achieve the rents it needs to support construction costs. In Monticello, this question has been partly answered by the development of Monticello Crossings, in the southeastern part of the City. Monticello Crossings is a market rate apartment development of 210 dwelling units, which has been built in two or three phases. Th e developer’s expectations have been met by the development, in terms of meeting its rent and absorption targets. Tenants value the newer apartment product, which is not available elsewhere in Monticello, and have been willing to pay rents that are signifi cantly higher than the rents in the existing older apartment buildings. Th e success of this development is an indicator that new apartment development in downtown Monticello may also fi nd a market—although the higher costs and risks associated with building downtown would probably mean that public fi nancial support would be needed.Certain developers focus on new housing development in small city downtowns. We interviewed three such developers (along with two others with a diff erent professional focus, but who have a deeper familiarity with Monticello), and they affi rmed that downtown Monticello has many of the characteristics that they would look for in locating a new development. Th e natural amenity of the river, and the Broadway Street storefront district, are particularly attractive features. Th ey expressed skepticism about doing mixed use developments, with housing over retail, except in the strongest areas. Th ey said they would look for a strong public partner—to participate fi nancially in the project, and to support the density that would be required to make the project work.Retail Market ContextTh e retail context is important for addressing key questions related to the ongoing viability of the Broadway Street storefront district, and how much additional retail development downtown would be supported.Retail vacancies over the past fi ve years have been declining, which is a general indicator of market strength. However, average retail rents have been more or less holding steady, and there has not been a lot of new construction in recent years.National retail trends are concerning. Store closures, and struggling malls, are a frequent focus of news stories. Internet shopping is taking market share from bricks and mortar retail stores. However, in the long run the population of Monticello and surrounding areas have a lot of room to grow. Th at should more than off set national retail trends, and it should support a modestly expanded footprint of retail stores in downtown Monticello.Th e retail context map illustrates the competitive landscape for Monticello retail. It shows retail areas in neighboring cities, by the scale of retail property. Note that storefront districts such as Broadway Street attract customers by off ering a diff erent type of shopping environment than newer malls. Pedestrian oriented storefront districts, similar to the Broadway Street storefront district, are also noted on the retail context map.Th is research supports an expectation that the property frontage along Pine Street will continue to attract retail store development, over time, as property is ready for development or redevelopment. It also suggests that there is an adequate customer base to support the storefront district along Broadway Street, and that the storefront district could be expanded modestly. However, a large expansion of the storefront district would not be advisable. Retail vibrancy strategies, if pursued assertively and creatively, could greatly improve the condition and success of the storefront district.INCLUDE RETAIL CONTEXT MAP 7City of Monticello Small Area Plan | BackgroundRetail VitalityNational Retail Trends and Context Th e retail landscape is changing rapidly. As lives get busier, people do more shopping online, and when they actually go out to shop people want an experience – it’s about more than just purchasing a product.But traditional, storefront-style retail areas still have something to off er. Th e small spaces they off er are ideal for local businesses and start-ups. Th ey off er a place for businesses that can’t aff ord the rents in newer retail developments, or can’t fi ll the large spaces in auto-oriented strip areas. Stores and restaurants can be social places where customers interact with others. People want to go out to businesses where they see people enjoying themselves, and where they can run into friends and neighbors, while drinking, dining, working out, or purchasing daily items close to home.Th e opportunity for downtown Monticello is to provide people with an experience. A future downtown Monticello may provide a place where many more people are shopping, eating, sitting by the Mississippi River, walking, biking and socializing. In the context of this new national retail reality, downtown Monticello has the bones to be a destination retail area.Retail Vitality Assessment and StrategiesAn assessment of Broadway Street retail conditions was conducted as part of this plan. Selected fi ndings and strategies from that assessment are presented here. Much more detail can be found in the Retail Vitality Background Report, found in the appendix of this plan.Storefront Density. Storefront density is a key metric, because streets that are walkable have numerous shopping and dining choices within a small area. Monticello is fortunate to have a high density of storefronts, compared with retail districts in peer cities.• Strategy recommendation. Establish development guidelines that ensure that fi ne-grained store density is built into any new development in the storefront district.Store mixAn assessment of store types shows that too many storefronts are rented by businesses that don’t contribute to the vibrancy of the area because they don’t have much Business Mix in Storefront DistrictBuff alo (Division / 1st Ave) Madison, WI (State Street) Elk River Main Street)Monticello ( Broadway) 60%40%20%80%100%Monticello (Study Area)Businesses per 500 lineal feetBuff alo (Division / 1st Ave) Madison, WI (State Street) Elk River Main Street)Monticello ( Broadway) 8641012Monticello (Study Area)20Business Mix in Storefront DistrictBuff alo (Division / 1st Ave) Madison, WI (State Street) Elk River Main Street)Monticello ( Broadway)60%40%20%80%100%Monticello (Study Area)Businesses per 500 lineal feetBuff alo (Division / 1st Ave) Madison, WI (State Street) Elk River Main Street)Monticello ( Broadway)8641012Monticello (Study Area)20Business DensityBusiness density is the concentration of businesses in an area. When businesses are concentrated it is easier to walk among them and to visit several during one trip. Higher density of businesses also creates a vibrant environment that can feel busy and active with signs, storefront displays and outdoor seating. Noon - contributingNon retail destinationfood and beverageneighborhood goods and servicesgeneral merchandise, apparel and accessorieswalk-up traffi c. Th ere is also a real lack of food and beverage businesses, which serve as important anchors in many comparison areas.• Strategy recommendation. Initiate a retail recruitment program for the district, which would identify and attract key retail stores and food/beverage businesses, that will be complementary to the existing stores.WalkabilityBroadway Street is highly walkable. Th e buildings extend to the sidewalk and have few gaps between them. Th e streetscaping is a bit dated, but it off ers pedestrian scale lighting and pedestrian refuges. Many of the buildings have large windows that front the street, which draw one’s eyes into the store and enhance the ease of walking by. Th e greatest challenge to Broadway Street’s walkability is the automobile traffi c which serves as a barrier to circulating comfortably through the district• Strategy recommendations. Add stop signs and crosswalks at Broadway and Walnut. Evaluate and improve the Pine Street crossing from a pedestrian perspective.Building ConditionsBuilding conditions in downtown Monticello vary greatly. Deferred maintenance is evident. Building renovation is expensive, even if will usually be more cost eff ective than wholesale redevelopment. In buildings that are occupied and cash-fl owing, it can be diffi cult to justify tackling these improvements on a strictly market basis. Some outside fi nancial incentives will probably also be needed to advance this goal. In the short run, some public support for improving facades may off er the most bang for the buck.• Strategy recommendation. Establish a façade improvement programs that off ers fi nancial support for investments that improve the visual appearance of buildings and district identity.Visual IdentityMany successful retail streets have recognizable visual themes that make them memorable and vivid. Th e buildings in downtown Monticello vary greatly in style, size and condition. Treatments of windows, signage and displays varies greatly as well. Patterns that establish a sense of identity are lacking.• Strategy recommendation. Businesses on Broadway Street could agree to use signage improvements as an initial vehicle for improving the perceived condition of the district, and presenting some common visual elements (color, pattern, shape, creativity, etc) that build a sense of identity.Marketing and ActivationTh e Broadway Street district can be animated via marketing, events, and te activation of public spaces. Promotion programs are most successful when there is committed ownership by the business community. Th ey can have endless forms and variations, limited only by the creativity of those involved. Th e physical environment can also be animated by sidewalk merchandise displays, sidewalk seating, and the creation of public space and outdoor seating between buildings• Strategy recommendations. Organize building and business owner interest, within an existing organization or a new one, to pursue a coordinated and creative retail vibrancy program on Broadway Street. Activate sidewalks and new plaza areas as much as possible—so that the vibrancy of the area is visible to passersby. 8City of Monticello Small Area Plan | Background Physical AnalysisSaint CloudMinneapolisMonticelloOriginal Plat of MonticelloTh e original plat of Monticello consisted of a square (300’x 300’) aligned to the river. Generally the 60’ lots faced north and south. Broadway was distinguished from other streets with a narrower lot dimension - accommodating mercantile and main street buildings. Monticello in the RegionMonticello (“little hill”) sits on the Mississippi River between Saint Cloud and Minneapolis. It was settled at this location because the river is relatively shallow and calm and it made for an easy river crossing. Its connection to the region changed dramatically when I-94 was completed in ____ . With two exits and an improved bridge across the Mississippi River, Monticello has become a crossroads community. Existing Conditions (publicly owned properties outlined in red)Existing Conditions: Buildings by useCommunity and PublicHousingCommercialEmploymentBlock 52Block 52Block 34Block 34Pine StreetWalnut StreetPine StreetCedar StreetLocal RoadsTh e local road network resembles the original plan of the City - with square blocks and a dense network of streets. Over time, the integrity of the grid has been slightly eroded with superblocks and street closings that respond to high volume arterials. Parks and Open SpacesTh e City boasts a strong park system that off ers residents access to a series of varied parks. In the study area, there are three riverfront parks - East Bridge Park, West Bridge Park and Front Street Park. Regional RoadsOver time, Pine Street and Broadway have become regional roads. Th e growth of these roads have connected the City to the Region, but they have also had major impacts on local connectivity and land use. 9 Public ProcessCity of Monticello Small Area Plan | BackgroundPedestrian EnvironmentTh e pedestrian experience at street level is a key determinant to creating a successful Downtown. Th e diagram above indicates the quality of the environment along each block face from poor to excellent. Th ere are many factors that make up the overall experience including the condition of the sidewalk, traffi c alongside the sidewalk, and the level of activity or comfort the adjacent property provides for the pedestrian. StrengthsDuring the public process participants were asked to place green dots on the areas of Downtown that they deemed were the “strongest” or the most beloved. Th is included: »the Community Center and Library »Broadway »Th e Riverfront ParksWeaknessesDuring the public process participants were asked to place red dots on the areas of Downtown that they deemed were the “weakest.” Th is included: »the Pine Street Broadway intersection »the appearance of Downtown upon arriving from the north. »vacant lots and large parking areas. »appearance of blighted buildings and disinvestment on Broadway east of Pine Street. ComfortablePoorOKINCLUDE POSTCARDS Goals and Objectives 1111City of Monticello Small Area Plan | Goals and Objectives Project GoalsPine StreetWalnut StBroadwayShift the Center and Double Down on BroadwayOver time the travel and use patterns of Downtown have changed - altering the overall experience of downtown. Up until 1960, most travel was local and streets were relatively narrow and comfortable. However as the region grew Monticello became a crossroads - thereby burdening Broadway and Pine Street with high volumes of through traffi c and widened streets. Today, the Broadway / Pine Street intersection is one of the most traveled intersection in the region. Whereas that quality makes for great visibility, it also makes for a poor pedestrian experience and poor access to adjacent properties. Broadway, west of Pine Street is relatively lightly travelled and unlike Broadwway east of Pine Street it has retained its pedestrian scale. Furthermore, the City has developed successful parks at the end of Locust Street and Walnut Street. Th erefore, an opportunity exists to fully extend Walnut Street down to the park and grow the downtown mercantile district towards the riverfront along Broadway. Engage and love the riverfront. Go beyond the SwanGreat places have unique assets that diff erentiate them from others. Monticello has the Mississippi River. Th is defi ning feature can be further utilized to the benefi t of Monticello residents and businesses. A riverfront that is well connected with blue and green trails, is publicly accessible and is activated throughout the day and the year can become a defi ning feature for the City and an important driver of economic activity. Lots of Small Investments, a few medium ones and just and just one or two big ones Monticello, despite it’s growth, is proud to be a small town. Small towns develop charm and character through a series of small incremental investments that together add up to help a place become memorable and beloved. Simple investments such as new awnings, improved lighting and well maintained landscaping can make a big impression. Small buildings that fi t on vacant parcels or otherwise underutilized land can happen quickly - adding vitality to a community. By promoting a high quantity of smaller investments, the Downtown will become more diverse, more lively, and more responsive and adaptable to changes in the market place. A few medium scaled investments, warranted by a strong market or a strategic need, are important and valuable. But they should be carefully scaled and implemented so as to not disrupt the fragile fabric of the small town. Improve the Pine Street Experience for EveryoneWhether passing through Monticello along Pine Street (TH 25), trying to cross Pine Street by foot, or going to a business along Pine Street, the experience of using Pine Street is generally a negative one. Th e environment of Pine Street projects a negative image and it is a divider between the east and west side of the town. Whereas Pine Street will always be a heavily travelled street, it does not need to be a negative experience. Th e community can take it back, claiming it for more appropriate development types, making it safer, more pleasant, and attractive for all users. Character Areas 13RiverfrontDespite being a town born on the River the Downtown does not take great advantage of its unique location. Broadway is a block removed from the Riverfront and the main connection to the River, Walnut Street, ends in a staircase. Th e entry experience to Monticello from the north is mundane with vacant properties and a thick wall of trees that obscures potential views to public spaces and DowntownTh e Riverfront Character Area will become a proud new public gathering space for Downtown Monticello that compliments Broadway and the full Monticello Park System. Th e Plan recommends redesigning the riverfront parks so they are more accessible active and fl exible and promoting development that takes advantage of access to the river. A new park will be capable of handling larger crowds for events, and will be more accessible and usable on a daily basis with additional amenities and features designed for everyday use.Th e Plan promotes access to the riverfront by extending Walnut Street to connect to River Street. It will be designed as a multi-use street that can be closed for farmers markets, gatherings, and other events. Th e Plan recommends and leveraging public property of Block 52 to create a new signature development with market rate housing and a destination restaurant or brewery overlooking the park and the river. Public parking is maintained on Block 52 and added to River Street. City of Monticello Small Area Plan | Character AreasSite Sections Th rough Block 52 and West Bridge Park existingRiver St Block 52 BroadwayBridge ParkPine StWalnut StCedar StRiver StBroadway4th Street 3rd Street Perspective from Walnut street, looking across a redesigned West Bridge ParkCADDDWalnutRiver StAFCEBRedesign Riverfront parks to include more active events and programming in West Bridge Park (amphitheater, splash pad, concessions) and passive uses in east bridge park.Add parking and sidewalks to River StreetReconnect Walnut Street to River Street with a design that allows Walnut Street to be used for events and park expansion.Work with the private sector to create a signature development on Block 52, with market rate housing and a restaurant that overlooks the ParkEncourage new housing surrounding the riverfront parks on vacant and underutilized parcelsMaintain and improve the intersection at River Street and Pine Street.Improve the underpass of Pine Street at the River.Consider a seasonal bridge to the island to provide additional recreational activity to east and west Bridge park FCEABDDPrecedent Images 14 BroadwayBroadway - west of Pine Street - has remained physically intact as Downtown’s primary sto refront district. Broadway is relatively well-maintained and home to several services and community anchors such as the Cornerstone Cafe. However with growth of retail along the highway and elsewhere in town, Broadway is no longer a competitive location for general retail. Th e Plan recommends re-positioning the center of Downtown from the Pine/Broadway intersection to the Broadway/Walnut intersection. Th is will be partially accomplished with intersection improvements that make it easier to cross Broadway at Walnut Street. Th is should include curb extensions, fewer through lanes, clearer crosswalks, blinkers and eventually a four-way stop sign. Th ese improvements will increase the fl ow of pedestrian and bike traffi c to the river and in between stores on both sides of Broadway.Small pocket parks can be developed on vacant lots mid-block on Broadway. Th ese spaces can serve as convenient pedestrian connections between parking areas mid bloc and the sidewalks on Broadway. In addition, they can be small plazas with seating for resting, gathering, and even restaurants if the buildings next to them can be opened up to the pocket parks.New development along Broadway is encouraged if it replicates the scale of existing buildings and shopfronts. Buildings up to three stories, with storefronts located on the sidewalk and doors every 30 feet will fi t in comfortably with existing buildings. Allowances for 10 foot setbacks from the sidewalk to create additional pedestrian amenities (such as seating) are appropriate. te Plan does not recommend additional widening of Broadway. Instead, the Plan recommends working with partners to fi nd other measures to mitigate congestion. DBExisting Proposedcrossing width 75 Feet 63 Feetcrossing timeParking DowntownTh e Plan recommends the following parking strategy »provide on-street parking wherever possible for short-term visitors to Downtown. »provide small public lots on the interior of the core blocks for employees and visitors staying for over an hour. »create a superior system of sidewalks and walkways encourage people to park once downtown and to walk a block or two to their multiple desinatsions downtown. »provide visibility to parking lots, or well designed signage that directs regional visitors to available parking spaces in public lots. Consider “smart signs” that indicate availibility. »monitor occupancy and utilization of parking downtown in order to make adjustments as necesarry. »Adopt a District Parking policy that increases the utilization of existing parking and over time reduces the overall visual impact of parking in the Downtown. Perspective on Broadway, looking west with a pocket park across the streetProposed ExistingCity of Monticello Small Area Plan | Character AreasDModify striping and median on Broadway create a safer pedestrian environment. Small pocket parks on vacant properties that off er respite from Broadway and pedestrian connections to parking in the middle of the blockCurb extensions at Walnut and Broadway to provide space for landscaping, seating, and gatheringBroadwayNew development that replicates the storefront scale currently present on Broadway. New buildings should have fl exible interiors so a main street scale can be accomplished in larger buildings.Facade improvement programs that improve signage, awnings, and general appearance of existing storefrontsDABBCABCEEPine StWalnut StCedar StRiver StBroadway4th Street 3rd Street 15 Broadway Design GuidelinesMassing and Orientation• buildings should generally be between two and four stories with varied roofl ine• all buildings should face onto Broadway• buildings along pocket parks or corners can have a second entrance / orientation to side street or pocket park• buildings should have varied widths with a maximum storefront of 45’. • longer buildings should be articulated in approximately 45’ increments with setbacks, material change or penestration patterning. Facade and Frontage• all buildings should have a storefront or gallery frontage along Broadway• minimum 50% (windows/doors) transparency on ground fl oor• signage integrated with building• base / middle / top articulation for multistory buildings• varied cornice lines that resemble the scale of traditional main street buildings. Building Use and Location• small scale retail, dining, and entertainment uses are required on the ground fl oor.• offi ce, commercial, and housing are permitted on upper fl oors• buildings are located towards the front of the lot, directly on the back of the sidewalk. Public Realm• 10-15’ sidewalks with street trees in grates and curb extensions that reduce the crossing distance along Broadway.• on street parking for convenience and to buff er sidewalk from traffi c• encroachments for seating, signage and display allowed• mid block pocket parks that provide a respite from Broadway and a connection to parking areas located mid block.• parking located on-street and in shared lots mid block Massing and OrientationUse and LocationPublic Realm Facades and FrontagesMassing and OrientationUse and LocationPublic Realm Facades and FrontagesMMPrecedent Images City of Monticello Small Area Plan | Character Areas 16 Primary Recommendations Walnut Street and Cedar StreetWalnut Street and Cedar Street are important corridors to the River as well as transitions between the commercial areas of downtown and the in-town neighborhoods. In order to perform in this capacity, the Plan encourages new housing to infi l vacant lots and eventually for single family housing to transition to medium density housing. Live/work units or small service/production (such as insurance agent or jewelry maker) are permitted. In addition the Plan recommends improvements to the street that will accommodate pedestrian and bike access to the River. Th is includes parallel parking, aligned sidewalks and crosswalks, and curb extensions at Broadway. Walnut S t r e e t Walnut Street Promenade to the RiverPerspective along Walnut Street, looking north towards the River. Pine StWalnut StCedar StProposed Section of Walnut Street8’12’24’8’ 8’12’8’80’ ROWPPBikeBikeRiver StreetBroadwayConvertible StreetDiagonal Parking(existing)Paralell Parking(see section above) 3rd Street4th Street5th Streettracks7th StreetCity of Monticello Small Area Plan | Character AreasDABCCreate a pedestrian promenade to the Riverfront with wide continuous sidewalks and well marked crosswalksInfi ll vacant lots and redevelop underutilized parcels with housing in small apartments or townhouses. Small service or production uses are permitted within these and existing buildings. Encourage new housing to face Walnut and Cedar Street, with multiple doors facing the street. Locate all parking towards the middle of the block, accessed via a rear lane shared with other properties on the block.Encourage small and medium scaled apartments that prioritize pedestrian scale and walkability. DABCERiver StBroadway4th Street 3rd Street 17Facade and Frontage• porches and dooryards are required for all ground fl oor units.• dormers and bay windows are encouraged to create a pedestrian scaled rhythm of the facade• Upper story balconies are encouraged. • Courtyards are permitted along 1/2 of a front property line. Public Realm• 6’-10’ sidewalk, aligned across intersections and along the front of blocks.• on street parking for visitors to Downtown• clearly marked crosswalks to accommodate pedestrian and bike access between the Community Center and the RiverfrontBuilding Use and Location• primarily residential uses between the Civic Center and Walnut Street. Small scale service and home based businesses permitted on corners. • Front of buildings should be located between 10’-15’ feet of front property line and between 5’ and 10’ of side street property line. Massing and Orientation• buildings should be between 2 and 4 stories.• buildings should be primarilly oriented to Walnut Street to create a comfortable pedestrian environment. • Dormers and roof articulations should be used to reduce the scale of buildings if buildings are longer than 100’ in length.Massing and OrientationUse and LocationPublic Realm Facades and FrontagesMassing and OrientationUse and LocationPublic Realm Facades and Frontages Walnut Street and Cedar Street GuidelinesCity of Monticello Small Area Plan | Character AreasPrecedent Images 18Perspective along Pine Street, looking north towards the River. 15’70 ’15’100’ City of Monticello Small Area Plan | Character Areas Pine StreetPine Street (Minnesota State Hwy 25) is an important and heavily travelled roadway in Monticello and Sherburne County. It is one of only two river crossings between Minneapolis and Saint Cloud and it connects to I-94 in Monticello. Th e original plat of Monticello did not foresee the growth of Pine Street and as a result, the steady growth of traffi c along it has had a strong impact on the community. While it connects Monticello to the region, it also divides the community between east and west. Th is Plan recognizes Pine Street as a regional roadway, but seeks to manage it’s impacts as it crosses through Downtown. Th e Plan does not recommend any additional widening and supports additional river crossings that would better serve both Downtown and the region.New development along Pine Street should be regional serving, but locally scaled. Buildings should be located on the corners with pedestrian refuges along Pine Street that improve the appearance and the experience of all along Pine Street. Th e plan discourages additional property access to Pine Street and encourages side street access with through block (north/south) easements. Proposed Section of Pine StreetPine StreetDABCEWork with MnDOT to maintain a 5 lane section(2 through lanes both directions with a center turning lane), do not increase speedsWork with MNDot to improve pedestrian crossings wherever possible, preferably with traffi c signals at 4th Street.Encourage redevelopment on the corners of blocks, with entrances facing the street, and shared parking in the middle of the block.Reduce the impact of parking to pedestrians by minimizing the width to 180’ and buff ering parking from the sidewalk with a low fence and streetscaping. Reduce direct property access to Pine Street and encourage property access from side streets with through block easements.DABCEPine StWalnut StCedar StRiver StBroadway4th Street 3rd Street 19Public Realm• 10’-15’ sidewalk; trees clustered in planters with ground cover or low shrubs.• sidewalks buff ered from parking lots with low wall or hedge. • gateway treatments at River street and 7th Street. Building Use and Location• retail, offi ce or hospitality uses that desire visibility, parking and regional access are encouraged. • buildings located towards front corners of Pine Street blocks.• Parking lots in mid block should not be wider than 180’.Massing and Orientation• buildings should be between 2 and 5 stories.• buildings should be oriented to Pine Street. Secondary entrances can be located on side streets or facing parking lots. If located on the Broadway/Pine Street corner, buildings should be oriented to Broadway.Massing and OrientationUse and LocationPublic Realm Facades and FrontagesMassing and OrientationUse and LocationPublic Realm Facades and FrontagesPine Street GuidelinesCity of Monticello Small Area Plan | Character AreasFacade and Frontage• Primary entrance to building should be clearly visible from Pine Street. • One story base level articulation is encouraged to create a pedestrian scale frontage. • Storefronts on the ground fl oor are encouraged to face Pine Street. If storefronts face mid block parking, there must be pedestrian access to the storefronts.• Corner treatments such as entrances or towers are encourages at the corners of the bocks. Precedent Images 20Block 34 Access WaySurface ParkingBlock 34 Most of the properties on Block 34 are publicly owned. In addition, there are two wells on the block that impact development. Redevelopment is further challenged by limitations on property access created by medians on Broadway and Pine Street. Th e site is attractive for “outbound” retail and the plan recommends such a use to be located in the base of a multi use building on the corner of Pine and Broadway. Pine StreetBroadway Street E4th Street ECedar StreetPine StreetBroadway Street E4th Street ECedar StreetMin: 5-Feet Max:10-FeetMin: 5-Feet Max:15-FeetMin: 5-Feet Max:15-Feet Max:15-FeetMin: 5-FeetPine StreetBroadway Street E4th Street ECedar StreetPine StWalnut StCedar StRiver StBroadway4th Street 3rd Street City of Monticello Small Area Plan | Character AreasFrontage And Ground Floor UsesActive (retail) uses are required at Pine Street and Broadway. Residential frontages are required on Cedar Street. Th e remainder of the block is fl exible. .Setbacks, Pocket Parks & Open SpaceBuildings should defi ne the perimeter of the block with a front facade zone between 5’ and 15’ of the front property line. Th e two wells on site have 50’ setbacks. and shold be incorporated into courtyards or parking areas. Parking & ServicingPrimary access to mid block parking should occur from Cedar Street and 4th Street. Access (right in / right out) is discouraged on Broadway and Pine Street. Flexible FrontageActive FrontageResidential FrontageWell SetbackBuilding SetbackOptionsTh e two illustrations above show potential options for development on Block 34 - both adhering to the guidelines. Th e top illustration shows a development pattern that assumes the property on Cedar Street remains. Residential FrontageActive Frontage 21Blocks 52Block 52 Block 52 is a key block in the Downtown. It is highly visible and it sits on the West Bridge Park. Th e site slopes approximately 15’ from Broadway to River Street. Broadway and Walnut contain mercantile buildings of varying quality. River Street has vacant parcels and underutilized buildings. Access WaySurface ParkingFrontage And Ground Floor UsesActive frontages (high transparency) and uses (retail and restaurants) should be located on Broadway, Walnut, and the west half of River Street. Th e remainder of the block is fl exible - it can have either residential or active frontages. Setbacks, Pocket Parks & Open SpaceBuildings should defi ne the perimeter of the Block. Minor setbacks (5’-10’) for overhangs, seating, and display of goods is permitted on Broadway and Walnut if buildings are redeveloped. A more generous setback is permitted on Pine due to traffi c volumes and access. Attached corner plazas are encouraged on the northwest corner of the block and permitted on the northeast and southeast corners. Parking & ServicingAccess to mid block parking is encouraged on Pine Street and Walnut Street. Parking should be behind buildings with minimum exposure to thePine Street and no exposure to Broadway, River or Walnut Street. Flexible FrontageActive FrontageResidential FrontageWalnut StreetBroadway Street WRiver Street WPine StreetMin: 0-Feet Max:10-FeetMin: 5-Feet Max:10-FeetMin: 0-Feet Max:10-FeetMin: 10-Feet Max: 20-Feet60’30’Walnut StreetBroadway Street WRiver Street WPine StreetWalnut StreetBroadway Street WRiver Street WPine StreetCity of Monticello Small Area Plan | Character AreasBuilding SetbackPocket Park & Open SpaceOptionsTh e two illustrations above show potential options for development on Block 52 - both adhering to the guidelines. Th e top illustration shows new development on Broadway, articulated at a Main Street scale, with a corner plaza and a covered pass through as a form of pocket park. Th e bottom illustration shows a single corner development on Broadway, with a pocket park. Frameworks 23 Frameworks: PurposeLand Use, Open Space and Transportation are the three frameworks that organize and defi ne the physical environment. As with systems in the human body, each must function independently - and together with - the others. If one fails, they all fail. Th is is why it is important to understand frameworks as individual systems that must function as part of a single Downtown. Th e Plan is also divided into frameworks in order to allow diff erent agencies, departments, and investors act in concert with each other. Th is will help ensure public and private investments are coordinated, less risky, and more publicly acceptable. General Approach Th e Land Use Plan promotes a development pattern that recognizes the essential role that Downtowns plays in the communities they serve. Successful Downtowns tend to be places that serve many functions for the full cross section of the community throughout the year and across generations. Th ey are places to gather, eat, live, shop, celebrate, protest, recreate, meet, be entertained, and to visit. Th ey are places that promote social interactions and the unique creative expression of the community. At their best, Downtowns are places that exude pride because they represent the best the community has to off er.In order to promote these ideals, this Plan favors policies, and development patterns that improve downtown for those who currently use it and patterns that support the places that people value. Th erefore, development patterns and land uses in this Plan seek to support the Main Street character of Broadway, the importance of Walnut Street as a promenade to the River, regional and local needs of Pine Street, and the riverfront as the birthplace of the City.Th is Plan also recognizes both the traditional (and still relevant) role of Downtown Monticello as well as the changing nature of small Downtowns throughout the country. Th e Plan focuses less on shopping and retail uses as a core driver to downtown, and more on social Development Patterns that support social interaction, local character, and a compact connected and walkable environment. interaction, healthy living, civic participation, and local character. Physically, the Plan favors compact walkable small town design with a fi ne grained mix of uses. Th e Plan arranges development types and land uses so valued places are supported, and new investments can add to the overall vitality of downtown. Recommendations• create a Center to Downtown that is active throughout he day and into the evening - year round. Th e Walnut / Broadway Intersection should become the heart of this area. • Improve connections to the River by locating uses that benefi t from open spaces and activities associated with the River.• Improve the entry experience from the north.• Maintain a shopfront District along Broadway, west of Pine Street comprised of traditional main street (mercantile) buildings and spaces. • Create development pattern on Pine Street that benefi ts from high visibility and regional access.• Infi ll Walnut Street and Cedar Street with mid scale housing (2-4 stories) that creates an eff ective transition between the in-town neghborhoods and the Downtown. Walnut StreetCedar StreetBroadwayRiver Street3rd Street4th Street Frameworks: Land Use and DevelopmentCommercialMixed-UseSmall Retail OpportunitiesRequired Retail FrontageMulti-Familiy HousingPublicEmploymentMedium Density HousingCity of Monticello Small Area Plan | Frameworks 24East Bridge ParkWest Bridge ParkFront Street ParkWalnut StreetCedar StreetLocust StreetPine StreetBroadwayRiver Street3rd Street4th StreetTo Middle SchoolTo Elementary SchoolBroadwayRiver Street4th Street ParkCemetery Frameworks: Parks and Open SpacesGeneral ApproachParks and Open Space play an important role in distinguishing the Downtown from other areas of Monticello. Unlike much of Monticello where parks are generally programmed for recreational / sports and defi ned by trees and greenery, the parks downtown should focus on gathering and general social interaction as well as planned events. Th erefore, in order to support and enhance the environment for downtown residents and businesses, this Plan expands the defi nition of parks beyond the valued park spaces that are already in use - namely Front Street Park, East and West Bridge Park.Th e Downtown Parks should also take in consideration the needs of new downtown residents and visitors. Upon implementation of this plan, several hundred new residents will be living in the downtown. It is likely that new downtown housing will be more compact and with less outdoor space than typical single family homes. Inevitably this will result in park demands that don’t currently exist. Meeting these needs is a great opportunity to further develop a well designed and well connected park and open space system. Parks, Plazas, and Sidewalks that are lively, safe and pleasant to be in. Recommendations• Redesign East and West Bridge park to include an amphitheater, water feature, riverfront access, picnicking, and additional space for passive park use. • Improve Front Street Park to include improved boat landing and space for nature oriented programming. • Connect the two Bridge Parks with Front Street Park with improved pathways and trails. Design all three parks as a single park with multiple uses. • Provide access to the islands with a seasonal bridge• Create small pocket parks mid block on Broadway to off er plazas that connect to parking lots in the middle of the block.• Redesign Walnut Street between River Street and Broadway as a special street that can be closed and used for festivals and events throughout the year. • Consider all sidewalks for opportunities to enhance greenery and public art. Emphasize Walnut Street, River Street and Broadway as the main pedestrian corridors in Downtown. • Use public art throughout the parks and corridors to distinguish Downtown as a place of cultural expression and celebration.• Work closely with local businesses, residents (new and existing) to ensure local parks and open spaces are appropriately designed and programmed for their varied needs. • Modify the Embracing Monticello Plan that recommends off street bike paths on Pine Street. In lieu of this off -street path, create north south bike access to the river along Walnut and Cedar through a complete streets policy. Encourage bicycle crossing of Pine Street at 4th, River and 7th Street. PlaygroundSeasonal BridgePark OverlookWater FeaturePark Facilities AmphitheaterSledding HillPublic GardensPicnic AreaIllustrative Master Plan: East and West Bridge ParkCommunity ParksNeighborhood ParksPocket ParksConvertible Streets Proposed Bituminous Trail ConnectionsMRT TrailSeasonal BridgeExisting Bituminous TrialPedestrian Promenade to RiverCity of Monticello Small Area Plan | Frameworks 25General Approach Th e design of the streets (and the full right of ways) in downtown have a signifi cant bearing on how downtown functions and feels. Th e rights-of-way in the Downtown should be designed to create a comfortable and safe physical environment that encourages a range of activities and development types. Th e Plan recommendations, therefore, favor a high quality, well-connected, and fl exible street system that facilitates all users of downtown - especially those who are using and not passing through Downtown. With two main roads bisecting downtown, traffi c volumes are relatively high. Th is provides an opportunity to capture additional business downtown, but it also can have a deleterious impact on the pedestrian and business environment in some locations. Recognizing this situation, previous Plans have emphasized Walnut Street as a main pedestrian connection to the River (not Pine Street). Th is Plan supports that idea and off ers several ways in which that can be further achieved. Th is Plan departs from previous Plans in that it also encourages pedestrian activity on streets other than Walnut - this includes, Broadway, Pine Street and Cedar. While the Plan recognizes the regional function of Broadway and Pine, the Plan strives to balance this function with the local needs of community connectivity, aesthetics, pedestrian safety, and multi-modal travel. Successful Downtowns are not just easy to get to, they are pleasant to be in and to stay for multpile reasons. Th erefore, this Plan, discourages future road widenings that would have further negative impacts on pedestrians Downtown - especially along the primary pedestrian corridors and districts. In lieu of road widenings, the Plan champions an well connected and balanced urban street grid system that can be programmed to fl ex and contract as needed to meet all the needs of Downtown. Accomplishing this goal will require a series of smaller interventions (signal timing, street connections, traffi c controls, traffi c calming, time-of-day-parking restrictions, modifi ed property access, etc.) in lieu of wholesale street widening that would likely have a negative physical impact on the built environment of Downtown.Th e Plan also supports a street network where the Level of Service for pedestrians, transit riders, and cyclists are considered on equal terms to those of motorists and delay measurements from modelling are considered as a portion of overall average trip, not in isolation. Recommendations• Connect Walnut Street to River Street• Maintain the River Street / Pine Street signal as the formal entrance to Downtown and an important pedestrian connection across Pine Street.• Add a traffi c signal at 4th and Pine to help balance the grid and turning movements at the Pine / Broadway Intersection. • Modify Walnut / Broadway and Cedar Walnut Broadway intersection to prioritize pedestrian crossings and access to the river. • Narrow the travel lanes on Walnut Street, add parallel parking, where possible and ensure continuous safe and pleasant sidewalks.• Add sidewalks at the perimeter of blocks where they are not currently present• Discourage direct property access to Pine Street; favoring the side streets wherever possible with through-block lanes or easements. • Allow direct property access to Block 52 from Pine Street in order to reduce volumes at the Pine / Broadway intersection.• Discourage deceleration lanes; encourage speeds that do not require them. • Consider traffi c calming at River Street and Locust (or Linn) to prevent excessive speeds. Frameworks: Circulation and AccessA complete network of fl exible streets that favors the needs of resdents, businesses, and visitors. BroadwayWalnut StreetCedar StreetCedar StreetCedar Streetriver Street3rd Street4th StreetImproved Pedestrian CrossingSignalized IntersectionAccess WayInterstate 94Broadway Street (CSAH 75)Add Sidewalks to Complete GridSurface ParkingPedestrian Promenade to RiverPine Street (MN 25)7th StreetCity of Monticello Small Area Plan | Frameworks Implementation 27City of Monticello Small Area Plan | BackgroundIntroductionNo one is served by a plan that sits on the shelf. Implementing this Downtown Monticello Small Area Plan means taking action on several fronts.• Catalytic development projects• Retail vitality strategies• Public realm improvements• Development guidelines for Pine Street, Walnut Street, and Broadway StreetCatalytic Development ProjectsTo change market perceptions of an area, it is advisable to concentrate public investments in development in an area where a new sense of place can emerge. Th at invites a private sector response. For that reason, Monticello is advised to foster a critical mass of catalytic development projects, and a new sense of place, along the Walnut Street corridor. At the north end of the corridor, new development projects would make a fi rm and exciting connection to the Mississippi riverfront. Further south, new development can build a new multifamily neighborhood downtown, easily walkable to a multitude of downtown amenities. New development along Walnut Street reinforces the character of Walnut Street as the walkable spine that connects downtown assets from the stores near the interstate to the Mississippi River and parks. Market research and interviews with developers indicate that Monticello’s downtown will be of interest to the development community. Th e City will nevertheless need to take active steps to capitalize on this interest. An assertive public sector role means consideration of actions like site assembly, public fi nancial support, and other steps. Public fi nancial support will be required to attract new development downtown. Market conditions will not bring new development without it. A note on public fi nancial support for development. Cities need to invest in their own renewal, in order to stay viable, and to prevent certain areas from entering a cycle of decline. But the focus and scale of that investment is an important decision point. For Monticello, maintaining the viability and vibrancy of its downtown is a natural and prudent focus of investment. And providing fi nancial support to a small set of catalytic projects represents a scale of investment that is nicely proportionate to the City’s overall resources. Th ree Catalytic ProjectsTh ree potential catalyst projects are described below, with a recommended approach to implementation for each.Development Site 1—North half of Block 52Th is site is envisioned to be developed as a mixed use development, introducing housing that fronts on the river, and off ering a destination restaurant or other prominent retail attraction. It would create a new buzz for downtown Monticello, and draw customer traffi c that would support the retailers on Broadway Street.Th is site has the potential to be highly attractive for a developer, if certain preconditions are present. Development is most likely if:a) the site can be assembled in single ownership or controlled by a common entityb) there is a commitment to a special street on the Broadway-to-River block of Walnut Streetc) a renowned restaurateur or brewmaster is secured in advance for the signature retail spaced) good traffi c circulation is maintained around the block, and good access is available to surface parking in the block interiore) City and public support is present for development at a reasonable densityf) Public fi nancial support is made availableTh e City will need to play a proactive and assertive role to advance these conditions for success. Development Site 2—South half of block between River and Front StreetsTh is site is a premier location for new housing development, given its proximity to the River and riverfront parks. It is well suited to townhome development, or three story development with underground parking—with the latter likely to be more viable fi nancially. It could have larger units, serving families, or smaller units, serving singles, couples and/or seniors. New households in this location would support downtown retail stores, and contributes to the center of energy and activity at River and Walnut.Developing the site requires surmounting some challenges. It is in the shoreland district [I’m not sure this is the right term], which restricts the height of the development unless a variance is granted. Th e property is in the ownership of three diff erent property owners. And there could be resistance to development at a scale that makes fi nancial sense for a developer.Proactive work should be pursued to mitigate these concerns, through additional site assembly, and continued steps to build public acceptance of new development at a reasonable scale. Th e development of this site is likely to require public fi nancial support.Development Site 3—Walnut Street between 4th and 5th StreetTh is site is an attractive location for high quality, attractive housing development with underground parking, which fronts on Walnut Street. It would contribute to a high-quality frontage along Walnut Street that makes it feel like a walkable promenade from the river to the freeway. Th e development could be targeted to empty nesters, millennials, downtown workers, and/or seniors.Proactive work can be pursued to increase development interest. Th is could entail negotiating the acquisition of the Walnut Street frontage of the Wells Fargo property, and replatting and rezoning the property so that it supports the intended development. A developer will be looking for a sense of City and public support for development at a reasonable density. Th e development of this site is likely to require public fi nancial support.Retail Vitality StrategiesRetail vitality strategies are presented briefl y in a preceding section, and in more detail in the attached background report. Some key implementation steps are noted here, which could be considered for initial actions.Business and property owner engagement. Successful retail vitality eff orts are almost always spearheaded through an organized stakeholder group of business and property owners. Th is group chooses to work collectively and creatively on a set of priority actions. Fostering this collective will is the most essential element in eff ective action.Public sector support. Investment of time and fi nancial resources on the part of business owners is enhanced by knowing that it is being supported through a commitment of public sector time and resources. Th e establishment of a grant program that matches business investments with public funds is a great way to demonstrate that shared commitment.Other strategies should be prioritized in accordance with the interests and energy of all. DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Market and Development Context April 2017 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Market and Development Context Tangible Consulting Services | April, 2017 2 Introduction The purpose of this report is to describe the market and development context that shapes the growth and development of Monticello’s downtown district. It provides an overview of the demographic and economic base of Monticello. It looks at market trends and how they could predict future development demands for the downtown district for retail and residential development. It looks at where development opportunities may be located within downtown Monticello. And it documents feedback of the development community about downtown Monticello as a setting for new development. Monticello is a river town, which offers a strategically located crossing of the Mississippi River. The traffic that crosses the river on State Highway 25 both benefits and burdens the City of Monticello. It provides visibility to the historic downtown area. But it bisects the downtown with road widths and traffic volumes that make it difficult to cross. Downtown Monticello’s storefront district on Broadway Street complements the more modern destination retail areas closer to Interstate 94. Monticello is a center of growth, and a local service center, for the surrounding areas. In recent years, Monticello’s growth has largely come in the form of single family homes and apartment development at the edges of the City, and in surrounding areas, as well as retail development oriented to Interstate 94. This is true, even as developable land exists in the heart of the downtown area. DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Market and Development Context Tangible Consulting Services | April, 2017 3 Demographics Monticello has experienced significant growth over the past fifteen years, attracting new households even through the course of the recent economic recession. Source: 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates Population and Household Characteristics Comparison cities vary widely in the types of households they support. Monticello has a slightly higher number of family households than the average for the state. Of 4,838 total households in Monticello, family households comprise 69% of total households. This compares with 65% in Minnesota. Broken down further, 31% of all households are married couples with children under 18, 20% married couples without children under 18, and 18% other family compositions. Of the nonfamily households, Monticello has a higher rate of individuals living alone as compared with most of its comparison cities. Source: 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates The average household size in Monticello is a little smaller than most of the comparison cities, but slightly larger than the average for the state. Source: 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% Population growth (2000-2015) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Household Composition Roommates Living alone Other family Married-couple without children Married-couple with children 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Average household size DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Market and Development Context Tangible Consulting Services | April, 2017 4 Minority population. Monticello has a larger minority population than the comparison cities. However, the minority populations of all of the comparison cities are significantly lower than the minority share of population in Minnesota as a whole. 9% of Monticello’s residents are latinos, or non-white, compared to 18% in the state of Minnesota. Monticello has a significant Latino population compared to the comparison cities, comprising 6% of Monticello’s total population. Source: 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates Education Level. The education level of Monticello residents is similar to education levels for Wright County and State of Minnesota. Source: 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates Financial characteristics and employment. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the median household income in Monticello is $70,254. This is above the state average, whose median household income is $61,492. Source: 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% Minority Race/Ethnicity Two or more races Some other race alone Hispanic or Latino Asian alone Black or African American alone 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Educational Attainment Less than high school graduate High school graduate (includes equivalency) Some college, no degree College degree $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 $100,000 Median household income DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Market and Development Context Tangible Consulting Services | April, 2017 5 Due to Monticello’s location relative to the larger cities of St. Cloud and the Twin Cities, it is unsurprising that many residents of Monticello work outside the city. Of the 6,459 employed residents of Monticello, 82% work outside of Monticello. Monticello should not be considered a bedroom community though. It offers roughly 5,400 jobs, and provides employment to around 4,300 people who live outside the city. Source: US Census, OnTheMap Housing Characteristics Types of housing. Monticello has a more diverse range of housing options then its comparison cities. Just 54% of Monticello’s housing units are single-family homes. Source: 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates Tenure (ownership/rental status). In light of Monticello’s larger diversity of housing types, one might expect a residential market dominated by rental housing. But the share of owner occupied housing is 70%, which is right in the middle of the range of comparison cities. This indicates that the great majority of single family homes and town homes are owner occupied. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Housing units by type Mobile home and other Apartment buildings, 10+ units Apartment buildings, 2 - 9 units Townhomes and condominiums Single family homes DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Market and Development Context Tangible Consulting Services | April, 2017 6 Source: 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates Home value. Homes in Monticello are slightly more modest in value, in comparison to most of the comparison cities, and the statewide average. Source: 2015 ACS 5-Year Estimates 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Housing tenure by unit Renter-occupied housing units: Owner-occupied housing units:$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 Median Household Value DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Market and Development Context Tangible Consulting Services | April, 2017 7 Development Market Overview Residential Market Context The housing market in Monticello has followed the growth of the population of Monticello. Of particular note for the downtown study area is the multifamily housing market, which will be the focus of this section of the report. Average rents per square foot have seen a steady increase in the last five years. Vacancy rates have also steadily gone down, on average. These indicators reflect a high demand for multifamily housing, and they are consistent with market trends of the state of Minnesota. Average M ultifamily R ent (psf) Source: Costar Vacancy rate, multifamily units Source: Costar The map below shows Monticello’s apartment developments, as catalogued by Costar. The oldest was built in 1964. Many were built in the 1980s. The newest, Monticello Crossings, is the only apartment development built since the Great Recession. Monticello Crossings is a 210 unit apartment building on the east side of Monticello, just south of Interstate 94. It offers market rate apartments that are rented at around $2 per square foot, which is well above the rents that are charged in any apartment buildings in Monticello. And it has rented up at a rate that met the projections of the developer. The success of this development demonstrates that there is a market demand for apartments in Monticello, some of which could be captured in downtown Monticello. Source: Costar Development opportunity analysis. There are a number of areas in downtown Monticello that are good potential locations for new development. DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Market and Development Context Tangible Consulting Services | April, 2017 8 Properties are more likely to be of interest to developers if they are: • Note fully developed currently • Have relatively low value • Are publicly owned The map below is colored according to the value of properties per square foot, as estimated by the City Assessor. Since darker colors indicate higher value properties, lighter colored properties may elicit more interest by developers. Publicly owned properties are outlined in blue. Development Opportunity Analysis Map Source: City of Monticello Property Records Developer input. Five developers and real estate professionals were interviewed as part of this study. They were: • Bill Gorton, Keller William Commercial Midwest • Bill Beard, The Beard Group • Steve Dunbar, Dunbar Development and Ivy Property • Andy Martin, IRET • Matt Goldstein, Schuett Companies These people have deep experience in real estate and development. They know Monticello, or cities like Monticello. And they offered a range of insights and perceptions relative to the prospect of attracting new development to downtown Monticello. The interviewees appreciated that there is a cluster of features in downtown Monticello that would be attractive to new development. • The nearness of the Mississippi River, and adjacent parks • The walkable core of storefront buildings • Monticello’s community center and library • Vacant land (much of it currently as parking lots) But they also noted impediments to development, such as: • The condition of the storefront buildings • The parking lots that dominate the landscape in certain areas • The lack of recent development, which represents an absence of market indicators for how a new development would perform • The need for land assembly in most development opportunity areas Interviewees noted that development is occurring in the downtown areas of cities like Monticello. And the overall sentiment was that downtown Monticello could capture a share of the housing growth that is occurring in the city. However, development in this environment is more complex. Land values are higher. And development faces greater uncertainties than a similar development of an undeveloped area at the edge of town. For that reason, development in downtown Monticello is likely to require an active public private partnership. Development is most likely to occur when: a) a site can be assembled in single ownership, b) A plan for downtown is adopted, and follow-up actions are taken to DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Market and Development Context Tangible Consulting Services | April, 2017 9 demonstrate a commitment to plan objectives c) Actions are taken to improve building conditions and retail vitality on Broadway Street d) City and public support for development at a reasonable density is present. e) There is an understanding that a reasonable level of public financial support will be required, especially for the first development initiatives If these conditions are present, there is likely to be interest on the part of the development community, in doing high quality development in downtown Monticello that meets the goals of the community. DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Market and Development Context Tangible Consulting Services | April, 2017 10 Retail Market Context Much of the newer retail development in Monticello has been highway oriented retail, near Interstate 94. There has been little new retail development in the downtown study area. Retail rents have seen some fluctuations in recent years, but today remain stable. Vacancy rates have seen a very significant decrease, associated with the recovering and growing economy. Average Retail Rents (per square foot ) Source: Costar Retail Vacancy Rate Source: Costar The yellow bars of the Retail Absorption and Deliveries chart indicate a high level of retail absorption over the last five years. In other words, existing retail space has been filling up. That trend, along with additional population growth, may have provided the basis for the development of new retail space in 2013, 2015, and 2016—as represented by the blue bars in of the chart. Retail Absorption and D eliveries Source: Costar Geographic context. Monticello’s retail areas are situated in a regional context, competing against the shopping areas in other nearby cities. One way of understanding that context is looking at the locations of shopping centers in the surrounding area. The following chart shows shopping centers in the area around Monticello, by type of shopping center. The larger types of shopping centers are illustrated with larger circles on the map. DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Market and Development Context Tangible Consulting Services | April, 2017 11 Retail Context Map Source: Costar, Tangible Consulting Services Retail stores in downtown Monticello compete to some degree with the highway oriented retail stores that are near Interstate 94, and with the retail areas in nearby communities. But they also offer something that is distinct from those retail areas—a different retail landscape which sets them apart and makes them unique. Their sidewalk facing storefronts, and density of offerings, makes them pedestrian oriented. The older buildings are part of the historic legacy of Monticello, and make good spaces for retail entrepreneurs and local businesses. Because they are a slightly different animal than the highway oriented retail in Monticello, there is an opportunity to capitalize on this unique character to improve the customer traffic, retail mix, and vibrancy of the area. DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Retail Vitality April 2017 DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Retail Vitality April, 2017 2 Introduction This report considers and assesses the vitality of downtown Monticello’s retail district. This report focuses on the traditional storefront district, the primary walkable retail area downtown. This area is centered on the intersection of Broadway Street and Walnut Street. It encompasses the area in pink in the map at right—specifically, the two blocks of Broadway Street between Pine Street and Locust Street, and the two blocks of Walnut Street between River Street and 3rd Street. Downtown Monticello is a desirable place for people to spend time. It offers a traditional compact storefront district, just a block from the Mississippi River and park, and several blocks from the city’s lively community center and library. Today while some attractive and successful businesses are located in downtown Monticello’s storefront district, it projects the air of a place that once was a spirited center of Monticello but is now tired and unsure of its identity. As people’s preferences for shopping, dining out and recreating are shifting, Monticello has an opportunity to draw on the inherent distinctiveness of its downtown to shape a future that will position it as a local and regional destination. Sources of information. We draw on three sources of information for this report: public input, market context, and our own observations. We reviewed the responses from public input offered on postcards that asked about desirable futures, and from a questionnaire about downtown Monticello’s strengths and weaknesses. We also benefitted from a steering committee survey specifically focused on retail vitality. DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Retail Vitality April, 2017 3 National Retail Trends and Context The retail landscape is changing rapidly. Department stores are closing. Discount retail stores are increasing. As lives get busier, people do more shopping online, and when they actually go out to shop people want an experience – it’s about more than just purchasing a product. But traditional, storefront-style retail areas still have something to offer. The small spaces they offer are ideal for local businesses and start- ups. They offer a place for businesses that can’t afford the rents in newer retail developments, or can’t fill the large spaces in auto-oriented strip areas. Furthermore, people still shop. People want to try things out, or see and hold items, before they purchase them. Physical stores are social places where customers interact with others. People want to go out to businesses where they see people enjoying themselves, and where they can run into friends and neighbors, while drinking, dining, working out, or purchasing daily items close to home. The opportunity for downtown Monticello is to provide people with an experience. A future downtown Monticello may provide a place where many more people are shopping, eating, sitting by the Mississippi River, walking, biking and socializing. In the context of this new national retail reality, downtown Monticello has the bones to be a destination retail area. Downtown Monticello Overview Monticello has a traditional downtown area, with storefronts that face the street. It is walkable, and is just a block or two from the Mississippi River. In the past it was the heart of the City’s commercial activity. As in many small towns throughout Minnesota and the USA, it has been impacted by the development of competing commercial areas. These areas, near Interstate 94 and along Pine Street/Hwy 25, are the result of highway development, population growth in car-oriented neighborhoods, and the changing requirements of national retailers, which are not supported by the small buildings downtown. This has led to less investment in downtown Monticello, and a languishing of some of the properties, as well as a muddled and uncertain identity. This ambiguous identity was reflected in the responses to a survey question about downtown Monticello. When asked to outline downtown on a map, Monticello residents identified a variety of different areas. All included the Broadway and Walnut intersection, but some included:  Just the buildings that front on Broadway Street between Pine and Locust Streets  The four blocks that abut Broadway and Walnut Streets  The four blocks that abut Broadway and Pine Streets  A six-block area between Locust Street and Cedar Street Some included the Mississippi River in downtown, but no one included the library and community Survey Responses Downtown Monticello Assets • Strong local businesses • Some of the traditional unique downtown retail area is intact • Library and community center • Walkability of Broadway and Walnut • Proximity of Mississippi River • Available sites for new housing DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Retail Vitality April, 2017 4 center—despite noting that these destinations are primary reasons for many to go downtown. It’s understandable that downtown Monticello is not easily identified. It is comprised of a number of distinct areas:  The riverfront and River Street which face the Mississippi River  The storefront style retail area centered on Broadway and Walnut Streets  The blocks along Walnut Street that connect the Broadway Street corridor to the heavily used library and community center, and the Cargill plant, which is downtown Monticello’s largest employer  The blocks along Pine Street/Hwy 25—which is fronted with auto-oriented retail stores. This background report is focused on the retail district that is centered on Broadway and Walnut Streets, because that’s the center of Monticello’s pedestrian oriented, storefront- style retail area. Such areas have different requirements and benefit from different policies and activities than more modern, mall-oriented retail. Nearby areas can complement and support Broadway Street’s storefront retail district. Public Input Downtown Monticello Barriers • Not enough retail businesses • Need more restaurants and coffee shops to compliment retail businesses • Not enough housing nearby – more residents means larger customer base • Environment needs to be and feel safer for pedestrians DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Retail Vitality April, 2017 5 Retail Vitality Assessment In assessing conditions in pedestrian oriented retail areas, it’s helpful to look at several aspects of the area. The business mix, and the number (or density) of retail stores, are helpful ways of looking at what the retail district offers, in terms of shopping, dining, or other attractions. Another set of measures is focused on the character of the area, and the degree to which its elements offer an attractive and comfortable environment for people to come to. The following elements are considered below, because they are known to be critical factors in building the character of pedestrian oriented retail areas:  Walkability  Sense of Safety  Visual Identity and Branding  Public Realm Conditions  Business Conditions Business Density and Mix Business density refers to the concentration of businesses in the area. When businesses are concentrated (i.e. there are more businesses per block, for example), it is easier to walk among them and to visit several during one trip. Higher density of businesses also creates a vibrant environment that can feel busy and active with signs, storefront displays, and perhaps outdoor seating. It is an environment that is scaled to people walking by rather than driving by. The two blocks of Broadway Street have a high density of businesses. It is a concentrated retail area. Source: Tangible Consulting Services Business mix refers to the assortment of businesses and business types that make up a retail district. Source: Tangible Consulting Services The mix matters because businesses perform different roles in a district. Some draw nearby residents on a regular basis. Others serve as destinations and attract people from the region as well as the local area. Some businesses generate 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Business Establishments Per 500 feet DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Retail Vitality April, 2017 6 a lot of foot traffic. Others have no walk-up customers at all. Source: Tangible Consulting Services In the chart above, we compare Monticello (both the study area and the two blocks of storefront businesses on Broadway Street) with the storefront-style retail areas in Elk River and Buffalo—as well as in Madison, Wisconsin, where we’ve done a recent retail inventory. The categories are significant. General Merchandise, Apparel, Accessories refers to retail businesses that serve a broader market area: big box discount stores, home and garden, furniture, grocery store, brand clothing store, sporting goods. Neighborhood Goods and Services refers to retailers that offer goods and services that serve a more local market: dry cleaner, pharmacy, convenient grocery store. Food and Beverage refers to restaurants, coffee shops, bars and nightclubs. Non-Retail Destination refers to businesses that do not sell goods but generate walk-in traffic, such as studios, or cultural institutions. Non-Contributing refers to ground floor offices that generate little to no walk-up traffic. Storefront districts can have different flavors. Some offer more restaurants and entertainment than shopping. Shopping areas can serve as destinations, or cater to local needs. They can offer Observations. Monticello has a good mix of businesses both in the broader study area as well as in the two block area of Broadway. And the establishments are highly concentrated. There are fewer general merchandise and apparel establishments than in Elk River and Buffalo, and more establishments providing neighborhood goods and services. Food and beverage businesses make up a large part of successful retail districts today, and Monticello has a much lower percentage of them than the comparison areas. Feedback from the public input made very clear the desire for more food and beverage establishments. On a five point scale, with 1 being “poor” and 5 being “excellent”, survey respondents gave the downtown business mix mostly 2’s and 3’s. Challenges. It is advantageous for a retail district to have some destination retail businesses (General Merchandise, Apparel, Accessories) because 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Business Mix in Storefront Districts Non-Contributing Non-Retail Destinaton Food and Beverage Neighborhood Good's and Services General Merchandise, Apparel, Accessories Public Input Business Mix What do people want downtown? • More restaurants • Local café • Ice cream • Pottery shop • Wine bar • Indoor archery club • Health and wellness shop • Local music at restaurants DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Retail Vitality April, 2017 7 they bring non-local people to the area. In addition, restaurants, coffee shops, ice cream shops are critical elements of a retail district because they offer shoppers a second (or third) place to stop, or as destinations which draw patrons to the area, who secondarily may browse in neighboring shops. Downtown Monticello has few of these types of establishments. Opportunities. The density of businesses on Broadway Street is high, making it a fine-grained storefront district. It is a unique walkable retail area that has the elements from which a strong destination retail area can grow. Improving the business mix by attracting new businesses, particularly more food and beverage establishments or destination retailers, could be an important revitalization strategy. And maintaining the density of buildings along Broadway will be critical to maintaining its identity. Walkability Observations. Broadway and Walnut Streets are highly walkable. On Broadway, the buildings extend to the sidewalk and have few gaps between them, creating a fine-grained retail storefront environment. And many of the buildings have large windows that front the street, which draw one’s eyes into the store and enhance the ease of walking by. Corner properties at Broadway and Walnut draw people around the corner. The properties at Broadway and Pine anchor that intersection less well. Walkability was valued by those who responded to our Retail Vitality Survey. It was identified as an important element of what people want downtown. It was rated fair to good by respondents, being scored 3 or 4 (out of 5) by most survey respondents. One respondent suggested creating a walking tour map for downtown. Challenges. A lot of automobile traffic passes through downtown. At certain times of the day the traffic backs up on Broadway Street. This volume of traffic makes some pedestrians feel unsafe. There are also a few gaps between buildings which detract from the continuity of the is the district. Opportunities. Downtown’s inherent layout is perfect for walking. There are sidewalks, storefronts that line the sidewalks and places to go. There is adequate parking, both on street and off, so that people can park and walk to a destination easily. More visual interest and activation would enrich the environment and make it more comfortable for pedestrians on the street. Activation could mean adding cafes or restaurants with sidewalk seating, or introducing pop-up retail business. It could also mean turning gaps between buildings into places of activity. They could be used as connections to the rear parking areas, or enhanced with seating or a parklet. Attention should also be paid to maintaining the density of storefronts, and avoiding any reduction. Sense of Safety Observations. Perceptions of personal safety seem to be good, but safety from traffic is a significant issue. Survey respondents split their scores on “Sense of Safety” between 2’s and 4’s. They gave scores of 2’s and 3’s to “Traffic Flow and Speed” received 2’s and 3’s. The traffic signals at Broadway and Pine, and the stop signs on Walnut at Broadway, are helpful. But they are not sufficient to address the problems. Challenges. There is a tension between moving along the traffic that builds up on Broadway at certain times of the day and keeping that traffic moving at speeds that create a comfortable pedestrian environment, and ensuring that traffic stops for pedestrians. Turn lanes help move traffic but they can make the street harder to Public Input Walkability and Sense of Safety • Create walking tour map • Add flower boxes to keep bike lanes safe DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Retail Vitality April, 2017 8 cross and the sidewalks feel narrower. In addition, Pine Street, a state highway, carries 35,000 cars per day over the Mississippi River (MNDOT, 2014) and through Monticello’s downtown. Pine Street brings people to downtown, yet it is a challenge to create a transition from downtown’s retail district to the six lane intersection of Broadway and Pine. Opportunities. Downtown’s layout is inherently pedestrian oriented. Sidewalk widths are adequate for making pedestrians feel safe. The brick cross-walks at Broadway and Walnut help notify drivers that there are pedestrians in the area. The median on Broadway could be enhanced at the intersection with Walnut and the sidewalk corners could be bumped out to make crossing safer. Balancing traffic and pedestrian needs is difficult and ongoing, but all measures should aim at shoring up the retail vitality of the downtown area. Visual Identity and Branding Observations. Many successful retail streets have a recognizable visual character that is memorable and vivid. Various patterns in the physical environment can contribute to this character, including:  Building architecture and materials  The historical era of construction  The scale of buildings  The “grain,” or density, of storefronts  Streetscaping elements  Building accessories, such as signage, awnings or exterior lighting Marketing and branding efforts can build on these physical characteristics, building the retail district’s image in the minds of potential customers. Downtown Monticello has building and streetscaping elements that could be leveraged to build the visual branding of the area—most notably the streetscaping that was installed in the early 2000s. But there is little sign of additional coordination related to district identity. In our survey, respondents gave “Downtown’s Brand/Identity” 1’s, 2’s and 3’s. It received no 4’s or 5’s. Challenges. While downtown Monticello has a fine-grained retail character, and is a unique feature in Monticello and the surrounding area, it does not impart the sense of a unified place, as opposed to a collection of individual commercial buildings. Most buildings are from a similar era, but they are quite varied in style and materials. This means other elements must be employed to create that sense of place, to visually pull the area together. Unifying elements could include building elements such as awnings, planters, or exterior lighting. It could also build on some collective themes related to color, texture, or art. Opportunities. Monticello has a starting point on Broadway Street, in the fine grain density of its storefronts. That is the basis for downtown’s brand and the core of what makes it unique and desirable. While buildings may be of different styles and materials, this variety also offers interest and authenticity. There are some gaps in these storefront buildings, and the condition of some of the buildings makes them vulnerable to a renovation or redevelopment that might interrupt this fine grain. It would be important to establish development guidelines for infill buildings, so that the unique character of the district is preserved. Marketing. Marketing activities are extremely important in building the brand identity and customer base of storefront commercial areas. This can encompass a broad range of activities and events. The Monticello Chamber of Public Input Identity and Branding • Improve the lighting • Add flowers • Create a park-like setting DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Retail Vitality April, 2017 9 Commerce plays a lead role in current marketing initiatives, and is well positioned to lead additional efforts and activities. Public Realm Conditions : Observations. It is evident that attention has been paid to the streetscape along Broadway. The trees, pedestrian-scaled ornamental street lights, and sidewalk bump-outs with ornamental fencing—these are features that invite people to walk, linger, and look in store windows. On the flip side, the streetscaping appears a little dated, and would benefit from a fresh round of upgrades. Respondents to the Retail Vitality Survey rated the “Cleanliness” of downtown highly, giving it 3’s and 4’s. Along with “Walkability” and “Parking Availability”, this was the highest rated element. They rated downtown lower for “Attractiveness,” with most scoring it a 2 or a 3. Challenges. Improving the public realm takes resources. And it takes energy to create the common vision for a new look. There are competing priorities for sidewalk area along Broadway Street. At this point in time, sidewalks are sufficiently wide to support pedestrian movement in a vibrant commercial area. But if the road were to be widened to ease traffic congestion, sidewalks would be narrowed, to the detriment of the commercial district. Opportunities. It is clear that the community values the public areas along Broadway. Updating and enhancing its streetscaping would improve the attractiveness of the area. It also demonstrates a public commitment to the area, that could leverage additional private and business investment. There is also an opportunity to claim the areas between buildings for public space, either in connecting the businesses to the parking at rear, or for public elements that invite human activity, such as seating areas and plazas. These spaces could be enhanced with public art, and they could host events or activities. Business and Building Conditions : Observations. Building conditions in downtown retail areas have a significant impact on how the area is perceived. The buildings in downtown Monticello vary greatly in style, size and condition. There are one and two story buildings intermixed. Most have large picture windows on the first floor, though a few do not. Some second story facades have windows facing the street, while others are blank walls. Some appear in good condition. Others do not. Treatments of windows, signage and displays varies greatly as well. Most survey respondents scored “Business Upkeep” a 3 of 5. Challenges. With building styles so varied, the condition of buildings becomes even more important in unifying the district. It is also necessary to attend to deferred maintenance, and renovation where possible in order to preserve the fine-grained pattern of buildings and Public Input Public Realm Conditions • Add benches, trees, more flowers • Create walking routes through the area • Identify connections to the river • Mark historic sites Public Input Building Conditions • Revitalize downtown buildings • Use wood and metal • Keep up buildings DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Retail Vitality April, 2017 10 storefronts. But we know that the collective investment needed in the buildings on Broadway Street may be quite significant. In buildings that are occupied and cash-flowing for the property owner, it can be difficult to justify tackling these improvements on a strictly market basis. Moreover, the expectations established by the previous planning process has led to disinvestment, because it proposed the eventual demolition of the storefront district. It will take some effort to build or restore a collective intent among property and business owners to reinvest in their buildings. And some outside financial incentives will probably also be needed to advance this goal. Opportunities. Downtown Monticello has a variety of businesses, and almost all storefronts are full and activate the street. There are some minor improvements that would go a long way – for example some basic guidelines for what signs should look like. Programs to improve the quality of storefront displays might also be a relatively low-cost way to build the attractiveness of the street and draw people into the businesses. DOWNTOWN MONTICELLO SMALL AREA PLAN Background Report: Retail Vitality April, 2017 11 Recommendations Downtown Monticello has the potential to be a commercial and activity destination for the City of Monticello and surrounding areas. The small area plan will offer a range of strategies to that end. A focus on retail vitality should be seen as a very important component of the overall revitalization initiative. While some retail vitality activities and programs can be costly, many are not—especially when compared with the cost of attracting large new development, or taking significant action to calm traffic behavior on the major thoroughfares that cross through the City. The following strategies are suggested as priorities for increasing the retail vitality of downtown Monticello, and enhancing its destination quality. Downtown Environment  Make it easier and more inviting to walk to the downtown core by improving connections between the downtown core and the community center and library to the south, and the parks and river to the north, so that visitors to any part of downtown find it easy to get to the Broadway storefront district.  Improve the pedestrian environment by adding stop signs and crosswalks at Broadway and Walnut; making it more comfortable to cross Pine Street at the Broadway intersection; and modernize and beautify streetscape treatments. District Identity  Build Downtown’s brand/identity: identify downtown as the Broadway Walnut area, and name it  Consider the development of some visual themes for the district that will contribute to a sense of identity as buildings are improved and enhanced.  Commit to the fine-grained character of the storefronts along Broadway and around the corner on Walnut. Establish appropriate design guidelines for the area, prevent interruption of this character, fill in gaps, and attend to building disrepair to prevent demolition.  Consider organizational growth to sharpen the focus on the Broadway Walnut area—either within existing organizations, or in a new one. The organizational focus should be on promoting the area as a whole, and identify things all businesses can do together to make the area a destination and generate interest  Activate sidewalks and plaza areas as much as possible, through outdoor seating, engaging public spaces, events, and so forth—so that the vibrancy of the area is visible to passersby. Business Support and Development  Consider the establishment of a program that supports architectural assessment of buildings, and offers financial support for rehabilitation investments that stabilize and enhance existing buildings  Consider the establishment of a façade improvement programs that offers financial support for investments that improve the visual appearance of buildings and district identity  Consider offering support for merchandising, with the goals of improving the attractiveness of window displays and store interiors  Address the quality of the store mix through initiating a retail recruitment program for the district, which would identify and attract key retailers that will be complementary to the existing stores  Increase housing in the downtown area. Growth in the number of people living in and around downtown will support neighborhood- scale retail (retail follows rooftops); and, a range of household types will contribute to greater diversity of retail stores as well as dining establishments EDA Agenda: 06/14/2017 1 7. Consideration to Appoint a EDA Member to a Sub-Committee for the Adaptive Re- use or Sale of the Ellison Property. (JO/AS/JT) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The EDA is being asked to appoint a representative to a sub-committee established by the City Council to analyze and evaluate options for the adaptive re-use or sale of the Ellison property. The Ellison property is located at 707 West Broadway in Monticello. The property was offered to the City as donation by the family ownership, including the contents. The Ellison family has a long history, including that of civic organization and engagement, within the community. The Council has requested that a non-Council member of the EDA serve on the sub-committee, which will evaluate potential options moving forward. The committee would be charged with conducting a study on the feasibility of keeping and maintaining the building and property in support of the public good. Following is a list of elements of the study:  Research and identify uses for the property that result in a public benefit  Determine cost to update home and property to a level sufficient to support uses  Obtain assistance from a paid architect or other consultants as determined by the committee  Identify and acquire funding sources – grants, donations etc. supporting cost to update home  Identify annual cost of operation and maintenance along with revenue sources  Governance -- identification of committee or parties responsible for managing the facility operation, grounds and its contents.  Make a recommendation to the City Council as to feasibility. Is the public best served by selling the property or should it be kept for an adaptive re-use? B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to appoint an EDA Commissioner ________________ to the Ellison Property sub-committee. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None D. SUPPORTING DATA: City Council Agenda Item, May 22nd, 2017 City Council Special Meeting Minutes, May 8th, 2017 EDA Agenda: 6/14/17 1 8. Economic Development Report (JT) Business Retention and Expansion Vector Tool and Manufacturing (4-6-2017) Suburban Manufacturing (4-6-2017) Cargill Kitchen Solutions (4-7-2017) Generex and Westlund Distributing (4-7-2017) Bondhus Corporation (4-7-2017) Scheduled BRE visits: Aeroplax scheduling for June 2017 Production Stamping scheduling for June 2017 Prospects Staff is still actively engaged with or monitoring the next steps process for several prospects. They are: 1. Shred-N-Go (EDA offer was provided; they continue to work with their bank and have been seeking additional information on lot price, optimal facility layout and use of increment from the TIF District) 2. DEED Prospect – Staff is awaiting this firm’s decision 3. Project Novus – Staff is awaiting a decision from Project Novus representatives 4. Rustech Microbrewery and Tap Room Downtown Artwork Project – Sue Seeger Please use attached links for updates of the downtown artwork project by Sue Seeger that the EDA has partially funded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSjEbI2qiRQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UNMrrmV9rE EDA Agenda: 6/14/17 2 Transportation Economic Development Infrastructure (TEDI) Program Informational Sessions 06/01/2017 The Transportation Economic Development Infrastructure Program (TEDI) is a competitive grant program available to communities for road and public infrastructure projects that create jobs and support economic development. DEED's program is combined with the Transportation Economic Development Program (TED) administered by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for highway projects. A total of approximately $22.6 million is available through the 2017 programs. This includes approximately $18.4 million in MnDOT trunk highway funds and approximately $4.2 million of DEED general obligation bond funding. The programs may provide a portion of the costs for trunk highway improvements and other road and infrastructure improvements. Application Deadline - September 15, 2017. For full eligibility guidelines and application instructions, please see DEED's website. For detailed information on how to apply, please join us for one of the informational sessions below. Date City Location Time June 13 Rochester MnDOT District 6 Office Mississippi River East Room 2900 48th Street NW Rochester, MN 55901 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM June 15 Brainerd/Baxter MnDOT District 3 Office 7694 Industrial Park Rd. Baxter, MN 56425 10:00 AM - Noon June 16 Roseville MnDOT Waters Edge Building Conference Rooms A-C 1500 W. County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 10:30 AM - Noon June 19 Mankato MnDOT District 7 Office Northwoods Conf. Room 2151 Bassett Drive Mankato, MN 56001 10:00 AM - Noon June 20 Willmar MnDOT District 8 Office Green Lake Conference Room 2505 Transportation Rd. Willmar, MN 56201 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM June 21 Thief River Falls Pennington County Joint Operations Facility (also MNDOT –Office) 248 125th Ave Thief River Falls, MN 56701 10:00 AM - Noon EDA Agenda: 6/14/17 3 June 22 Detroit Lakes MnDOT District 4 Office Conf. Rooms B109-B110 1000 Highway 10 West Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 10:00 AM - Noon June 28th Duluth MnDOT District 1 Office 1123 Mesaba Ave. Duluth, MN 55811 10:00 AM - Noon This program is a collaboration between the MN DEED and MN-DOT.