Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 07-06-2021 (Joint Meeting) AGENDA SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL& PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,July 6th, 2021 - 7 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Council: Mayor Lloyd Hilgart, Jim Davidson, Charlotte Gabler, Brian Hudgins, Sam Murdoff Commissioners: Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, Alison Zimpfer, Eric Hagen Staff: Rachel Leonard, Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Consideration of a Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Proposal for a 200-Unit Multi-Family Residential Development Applicant: Baldur Real Estate, LLC 4. Adjourn NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Hilgart and Monticello City Council Monticello Planning Commission Angela Schumann, Community Development Director FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: July 1, 2021 RE: Monticello— Stalland/G-Cubed Residential PUD Revised Concept Plan Review FILE NO: 2021-010 Introduction Earlier this spring, this development group submitted plans for a conceptual review of a townhouse PUD that showed a 94 unit rental townhouse project on just under 10 acres along Edmonson Avenue NE. The proposed plan received a concept plan review in a joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting, and the applicants subsequently submitted materials for a Development Stage PUD and related approvals, which were to be considered in a public hearing on July 61", 2021. During the interim period, the applicants decided that the townhouse project could not be completed successfully. Instead, they are seeking a new concept review of a multi-family project on the same general property (the westerly lot line has been adjusted slightly from the original request). As such, the developer and staff have worked to shift the July 6 meeting time from a Planning Commission review of the townhouse project to a joint City Council/Planning Commission discussion of the new multi-family project. The proposed project consists of 200 units — 100 units in each of two buildings. The buildings are both "L"-shaped structures arrayed in the westerly portion of the site, with underground parking at one space per unit and surface parking of 1.25 spaces per unit. The complex would include a separate clubroom building, and likely other site amenities for the future tenants. Land Use The City is currently in the midst of a Small Area Plan project for Chelsea Commons, a proposed 100 acre mixed use (commercial-residential-public) development area, including a 15 acre + public upland and created lake. With the adoption of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, the 100-acre area was guided Commercial-Residential Flex to allow the City to consider the proper mix and configuration of residential and commercial uses in the area. The project area is a portion of that 100-acre area, and abuts the southeast side of the public space, bordering on the north edge of the power transmission line that cuts through the south portion of the planning area. The site is currently zoned B-4, Regional Business, a commercial zoning designation. In the original Chelsea Commons concept formulation, the proposed site area had been programmed for multi-family, as a part of a mixed residential concept including multi-family buildings catering to general market, affordable, senior, and luxury markets. Townhouses are a part of this mix of residential use types. As the original Stalland/G-Cubed project evolved, staff shifted the multi-family densities from the subject site to the other areas of the project plan to maintain the anticipated mix of residential in the project. This shift was reflected in the most recent Chelsea Commons concept plan. As such, staff notes that relocating the townhouse portions of the plan to other areas would be consistent with the long-range vision for Chelsea Commons. As a discussion point for the Planning Commission and Council, retention of the full range of housing mix would be worthy of re-endorsement and discussion in this context, as the Small Area Plan nears completion and additional development interests approach the community with new plans. It should be noted that staff has consistently supported the higher range of densities in the Chelsea Commons area to support business activity and maximize the contribution of those properties to the public infrastructure being constructed. The project area is uniquely situated to accommodate high densities, given the collector roadway status of all four boundaries of the project area. To this end, higher density development has generally been anticipated as the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan continues its progress. Regarding market demand, the 2020 Housing Report is included for reference. Page 100-101 provide an overview of the rental demand as anticipated by the study. It should be noted that the report did not include the 165 units currently in progress at Deephaven. Site Planning The project concept is still in its "first impression" stage. The petitioners have submitted a conceptual site plan and photo-renderings of other similar projects that the applicants would use as architectural models for this project. Naturally, additional detail will be added as the project proceeds to the Development Stage PUD submittal. The benefit of the Concept Review 2 at this stage is to provide feedback as to key elements the development team should plan for as they move to more detailed design. Staff suggests a number of items for discussion below: 1. Building Layout. Consider angling the right-angle wing of the southerly building to follow the proposed lot line, shifting building location as needed to accommodate grading impacts. The purpose of this suggestion is to maximize and consolidate the remaining open space on the parcel to accommodate usable space, or even potential expansion if that becomes possible. 2. Building Architecture. Staff has suggested to the applicants that focusing on articulation in the roofline and wall planes of the building would be important to break up the monolithic "box" impression of a building with flat walls and long flat roof. Varied and quality materials are also a desired characteristic. 3. Pedestrian Circulation. The plan identifies sidewalk along the front of each building, and also extending from Edmonson through the site to the Chelsea Commons pathway. A pathway along Edmonson will be a required part of the improvements to this site (as a component of the expanded Edmonson right of way and road construction). Other pathways to consider would be connection to the power transmission corridor in which a pathway/boardwalk feature is planned as a part of the Chelsea Commons project design. This pathway would skirt or cross a variety of wetland/stormwater/ raingarden improvements as a part of that design. In addition, the connection to and around the proposed pond requires review and consideration as to both design and development responsibility, similar to the Deephaven project. Further, the applicants show a pedestrian connection along the north boundary of the site, located on the adjacent private property. As a part of the townhouse layout, this area was severely constricted in space, and shifting this major gateway path to the north was unavoidable. Staff would encourage consideration of the subject multi-family parcel sharing a portion of that path and/or pathway easement to enable increased width and ground contouring. 4. Parking Supply. As noted, the plan shows a significant amount of parking, with up to 250 surface parking spaces in addition to the underground parking at a 1:1 ratio with the unit count. Depending on the unit mix and expected or likely number of adult tenants, staff would encourage a reduced surface parking count, including consideration for the use of a "proof of parking" design as appropriate. As drawn, a significant number of the surface parking spaces would be quite undesirable due to their distance from the building entrances. 3 5. Chelsea Commons Impacts. The Chelsea Commons planning relies on capturing stormwater runoff created by the surrounding development and, after filtering it in water quality ponds, releasing it to the main lake component. That aspect would be an essential aspect of the grading design for this site (as it will be for other future projects in the area). The applicant's design group has expressed some concern about the pedestrian connections from the proposed development site to the Chelsea Commons circuit pathway. We would encourage a creative look at this design, given the expectations that the lake and main circuit pathway would be sitting approximately 8 feet or more below the finished floor grades of the surrounding development. Developing these connections creatively will add value to the development and enhance use of the public spaces. Included within the Supporting Data are the current working Chelsea Commons concept plan, along with draft density information for the commercial and residential portions of the project. The first draft of the Chelsea Commons Small Area Plan is expected to be presented in a workshop in early August. 6. Grading and Drainage. As referred to above, the grade differentials are key a part of the Chelsea Commons planning. The City's consulting engineer is examining the potential for addressing the extensive soil cuts to create the lake and public spaces. As one option, the elevations of the lake and circuit path could rise (thus reducing total cut volume), and a portion of the soil could be deposited on the development site to retain the elevation differential between public and private areas. The applicant has indicated, preliminarily, that they may be able to accommodate this concept and are expected to work toward investigating that option more fully. As noted above, consideration should also be given to stormwater management requirements consistent with expectations for the evolving Chelsea Commons plan. This would include accommodating this site's stormwater in the planned pond/lake location and compliance with design requirements for the planned pond. 7. Other project comments. Additional comments of the City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal are anticipated. The purpose of the Concept Review is to provide strong guidance and feedback to the development team as they refine their project design and prepare for Development Stage PUD review. Please review the comments above and prepare any additional questions or comments in anticipation of the upcoming joint work session. 4 SUPPORTING DATA A. Aerial Site Image B. Proposed Multi-Family Concept Plan C. Building Floor Plan D. Sample Building Elevations E. Current Chelsea Commons Concept F. Chelsea Commons Development Density Graphic and Outline G. Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, Commercial Residential Flex H. R-4 Medium-High Density Residence Zoning I. 2020 Housing Study, including Excerpts 5 0 - J O O W T o� N-1 ka1Nf10� O `�� -LFlow ® BID] O O O � � ® T N3c 0 4-j ' N E �. � o ► o0 c6 0S a o rr � Ln I I Lr) a o a� u � N O vJO � N O N U o J m O N J p O O �+ N O r t+ w C6 1S \ \ \ 0 05 \\ \\ \\ Z MrsM- F 33NN \\ \\ \\ W w W 133N�5 3N1(103tl llN1 \ \ E- cot SI-NOU33NN f 3 \ \\ N Ivy JJ��ttttII OS+OOI 00 OOL II 6 SNI 00+86 NV 0+96Ja \ dn I rWW - so qds dg3sv3 �� Qod)L osw L HN -C4 Z iN3w3sv3 niniln (INV oVNIV80 oNil IX.3 ,0071 W -4 \\ \ \ 0-�S6 W01108 NISvB \ a a :ANI W W L—LL S3H „ 2 U °� � \ \\ \ • °° -- N � Z \ \ \ \ // \ /—Abe —\✓ = u 0 •� y' — 5 � \ m8 5 � O \ 0 E, "Ln�see \ \ \'oyy �''����•iti \� i�Na�� iiiG �o:�3ffiawI o c oyy F I � ° 0. 0 0 �2 Ib` N, N, \ \� \0e96ocyr\ \\ wZZ."E zwm� n mp- IVY o \\ N o 296L89 ON'300pw3d � ui e �I W d -A3W35V3 19L� _z o Nzz / I sg ■oz e e zoz _ - g - - � _ - = - H- u 9 5f NIA - - a 5 — 06, zz _ i N i � J � l � .ttil�ly111il�f,itf�etilif��tlrq 1 *1 �lply{�tillt '9r911I it hFlt71 � •6 , `y+�iyiyEfiRijii r I I'riI ,�Ittl,iyliiliylti,.l Si�iG,l�liltil EE i-1 T� �li�lii'�Ilo;Ili!Iili!! ls1i1 A iilili 1l;iit7 tii II�IIIii111��� � I � c iiY Itliit[tl iitilif111ii!iiil—;' t � t , �I. o' o i I r 9 tf r I 'a �� —II II Ilff fff A f -- • r a. p ti •4 Li LO�fi �1 � �.����by� IY A.l�``■■'{F � — y�r�r rr V5V�•. ',t r_ s.YM►. 6 r•1 + i i"A i y �Y I G '11 rA , I� 0 FFFFF[ rr� � ' i d Ids �l�lll� 1JfflllJ � ' � i .� �, �� :-: I I - � i �� ��� .sal �,�. �` *w c '"� �I ��� r - � �: �� - — — .. I a _'!� I �. _zf � � -� �. _ � - t� t� _ .,,.t. } �_ I.� i dam' 1 3 ..y � c y. Y.i i:.4 � �ti J �'� _�� I A '' tt 1�,: a i PW'., � ; �.� r '� ,'-: 4 h�� .;4.+u.' 0 7'�` ,.r ,l ti, .., _ � ' �_ } i i {. { ! {+ III �I.- � i i �� � t .;. T .,� '41 "Y >> _ "'� � `Y� � yyyy + l� +_`R�4 f� M •M1�.L7�� � - , R4� A "'Ws- 41` 4 { R 1 � ti k r CI ILLSLA CrONINIONS a� '�acsticeCBa, �iocrsedata Gateways/Focus Areas Vignette Drawings r� Gateway Plaza ' f des vm t i MajorAc ' Gateway 92 ,' � �_ .� � l] Secondary o ? a l Y Omm ' ay Parking Ph r Chelsea si C morons pe North Pond J t High a /�/ 7y�` <�Tit$`.R1120 De ^A Parking p PedestrianM r ajo ,t ` Bridge Gate m ^ r -'r Secondary Gateway ed arkway � ';� IN ° can a rY i �., — -_ m . Par Major �e�Y� ewa t — — _ D ° Current use ^� Proposal � �i�✓j„CJ, �i Maj i . �s�r .♦ Gateway G = 5s =r,,T Secondary Bo r . �P ♦ Gateway 7'=300' AN CHELSEA COMMONS K 2A'ewt[u[ts. 7llCx Kcoets PROPOSED DENSITIES DRAFT,JUNE 2021 Gateway Plaza 44, C Gat ewaY/#2 1 #4: 5 UNIT 5•,;��T$� Lk Secondary ay UNI #12: 75 UNITS , Uatetiyay � 1 Secondary _ y !i Gate way rr#14A ,00�5 1 #14 r 100 UNITS' a Secondary j�-- w Major aY; --][ �' w. Gate Y[#}� a #15: 45,000 SF �` r� ❑ ❑ #16: 25,000 SF 000 SF #13 95,000�S — MaJ ` ` A* Gateway. — "" K_ #13:100 UNIT 5 Secondary h _ Gateway ,r_ cI_- -C _a= -C -C m -C -C -C u O O O O o c o 0 0 UN Ln C QJ 3 M O O O O O O O O a -WLr� \ LOL O ON C31 lD -:t N ON N U I-- a W Z O L L L L L t L t t L fD t t (6 lD t t t O N L L L L 7 L 7 a L L 41 L 741 +J a 7 L U u O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U C W U (A N V Z Y O .= ca C .a ' O Ln O Ln O O C1 Ln L�I 'a C Ln In Ln C31 I� n �O O� 00 G N = O N N z pOp X NC. rq M ('I) c-I l0 Ln M N M N C31 ('/) f'n L a W Q Q c N Z O N h In N N In N h C +J 4, 4J +J 4J +J +1 a1 7 n3 a) a) c6 a) a1 a) a1 a) U a1 C C C C 0 E E E 'i E Z E E E co co L L L O C L L L L N L U C ca co ca 2 E ca 0 ca E ca co a) co ca co ca co m a a a 0 a = a a a a +� +� +� +� Q W O O T Q Q Q 'u H E Q \_ Q E Q Q Q v v v v �. L +T+ lD (6 n3 a1 to U .� � � U .� .� U .� NJ Q. C C C E C: '� C C '� C C a) C 2 O a) a, a) E v + v v U L a 0 -0 a1 -0 _0 a1 _0 -a O a U �, E Ln � � v � � u C O 41 m U O aj > Y c-I N M Ln l0 I- 00 m c-I N m Lo lD I, L- a cI cI cI cI cI � cI cI cI f6 aJ a O L a a a w 0 w '�■Ilil�l:■■ i'�■lI= ■ _�4��i■111 _ ► lilt:''' oil 10 •ter��—e ��;,;��,,77%�I;ice 1��G�■1~ - IIIIIIIIII I I 1111. �a l :CIII--11111 I 111--11111>♦ ::111�-1111.f♦ :ems;/jr .����m����■ '�•�.; �i x U e ■ 2 c - & C 99 » \ 2 � o - O D 2 \ \ u ■ 70 : \ ƒ \ $ ® = 3 3 » o § 2 $ ® k ' ° ƒ 0 MN & aO J- \ \ \ / ® g � 2 \ � ^�■ E (D / � - 2 t 2 - 2 / e s CD § _ ■ . _ 2 e / \ � t = ■ \ \ / k 0 Lq § % -2 2 3 , _ d 3 2 / / / c ■ \ 6 !�2 \ ( / \ � 2 D / 3 I \ ci . E ° _ _ 2 . •� § 2 =� ( E £ % \ »\ \ \ 22 = ± U k G / \ /_ - x � � t ° cc :E W -E E 2 � \ 0) ■ u 0 LL _ - 2 2 w =± m ■ ± - \ / \ 2 2 u ■ \ UM * � � m � Q 2 ( \ \2}tic & k 2 } U }{ » \ a § G - ' q � � §� § w� CL - / / ° 'm ® ® / § 0 - Zu= 2\ © = m u= \ /\ E \ > � § �g I§ m § W eel ° X 0 _ $ � \ § \ / � Lm 2 2 (a) CL -2 = u 7 e z J » » � \ / � » / m o 2 § \ 7 (a) E : U E / \ / _ / / _ IX 3 E / \ \ 2 = - T 5 m 3 \ _ / 0 W e u _ u o \ \ \ \/ ® \ ) § 2 7 \ \ u n § § } o LU 0 / / \ § a $ I § I I ( a I a 0 A e @ e u , , . , . , , 2 . , . U E= o � a) u = @ _ u 22f E § CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts Subsection (1) R-4:Medium-High Density Residence District Section 3.4 (I) R-4 Medium-High Density Residence District The purpose of the"R-4",medium-high density residential district is to provide for medium to high density housing in multiple family structures of 13 or more units per building, and at densities of between 10 and 25 units per acre. The district is intended to establish higher density residential opportunities in areas appropriate for such housing,to be determined by the City on a case by case basis. The City of Monticello shall zone land to the R-4 District only when, in its sole discretion, all aspects of the property support the potential uses of the R-4 district, including location,private and public services, and compatibility with existing and future land uses in the area. In making a determination as to the suitability of a site for R-4 rezoning,the City will prioritize the following site and area factors: Replacement Land Uses. R-4 zoning fits the following zoning categories and circumstances: • Land already zoned for R-3 • Land currently zoned for commercial uses,but which would not be considered"prime" commercial (the City would like to protect"prime" commercial areas that show the most promise for that use in the future). Proximity to Other Residential Neighborhoods. • R-4 zoning may be allowed in proximity to other medium to high density residential areas,however the nature and concentration of existing multi-family structures shall be carefully considered to avoid an over concentration of these uses. • R-4 zoning may be allowed in proximity to lower residential uses,if it is determined that the high density site can address the site and area factors provided here. Architectural Compatibility and Building Massing • In the vicinity of lower density residential areas,R-4 District buildings need to be lower profile with regards to size and mass,or need to be screened or buffered by distance and natural features. Requirement for Adequate Public Facilities. High density residential development shall be located to provide for the following essential services and amenities: • Access to public parks, pathways, and open space,without overburdening them. R-4 development may be required to provide additional facilities to meet the City's open space planning policies. • Connection to public utilities. • Access to major streets, or at the very minimum, avoidance of traffic generation that would utilize local streets in lower density residential areas. • Proximity to commercial and/or medical services. This district is intended to provide exclusively multiple family housing as defined in this ordinance, as opposed to lower density housing types such as townhouses,two-family homes,or single family homes. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 99 CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts Subsection (1) R-4:Medium-High Density Residence District Minimum and Maximum Density: 10—25 dwelling units per acre Maximum Base Density: 1,750 sq. ft. per unit(25 units per acre) Maximum Density through Planned Unit Development: 1,750 sq. ft.per unit(25 units per acre) Base Lot Area • Minimum= 30,000 square feet 9 • 7sf istrict Family(13+units/building) Base Lot size Gross Density 10-25 du/acre Max Density w/o PUD NA Net lot area per du Max 1,750 sf/du Front setback 100 feet Corner side setback 40 feet Interior side setback 30 feet Rear setback to building 40 feet Clear open space setback from 60 feet ROW Clear open space setback from 40 feet—no more than 50%of any yard facing a street covered with parking/drive aisles Property Line Buffer Req.to Single Family C buffer Common open space per du 500 sf/du Landscaping 2 ACl/2,500 sf open space+4 shrubs/10 feet bldg.perimeter Parking requirements 2.25 spaces/du,with max 1.1 space/du uncovered Architecture 20%street min frontage covered with enhanced materials,horizontal siding of steel or cement-board only(no vinyl or aluminum) Roofs 5:12 pitch,plus roof ridge line articulation of 3 feet min. or roofline or building line articulation,including flat and/or varied rooflines,parapets,canopies or other similar features which increase architectural interest and variability. Unit square feet 900 sf finished floor area per unit,minimum Garages Attached or Underground Detached accessory garages allowed only after base requirements are met Garage Setback May not access street directly—must be served by interior driveway Garage Doors Must include glass and decorative panels if visible from public street or adjoining residentially zoned property Page 100 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts Subsection (1) R-4:Medium-High Density Residence District PUD Options for Multi-Family Buildings Landscaping Increased landscape quantities and/or sizes beyond code minimums;Special landscape features including water features,recreational structures,patios,etc. Open Space Increased open space areas per unit beyond code minimums of 10%or more Parking All required garage parking underground Building Materials Increased use of stone,brick beyond front,or on other exterior walls Architecture Extensive use of ornamental features,building and/or roofline articulation,fenestration and building wall undulation atypical of other buildings in similar zoning districts Site Work Use of decorative paving materials in parking,sidewalks,etc.; Extensive use of ornamental site lighting or similar features. Housing for Seniors restricted Accommodations to design and density through PUD process only to 55 years of age or more a 0 Rear Yar back n 4 cor etback-a0' Front S ck-160' m Interior a Yard setback-30' No Parking ftpnt Yard-60. �- \\ i J. i City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 101 100 RENTAL DEMAND - LOW ESTIMATE Within the rental market, projections are based on projected household growth, current rates of household tenure for demographics likely to be seeking rental housing, and then focused based on rates of affordability to current residents who rent within the housing market. This demand analysis indicates a slow shift from ownership to renter markets, consistent with changes in rates of tenure over the past decade. Gradual and thoughtful demand-driven outcomes will likely see more a higher percentage of rental units created in an average year than the current overall percentage of renters in the community. The low estimate for rental housing in the next 5 years assumes fewer new units than have been created in the past 5-year period, and should be treated as a baseline for unit development, not a target that should preclude development when the baseline has been met. RentalNew Construction D- - Demand from Household Growth Within the City Household Growth in Rental Demographics 329 additional households Demographic Renter Rate 37% Demand from New Construction 122 rental units Demand from Existing Resident Households Current Renters in Market 1,162 households Percent of Renters Seeking New Housing 28% Increased Demand from Existing Renters 325 rental units Renters with Preference for New Construction 20% Existing Renter Demand for New Construction 65 rental units Total Demand for New Construction Rental Units = 187 units Affordable Units 50% Mid-Level Units 40% High Market Units 10% New Affordable New Mid-Level New High Market Demand 93 units Demand 75 units Demand 19 units Additional Need for Additional Need for Additional Need for Vacancy 52 units Vacancy 32 units Vacancy 19 units Total Affordable Need 145 units Total Mid-Level Need 107 units Total High Market 38 units Need Total Unit Need = 290 units City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand 101 RENTAL DEMAND HIGH ESTIMATE High estimates for rental demand assume continued, strong demand within the market- and matches approximately the same number of units that have been created over the past 5-year period. This suggests continued demand for development types that have been coming forward in the City, and planning for the trend to continue will allow the City to identify sites and areas through downtown and key corridors. The City can balance market demand for more rental housing with small town character through smart siting and design regulations. This estimate of demand may come to be met if growth pressures increase further than current projections indicate, and developments should be considered based on their own merits and demonstrated need on an annual basis. RentalNew Construction D- - Demand from Household Growth Within the City Household Growth in Rental Demographics 510 additional households Demographic Renter Rate 37% Demand from New Construction 189 rental units Demand from Existing Resident Households Current Renters in Market 1,162 households Percent of Renters Seeking New Housing 28% Increased Demand from Existing Renters 325 rental units Renters with Preference for New Construction 20% Existing Renter Demand for New Construction 65 rental units Total Demand for New Construction Rental Units =254 units Affordable Units 50% Mid-Level Units 40% High Market Units 10% New Affordable New Mid-Level New High Market Demand 127 units Demand 102 units Demand 25 units Additional Need for Additional Need for Additional Need for Vacancy 54 units Vacancy 34 units Vacancy 20 units Total Affordable Need 181 units Total Mid-Level Need 136 units Total High Market 45 units Need Total Unit Need = 362 units Unit Demand&Recommendations 102 What do e mean IIIDY Affordable , Mid - Level , and High Market Rents .? 103 AFFORDABILITY -what a household can spend on housing cost- is relative to each individual household. Higher-income households can afford more within the market, meaning that there are more options that would be within their spending limit, whether they spend 10% or 30% of their income toward housing cost. Lower-income households have fewer choices in the market due to similar fixed-costs, but less units that generally rent at a level that would fall within a comfortable limit. In addition to having less units available, they sometimes directly compete with higher-income households who are "spending-down" in the market, occupying housing units that are especially affordable. The Affordable Housing rental production numbers outlined above are based on resident incomes by tenure - that is the percent of renter households who rent at each income level, before deciding to transition to the ownership market. Affordable Housing targets for these recommendations are units priced at an affordability level of 30%- 50% of the area median income for the 1 1-county metro. This is used to maintain consistency with common funding categories, and are adjusted to match household and bedroom size. Fifty percent of all Monticello renter households fall into this affordability range. Ideal Monthly $543 $582 $698 $806 $900 $993 $1,085 Affordable Rent Housing Maximum Monthly $905 $970 $1,163 $1,344 $1,500 $1,655 $1,809 Rent Mid-Level housing indicates prices that would be affordable to a household earning between 50% and 80% of the median income for the 1 1-county metro. They are adjusted to match household/ family size, and represent consistency with MHFA and HUD guidelines. Thirty percent of all Monticello renter households are within this affordability range. Ideal Monthly $905 $970 $1,163 $1,344 $1,500 $1,655 $1,809 Mid-Level Rent Housing Maximum Monthly $1,448 $1,552 $1,86? $2,151 $2,400 $2,648 $2,895 Rent High Market Housing is the last category for recommended cost of new units - and does not have an upper maximum. While households do rent within this category, there is a transition to homeownership that is consistent with both increasing incomes and geographic location of the City. Data and community input indicate that households tend to move to Monticello for affordability and accessibility, and the same holds true for high-income earners. There is a larger share of housing that is more affordable to these households than in the larger metro, even for households currently living in the City that could move if they choose. Number of Bedrooms Emil 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ideal Monthly $1,448 $1,552 $1,862 $2,151 $2,400 $2,648 $2,895 High Rent Market Housing Maximum Monthly - - - - Rent Unit Demand&Recommendations 104 RENTAL FINDINGS GENERAL CONDITIONS IMPACTING THE MAJOR RENTAL MARKET FINDINGS; HOUSING MARKET; • There is good geographic distribution of • Recent increase in average household size rental units throughout the City (p. 26) indicates more households with young children • Renter households have been increasing (p. 6) slightly as a total percentage of City • Aging households are the fastest increasing households since 2010 (p. 29) demographic since 2010 (p. 7) • Lower-income households are much more • Aging households will be a significant portion likely to be renters (p. 29) of households through 2050 (p. 10) • Rental housing in the City is easily accessible • Households with children will continue to within the region, with good access and increase, driving need for larger units (p. 10) amenities (p. 30) • Monticello residents have lower average • Monticello has the 2nd highest rate of renter incomes compared to peer communities households among peer communities (p 11) studied (p. 30) • Monticello residents have lower degrees of • Rates of cost burden is much higher for renter educational attainment compared to the than owner households (p. 31) County (p. 12) • There are significant housing gaps at both • Common occupation groups in the City the top and bottom of the rental housing indicate a need for affordable housing, market (low- and high-cost) (p. 32) especially for entry-level positions (p. 14) • There is a lack of units appropriately priced • Large shares of residents (42% as of 2015) for low-income households already living commute into metro counties daily for work. in the City (265 units), indicating need for Forty-eight percent of survey respondents subsidized, income-restricted units (p. 32) indicated Twin Cities or a suburb as place of • Most renters that are housing cost burdened employment (p. 15) pay more than 50% of their income toward • Housing unit production has not kept pace housing costs (p. 33) with new households moving to the area, • There are very few rental options in 2-4 unit decreasing vacancy and increasing cost structures in the City (p. 36) (p. 17) • New units are needed to bring the vacancy WHAT RESIDENTS WANT; rate back to healthy and balanced levels • Housing for young adults and early-career (p• 39) households • 3+ bedroom units will be needed at all price • Affordable housing for those who work in the points for projected household growth (p. 40) community, and higher-amenity options to • Fiber internet is a key rental amenity that move up to as income increases is attractive to households throughout the • Larger units for families and/or spaces to region (p. 41) have an office • Housing subsidies (both local and state/ federal) will be needed to offset increasing • Ranges of housing types (structures/sizes) to construction costs and ensure lower-income provide a range of options households can afford rental costs (p. 44) City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand 105 RENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS Households in the rental market, as well as local housing experts, have identified a need for middle-cost housing options in the City. Due to a large share of older rental housing stock, there are more affordable options than in other areas of the Metro. However, incomes of many local residents are also below high- market housing cost. Employers are seeing that their growth and employment base needs a middle- ground in the rental market that offers both amenities and reduced unit pricing. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENCOURAGE REHABILITATION, TAX CREDIT & SUBSIDIZED DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT, AND REINVESTMENT Though referred to as "affordable housing", tax Maintaining housing affordability across a range credit developments offer new construction at of incomes is vital for community health - and is rents that fit within the limits and demand of the one of the reasons that some households choose community. Local employers are reporting that to live in Monticello in the first place. However, their workers need a middle-option, often fitting aging housing stock requires upkeep in order to inside income categories for these units. These maintain desirability. Many rehabilitation programs developments that offer opportunity to increase offer deferred-loan assistance to landlords of small density in key areas, and can also be utilized for properties (such as MHFA's Rural Rehabilitation mixed-use developments that provide amenities in Deferred Loan program). These incentivized loans central, walkable areas. The City can also directly often come with income restrictions. Though not encourage more affordable rental costs through an immediate solution, increased investment programs such as Tax Increment Financing. in new unit development in key areas (e.g. downtown), and new unit development in general THERE IS A MARKET FOR "LUXURY" can work to relax vacancy in the market, allowing HOUSING - BUT THE MARKET IS LIMITED households to select units that meet their balance of affordability & amenity- and structures with Though there are at least 285 renter households rehab needs will require maintenance investment in the City that could afford luxury-unit rents, both to maintain market share. data and interviews indicate that the reason these households move to the City is to save on housing MAINTAIN A MIX OF BEDROOM SIZES IN cost, as opposed to living in other more central NEW DEVELOPMENT areas with more amenity options. This is especially true for commuter households. While there is Household size is expected to grow in coming potential for an increase in high-market rental years, both in ownership and rental markets. housing, the market over the next 5 years is likely Important to this growth is ensuring households capped at one development. have access to a variety of both new and older stock options that meet their need for family size - CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON UNIVERSAL and perhaps for home offices as telecommuting DESIGN IN CENTRAL AREAS becomes more common. In practice, this means incorporating 3-bedroom units as a As households continue to age, and many significant portion of the rental market, whether in wanting to age in the community, providing a townhome, detached, or multi-unit construction. range of options that have accessibility features Encouraging larger unit construction balanced and follow universal design will promote healthy with small unit construction ensures needs of all neighborhoods. This is needed throughout the household types are served through new units. City, as well as in key walkable central areas that increase access to amenities. Many homeowners ENCOURAGE MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING who downsize, as well as those with differing levels of ability, live in private market units and prefer Structures with 2-19 units fill a gap that exists in walkable areas with access to amenities. the market, providing more options for residents, and reduced construction costs for development compared to single-unit detached structures. Unit design fits well among both existing and new structures, and will fill in missing unit types. Unit Demand&Recommendations From: Brendan Muldoon To: Angela Schumann Cc: Llloyd Hilgart(Llvod.Hilgart@ci.monticello.mn.us);Jacob Thunander; Mark Buchholz Subject: Multifamily Proposal Chelsea Commons Date: Tuesday,July 6,2021 4:14:59 PM cc: Loyd Hilgart,Jacob Thunander, Mark Buchholz Dear Angela, Thank you for taking the time to speak with me last week regarding the multifamily project being proposed in the Chelsea Commons corridor. Please accept this email not that we are not against competition within the Monticello market, but rather that we are strongly in favor of a diverse mix of "low to high density" residential along with the "professional office, personal and professional services, hotels, retail and restaurants, entertainment and educational services"that the Commercial Residential Flex calls for. When combined the proposed 200 unit multifamily project, the 165 units previously approved in the Deephaven Development, and the additional up to 90 units within the Block 52 Development that we are intending to propose the overall Monticello market will per the Monticello Housing Study far exceed the saturation point through 2025 with regard to this particular segment of the market. Currently only 51 of the 165 Units have been built within the Deephaven Project which is only 30% of the overall project. As Developers within the proposed greater "Chelsea Commons" master development we initially based our support and continue to do so for additional housing, however approving an additional 200 units of essentially the same type of housing with virtually no other commercial development or other forms of housing having been permitted will, in our opinion, be detrimental to attracting other complimentary lower density residential and other commercial uses. In other words, if a total of 365 apartment units are approved in the Chelsea Commons corridor alone with very little commercial development or other forms of housing we are afraid the perception will be that the development is nothing more than another dense multifamily development, thus leading to potential apprehensiveness on the part of prospective commercial and residential medium density builders to commit to the area. In our opinion the reason that this general area has not already been developed is due to the fact that there was initially way to high of a concentration of commercial programmed into the corridor. The lack of diversity of uses in what is now the Deephaven and the proposed Chelsea Commons area is in large part the reason that the former Developer and Premier Bank struggled to develop the site for so many years. History now seems to be repeating itself only in the form of high density multifamily concentration.This seems to be a clear departure from the Centennial Lakes and other neighboring developments that were presented as inspiration for the Chelsea Commons development. The 2020 Monticello Housing study states that the "high estimate" of rental demand through 2025 for mid-level to high market units will be 181 total units. With regard to the high estimate number the study goes on to state that "this suggests continued demand for development types that have been coming forward in the City, and planning for the trend to continue will allow the City to identify sites and areas through downtown and key corridors". If the proposed 200 units is approved it leaves little to no room in terms of overall need (even at the studies most aggressive numbers) for developing buildings that would fall under the definition of mid-level to high market units in other corridors including but not limited to the downtown. In fact the already approved Deephaven Units already represent more than the "Low Estimate" of units within these categories and only 16 units below the "high estimate" through 2025. The question that we feel needs to be asked is can the Monticello market support well in excess of what the housing study states that it can over the next 4 to 5 years and if so, does the City want all of the same type units to fall within a single corridor?We respectful don't think that it is in the best interest of the City or for that matter the Chelsea Commons development. However the decision is ultimately not ours to make despite the fact that at the time that we lent our support for the project we certainly didn't believe that the project was going to be an influx of the same type of housing at least not all at one time. I would appreciate if you would share this email with members of the Planning Commission and City Council. Thank you for your time and consideration Brendan Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here.