Planning Commission Agenda - 06/06/2023 (Special)AGENDA
JOINT MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
Tuesday, June 6, 2023 — 5:00 p.m.
Monticello Community Center
1. Call to Order
2. Concept Stage Planned Unit Development Proposal for a 100 -unit Multi -family
Residential Project in a B-3 (Highway Commercial) District
Outlot B, Great River Addition, 155-226-000020 (Applicant: Briggs Company)
3. Adjournment
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS. INC.
4150 Olson Memorial Highway, Ste. 320, Golden Valley, MN 55422
Telephone: 763.957.1100 Website: www.nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Angela Schumann
Mayor Hilgart and Monticello City Council
Monticello Planning Commission
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
NAC FILE NO:
PLANNING CASE NO:
PROPERTY ID:
Site Context & Land Use
Stephen Grittman
May 31, 2023
Monticello — Briggs Companies Multi Family Project—
Concept PUD Review
191.07 — 23.08
2023-22
155-226-000020
This memorandum reviews the elements of a proposed concept plan for a multi -family
development on the westerly portion of the plat of Great River Addition, which is bound
by 7t' Street to the north, Elm Street to the west, commercial property to the east, and I-
94 to the south. The development parcel consists of approximately 6.0 acres out of a
total of 20 acres, all of which is currently zoned for commercial (B-3, Highway Business)
and guided for mixed use (Commercial and Residential Flex).
The property has been considered for concept review of other multi -family projects. At
that time, there were a number of comments relating to land use transition, and an
interest in understanding the recommendations of the Housing Study as to affordability,
then in progress. The comments also included concerns over the viability of the small
amount of residual commercial land.
As a note in this regard, the City is likely to see a fluctuating level of market demand for
various housing types over time. There has been a strong demand for multi -family
housing over the past few years, in some ways eclipsing the City's expectations.
Inevitably, this will change over time.
While it is tempting to look at multi -family housing as a single land use type, the supply
of such housing addresses a number of different markets. These include first-time
independent housing for young people, initial starter housing for new family formation,
housing opportunities for persons who are dealing with family break-ups, and an overall
housing supply for moderate income individuals who need, or want, to avoid making
purchase investments in residential real estate. As the City has seen, there continues
to be a strong interest in multi -family housing for seniors who are liquidating their single
family homes as an estate planning tool, or to allow for an affordable local home when
they are not out-of-state during winter months. Not all seniors are seeking housing with
services.
The current land use guidance in the Comprehensive Plan would support either
commercial or residential use and presumes the use of PUD zoning to support a mixed
use approach. To proceed with the project, the property would need to be rezoned to
either an R-4, Medium -High Density Residential or PUD, Planned Unit Development.
While R-4 zoning could accommodate the project, this Concept Review is being
conducted on the expectation that PUD zoning will be the applicable district. Platting of
the property would be required.
The plat is currently a single 20 -acre undeveloped parcel. The eastern boundary of the
site abuts the Runnings retail property. North of 7th Street is a mix of medium density
residential development and other vacant land zoned and guided for residential use.
Access to future development on the subject property is provided from 7th Street on the
east side of the project location, and Elm Street on the southwest side of the project.
Application and Project Description.
The applicants have proposed the conversion of the northwest corner of the property to
residential use. The project consists of a single building consisting of a common area at
the center, and two wings each of approximately 50 units. The applicant expects to
develop the project in two phases, with the first consisting of the common area and one
wing, with the second wing to follow. The finished project would contain approximately
100 units on the 6 -acre parcel, a gross density of approximately 17 units per acre. The
R-4 district expects a range of density between 10 and 24 units per acre, with this
project falling in the middle of the range.
Included in the design would be an under -building garage of 96 spaces, as well as
surface parking and detached garage space.
The detached garage portion of the project is the most unique aspect of this particular
project. In two buildings, the project would provide a series of over -sized garage
spaces in which residents of the facility would be able to store their larger vehicles
and/or work-related equipment. The applicant notes that many residents renting
apartment units work in the trades and need to be able to take their commercial vehicles
(and trailers) home with them, but in most situations, do not have parking available for
those vehicles.
This concept would appear to address a particular market for multi -family housing that
may otherwise be underserved. Management of these over -sized garage buildings
would be key to ensuring that they continue to support a residential purpose, and the
developer should continue to elaborate on this aspect of the project. Potential issues
would be the temptation of some to use those spaces for business purposes, rather
than simple storage of vehicles. Additionally, there could be a potential for non-
residents to seek the use of those garages. In both cases, management of the amenity
would be critical to avoiding conflicts between a family residential project and more
industrial -style activities.
The unit mix for the project includes a full range of sizes, with 9 studio apartments, 22 1 -
bedrooms, 40 2 -bedrooms, and 29 3 -bedroom units at full build -out.
The site plan relies on access from 7t" Street to a driveway that extends to access the
underground parking garage, and then the surface parking and detached garage area
which encompasses the southeast portion of the site. The driveway then provides
access to Elm Street. As currently drawn, the site plan shows a total of 184 cover
parking stalls between the attached and detached garages, and 155 surface spaces,
including several such spaces outside of the detached garage units. All included, the
parking supply is approximately 3.4 spaces per unit, far above the required parking
standard. A significant amount of the site is dedicated to parking, as a result. Exploring
options to reduce this amount of coverage would be a subject for discussion with the
applicant.
For the project to proceed, there are a series of City approvals that will be required:
o Preliminary and Final Plats incorporating the residential and remaining
commercial parcels, and re -subdividing the property for the proposed commercial
and residential uses;
o Development and Final Stage PUD;
o Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development District
Concept Stage PUD Submittal
PUD Concept Plan review is not a formal zoning application, but rather is intended to
provide the applicant an opportunity to get City feedback on a potential development
proposal prior to more formal zoning review and the extensive supporting materials that
such reviews require. The Planning Commission and City Council will have the
opportunity to review the project, ask questions of the proposer, and provide comment
as to the issues and elements raised by the project. No formal approval or denial is
offered for a Concept Review.
The intent of Concept Proposal review is to consider the general acceptability of the
proposed land use and identify potential issues that may guide the City's later
consideration of a full PUD application, should the developer chose to move forward.
The City Council and Planning Commission meet in joint session to provide feedback to
the developer and may include an opportunity for informal public comment as they
deem appropriate.
The neighboring property owners have been notified of the meeting, but it is not a
formal public hearing.
It is vital that Planning Commission and City Council members engage in a frank and
open discussion of the project benefits and potential issues. The Concept Review
process is most valuable when the applicants have the opportunity to understand how
the City is likely to look at the project and the potential issues it presents. In this way,
the subsequent land use and development details can be more finely tuned to address
City policy elements. This memorandum provides an overview of the project and will
serve as an outline for the discussion.
PUD Concept Review Criteria. Concept Plan review is separate from the formal PUD
application. The Ordinance identifies the purpose of Planned Unit Development as
follows:
(1) Purpose and Intent
The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district is to
provide greater flexibility in the development of neighborhoods and non-
residential areas in order to maximize public values and achieve more
creative development outcomes while remaining economically viable and
marketable. This is achieved by undertaking a process that results in a
development outcome exceeding that which is typically achievable
through the conventional zoning district. The City reserves the right to
deny the PUD rezoning and direct the developer to re -apply under the
standard applicable zoning district.
PUD Concept reviews are to proceed as follows:
(a) PUD Concept Proposal
Prior to submitting formal development stage PUD, preliminary plat
(as applicable) and rezoning applications for the proposed
development, the applicant may, at its option, prepare an informal
concept plan and present it to the Planning Commission and City
Council at a concurrent work session, as scheduled by the
Community Development Department. The purpose of the Concept
Proposal is to:
1. Provide preliminary feedback on the concept plan in
collaboration between the applicant, general public, Planning
Commission, and City Council;
2. Provide a forum for public comment on the PUD prior to a
requirement for extensive engineering and other plans.
3. Provide a forum to identify potential issues and benefits of the
proposal which can be addressed at succeeding stages of PUD
design and review.
Staff Preliminary Comments and Issues.
For this proposal, the primary considerations evident at this point in the process include
the following elements:
Land Use. As stated above, the proposed land use is currently zoned B-3
Highway Business District, and guided "Commercial -Residential Flex". The
property has long been expected to develop as commercial property, given
the high levels of commercial use along 7t" Street to the east, and the 1-94
exposure. Monticello's code states that B-3 property can be rezoned for
multiple family residential uses if it is not in a prime commercial area.
The support text for this land use category in the Comprehensive Plan states:
This designation is also applied to parcels located between
Interstate 94 and 7th Street West. These properties may be
developed as commercial, residential, or mixed land uses under the
city's PUD zoning, subject to review and approval of the City.
As the site abuts the 1-94 corridor, the City will need to consider and comment
on whether this 6 acre site an important component of its commercial land
inventory. If not, multiple family residential may be considered a reasonable
use given the mix of other uses in the immediate area, including townhomes
to the north, and other multi -residential to the northeast.
In evaluating past requests for rezoning of commercial property to R-4, the
City has looked to its policy discussions held at the time of the adoption of the
R-4 district, which suggest that rezoning be considered when factors such as
access, surrounding land use, inventory, etc. support the conversion.
While the real estate market has significantly fluctuated during the last several
years, commercial development has continued in some measure, occurring
almost exclusively in more easily accessible areas. The proposed site, at the
westerly edge of the platted property, would appear to be a reasonable
candidate for non-commercial uses.
As noted above, the number of recent multi -family projects has affected the
supply of housing in the community. However, it is important to keep in mind
that housing choices change regularly, driven by both generational changes
and lifestyle choices. Rental options — particularly those available to young
families in transition, and those seeking proximity to walkable, mixed-use
areas, are important components of the City's makeup. Trends in other
areas, including interest rates and construction costs, support the continued
increasing demand for multi -family in Monticello as well.
It is staff's understanding that the developer intends a portion of the units as
affordable. The last three four multi -family projects approved by the City are
exclusively market -rate, with no designated affordable housing units.
Parking and Circulation. The plan relies on under -building and detached
garage parking for a significant portion of the parking supply. Because
underground or under -building parking is expensive, its inclusion in a project
that will be affordable to workforce families is an important factor. In past
multi -family housing proposals, the City has been consistent in looking for
under -building or underground parking as a requirement supporting rezoning
to R-4.
The total parking provided for the multiple family project of approximately 339
spaces greatly exceeds the typical standards. Current ordinance
requirements would require a supply in the range of 240 spaces, based on
the proposed unit and bedroom counts. This aspect of the project is designed
by the applicant as a feature of the proposal, but also results in a large portion
of the project area consumed by parking, whether surface or covered.
One of the objectives of the R-4 district is to reduce the visual impact of large
multi -family parking lots along the main access road. As noted, the applicants
have located all surface parking away from the exposure from adjacent
roadways. This design, coupled with the underground parking supply,
mitigates the views of parking from both 7t" and Elm Streets.
Building Height and Architecture. The applicants have provided
preliminary details relating to building design at this stage. Staff would note
that the R-4 zoning district encourages certain specific elements related to
roof line, building materials, and overall design. The supplied concept
drawings show slightly varied roof line and wall fagade, augmented by vertical
extensions along the longer wings. One aspect to be clarified is the building
height, which illustrates only 2 primary levels of residential use in the building
elevations but includes 3 levels in the Site Plan Notes.
Building materials illustrated in this submission include a mixture of masonry,
and residential lapped and board -and -batten siding. Materials are not
specified on the drawings, but the applicant's narrative identifies steel as the
residential siding. PUD design is expected to exceed the basic district
standards in exchange for the flexibility offered under the PUD process.
City officials should comment also on the garage building architecture. One
of the potential issues with detached garages is the look of self -storage
buildings on residential property. The applicant has worked to avoid that look
with the proposed brick treatments and altered garage sizes. Some variation
in roof line could help avoid the industrial appearance of these structures.
iv. Site Planning. A preliminary site plan is provided as a part of the PUD
Concept plan. Staff notes that specific requirements for open space and
extensive setback regulations apply in the R-4 District. If the applicants
propose to vary from the base zoning standards, they should provide
rationale that supports the variation, and note the additional amenities or
elements of the site plan that balance the proposed flexibility. One positive
aspect of the site plan is the lack of parking on the street sides of the building,
both toward 7th Street and Elm Street. Parking is limited to the freeway side
of the site, much of which is screened from view by the garage buildings.
Civil plans are yet to be developed, and these are likely to result in
modifications to the site plan as the project proceeds through PUD review.
a. The zoning requirements for the setback standards need to be taken into
consideration. As noted above, the applicants are hoping to utilize PUD to
flex the front setback requirement and "clear zone" but will meet the other
required setbacks. The R-4 setback standards are as follows:
i. 100 feet, front side
ii. 40 feet, corner side
iii. 40 feet, rear
iv. Clear open space from ROW - 60 feet,
v. Clear open space from property line - 40 feet.
The intent of the R-4 regulations is to avoid the extensive parking lot front -
yard view of multi -family projects. This design, although it relies on a
shallower setback, avoids parking areas in front of the building, and could be
viewed as consistent with that intent.
V. Connectivity and Open Space. The site plan notes usable recreation space
in the lawn areas of the easterly wing, including a play area and enclosed dog
park. The applicant will need to work with the City to provide pathways
and/or sidewalks along both streets. Stormwater management requirements
will impact usable open space.
To meet the zoning standards, the applicant must propose at least 500
square feet of common open space per dwelling unit. Maximizing the utility
and attractiveness of the open space on the site would be an important
design consideration as the project moves forward, both as a component of
residential environment and to meet the City's intended amenities
requirement under a PUD option.
a. Trails. As a residential project, it would be important to provide
connections for residents to nearby amenities, such as schools, shopping
and the downtown. 7th Street was constructed with a pathway on the
north side of the roadway, extending to Elm Street east to Minnesota
Street. Residents of this development would have to cross 7th Street, walk
east, and re -cross 7th Street. More current trail planning has incorporated
a policy of sidewalk and/or pathway on both sides of major (collector and
arterial) roadways. The applicant will therefore be required as part of
platting to include pathway along the frontage on the south side of 7th
Street and along Elm. Connecting to these public walkways from the
site's internal areas would also be a requirement.
b. Parks. The property would require platting and is therefore subject to park
dedication requirements. Country Club Park is approximately'/4 mile from
the site, within the'/2 mile distance standard identified in the Park and
Pathway Plan. However, it is noted that this park may have some
limitations for this development due to current lack of trail connections and
that it is interior to the Country Club neighborhood. The PARC will review
the plat for park dedication recommendations.
vi. Landscaping and Buffering. The project will be subject to a buffer
requirement between the commercial and residential properties, requiring
specific additional setbacks and landscaping to screen and buffer the differing
land uses. It would be expected that the development provide enhanced
landscaping features as part of any PUD flexibility.
vi. Civil Site Design. The City Engineer has provided a separate comment
letter regarding utility, access and stormwater issues.
Summary
As noted, the Planning Commission and City Council provide comment and feedback to
the developer at the Concept Review level. City officials should identify any areas of
concern that should be addressed by the proposer to avoid the potential for eventual
denial, as well as any elements of the concept that the City would find essential for
eventual approval.
Specific comment should address the following potential issues, with the notation that
the applicant is looking for specific direction with regard to PUD flexibility for parking,
unit size and front setback. Those items are listed in bold below.
Overall Land Use — Is the site appropriate to change from commercial to
residential? Updated Comprehensive Planning elements encourage the
additional introduction of new housing styles and affordability levels to meet the
increased diversity of housing demand. The current zoning code also
encourages R-4 zoning in non -prime commercial areas, and the Comprehensive
Plan anticipates PUD zoning for the Commercial -Residential Flex category.
2. Density — The density is within the City's maximum R-4 threshold, but relies on
PUD flexibility to moderate setbacks, open space, and other features such as
roofline and likely, minimum unit size for studio units.
3. Site Planning — The applicant has proposed a significant change to the parking
and garage approaches to multi -family development than commonly experienced
in other projects. This results in a larger -than -normal amount of the site
dedicated to parking, garage, and circulation areas.
4. Setback — The site plan demonstrates compliance with minimum setbacks with
the exception of the front setback. Again, the 40' setback proposed is moderated
by parking located behind/central to the site.
5. Unit Size - The applicant has not specified unit sizes, but staff would expect a
need to address flexibility in the minimum unit size for its studio units at least,
and for any units below the threshold 900 square feet noted in the R-4 District.
6. Building Design and Materials — The building architecture and materials
appears to be consistent with the intent of the R-4 District standards, with the
consideration of a variable mix of roof slopes and enhanced materials. As noted,
attention to the design of the detached garages will be an aspect of ensuring that
the site is consistent with residential use and architecture.
7. Parking Supply — As noted, there is a significant over -supply of parking on the
site, in part due to the unique detached garage concept proposed by the
developer. In addition to the area occupied by parking, management of the uses
in the detached garage will require some attention to ensure a long-term
residential -only use pattern.
8. Landscaping - Green space, setbacks, and other site plan improvements —
attention to landscape detail and buffering will be an aspect of a future plan
review.
9. Circulation and Access — The site has adequate access to collector routes, with
access from those roadways subject to the comment of the City Engineer's
office.
10. Drainage & Utilities - Comments and recommendations are provided as a
separate report.
The notes listed above acknowledge that a significant amount of detail will be added as
the project proceeds to a more advanced stage of review.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Aerial Site Image
B. Applicant Narrative
C. Site Plan
D. Building Elevations
E. City Engineer's Comment Letter
F. Great River Addition Plat
G. R-4 Zoning Standards
H. Excerpts, Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan
I. Monticello Housing Study Executive Summary
J. Commercial Properties for Sale Map
Monticello Residential Suites
Concept C Narrative 5-7-23
It is our goal is to provide a new 50 unit four story apartment project in two
phases. The Exterior fagade would include a combination of Horizontal &
Vertical 5" EDCO Steel siding Powder Coated Aluminum balconies throughout.
All Trims including Garage doors, soffit, facia, to include Aluminum Wrap
Accents. 84 indoor parking stalls, 90+ Indoor Heated Attached parking stalls On
Level 0
70+ Detached Oversized Garages with a mix of cold and heated space. Including
a garage door mix of 9x10/10x10/1Ox12/12x12 /12x14. Garages will be a mix
of 24/48 ft in depth & 10/12/14/24/26 ft wide. All Garages will have openers &
keyless entry & power.
Proposed objectives are to Design, Construct and Manage 20% of Income
Restricted and 80% of Market Rate Apartments in Monticello. To add an
element of Superior and forward -thinking design based on the recent economic
changes. In the Real estate space buyers today have half of the purchasing power
than they did a year ago. Renters & Non -Renters in all levels of the lifecycle
space want and need larger cold/heated garage space at their home.
Space/Convenience/Affordability and time management in todays hectic demands
are some of the reasons for the need of this project in Monticello. Proximity to
highway 94, businesses that are local who can service and maintain unsecured
personal property for this cliental is why this location is more reasons why this
location is a viable option.
These unique garage amenities within this housing community that can become
available in 2025 is one of the reasons residents in Minnesota would choose
Monticello. Retaining and providing current residents larger garage space needs
and wants that are not being met will help accomplish Monticello's housing plan
and will continue to see more pressure on the need/want for Oversized garages
onsite where they live ... There is no rental housing options currently available in
Monticello that offers this amenity. If we proceed now these options for the
community will be available in 2025.
Thank you for giving us this opportunity to work with and be a part of The City of
Monticello Housing Efforts.
Monticello Residential Suites Amenities
1. Community Room with kitchen, tables, furniture & Wi-Fi
2. Crafts & Exercise room
3. Elevator
4. 9 -foot ceilings on 1St floor
5. Stainless Steel Appliances
6. Designer Lighting
7. Controlled Entry
8. Surveillance throughout entire community
9. Onsite Management Office
10. Outside Patio
11. Outdoor Screen Porch with a rooftop patio
12. Indoor Parking. Attached & Detached
13. Oversized cold & heated Detached garages.
14. Business Office
15. Movie Theater
16. Package room
17. Pet Spa
18. High Speed Internet
From:
To:
Ano a Shuman
Cc:
Hayden Stensaard; Ryan McMuse
subject:
RE: Concept PUD Rey¢w
Date:
Wedre ay, May 17, 2023 1125:19 AM
Attadrments:
Good morning All,
Please see below.
From: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@ci.monticello.mn.us>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 10:37 AM
To: Pat Briggs
Cc: Hayden Stensgard <Hayden.Stensgard@ci.monticello.mn.us>; Ryan Melhouse
<ryan.mel house@ci. monticello.mn.us>
Subject: Concept PUD Review
Pat,
Good morning. I believe Hayden has sent you the status letter forthe concept submittal. A few
things so that we can keep this review moving for June:
• Please supply the land use application, signed by the property owner, as soon as possible.
You can email a scanned copy and mail the original with original signatures.
I will be dropping off the Original with signatures at approximately 4pm
• Site and Elevation Plans. As we compared the site plan to the elevations, a few things stood
out:
o We noted in the status letter that the elevations do not seem to match the proposed
height.
o The elevations of the building provided will be confusing to the Planning Commission
and Council when comparing to the site plan. The elevations show multiple entrances
to the underbuilding parking, where the site plan illustrates a central drive with one
entrance.
o The site plan uses old topography. The new site topography following extension of 7th
Street lends itself to underground parking. Ryan is going to send over as-builts or topo
information. I would encourage you to take a look at the parking configuration.
o If you could let us know if you intend to submit new elevations matching the site plan,
that would be helpful. If not, we will try to note the differences in the report for the
boards' reference.
Conceptually the corner site offers a few different options for covered parking. For example
one viable option would be to have covered attached parking at grade on the westerly wing
with a garage door entrance located on the south or east elevation. The height could be 3
or 4 stories. That would be determined once we tie in the easterly wing. The easterly wing
offers an at grade and or underground option with 3-4 stories above. At this point its
difficult to determine how they will tie in together until we take a deep dive into the Civil
documents during the PUD Application with the Engineering Depart for the traffic circulation
approval. Our goal with the Architectural colored elevations is to provided a conceptual
presentation of colors, materials along with garage & apartment unit options available that
are not currently offered within the city in the Multifamily space. Our plan is once we
receive feed back during this process then we can start to bring all of our ideas together as a
team for the next round of applications. I'm not sure if I included the attachment called
front High, but this gives a another example of the Architectural theme. The garage concept
will vary as well, but it primarily shows Architectural features along with space variations as a
starting point. I did print out 11x17 colored and a 36x24 Garage plan that I will be dropping
off as well.
Does that make sense Angela ?
Thankyou!
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
www.ci.monticello.mn.us
763-271-3224
i
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government office is subject to
the Minnesota Government Data Practices act and may be disclosed to third parties.
Br*iaas ComDanies
EL. ±950
01
APPROXIMATE
�� LOCAT
OF
MAT
-0"
DINT
�CJ sz
,P 0 3
0
0 3
QQ r v
P X;
1
R
/ z 0
x'10•.0..
APPROXIMATE / zs R
LOCATION °" °•
OF
PROPERTY EL. ±960 Deb°jo
A
LINE -SEE °•x30.0••
SURVEY
BR
MAIN ENTR
O F F E zs e x3°'•
STREET FOR
UP ER
PARKIN -SEE ,R
RVEY / WR z °x30•.
x30;0.. 0..
O ELM ST. DRI ENTRANCE / z
- -IAT
eR
3jro
y oR
� 3
,1010.
6G O,
< 6 O
TRASH
NCLOSURE /
31 -OUTDOOR
PARKING
STALLS
WATER
INFILTRATION
BASIN
AREA
24
3e
y �R
x30'.
9
53'-2°
E
C MMo s ARF/oF
CF p/CF
PARKING -
-9130
APPROXIMATE
CATION
OF
PROPERT
E -SEE
F� \9 SU Y
60
BgtCONY
0
1BR
x30;0..
STUD
z
BR
1e
a �R
x30;
3BR
4 °x'13;0,.
yc \
>`� S ' gPpR0X/M 4
/. gTF�OT 64.J„
Vv
" �S �
F
S
RFF F SUR�FY
APPROXIMA
`343; LOCATION OF
e�i�O7^/G
BUIL11
ESTDING SE -SEE
-SEE
SURVEY
zeR \
o••
1gTv0/p \
3
4
x30:0..
\R
\ 0x30
-0..
3e
QS
x33;0..
v PLAY
Q AREA
0 W /',
/
x O� �v
Q
`O" PARKI
SSTALLOR
z - i
►0(1CI:311)I
1 • 1
10,
i
11)1)069001020
1 ��14'IM} 1 citi `-1�NE_ �J �Vrg4�
�.f t 155 1
50 1" 1-55500'1-11,3208
� —� S 155-50011►310
ar
�2 SITE DIAGRAM FROM COUNTY -GENERAL REFERENCE
NO SCALE
n
SITE PLAN -CONCEPT 'C' -LEVEL -0 (BELOW GRADE UNDERGROUND PARKING
1/32p$ = 11-011
V-
"T
x33;0., /
FENCED
I
PARK
26 / APPROXI E
/ LOCATION
OF
ESTIMATED
�J 30'-0"
/ BUILDING
SETBACK -SEE
22 / �O� SURVEY
O
3BR
45'-0'x30'-0"
2 BR
37'-0"x30'&-
2
3 28
4_ p�29
5 30
;n C�
Mr+o� Q 6 a1
xi J
m z 32
8 33
8 / 34
10 35
11 36
12 37
13 38
14 39
i5 40
16 41
17 / 42
18 42
19 44
20 45
21 46
22
\23
24 �
24 47
25
48
\ 48
50
X0,0„
3 B
45'-0"x30'-0"
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION
OF
PROPERTY
LINE -SEE
SURVEY
- Vim, •� � � � � - , .�,
R
±343'-1 "
BUILDING
NO SCALE
NOTE:
THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL SURVEY
This drawing was prepared by
the architect for preliminary
planning purposes only. Actual
building locations, property
boundaries , setbacks, utilities
and easements, are to be
determined by surveyor. See Site
Survey.
LOT 'C' SITE AREA ±6.00 ACRES
CONCEPT'C' -APARTMENT DWELLING UNITS
PROPOSED -(4) LEVEL 100 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS
100 UNITS (THREE LEVELS OF APARTMENTS AND ONE
LEVEL OF PARKING AND APARTMENT UNITS)
100 / 6.0=16.7 UNITS PER ACRE
=100 TOTAL APARTMENT UNITS
=96 INDOOR LEVEL (1) HEATED ATTACHED PARKING
STALLS
=88 INDOOR DETACHED GARAGE PARKING STALLS
=184 TOTAL INDOOR PARKING STALLS
155 OUTDOOR PARKING STALLS TOTAL
TOTAL PARKING STALLS=325
339/100=3.4 PARKING STALLS PER UNIT
UNIT MIX PER BUILDING
LEVEL (0)= 4 UNITS
STUDIOS -0
ONE BEDROOM -1
TWO BEDROOM -1
THREE BEDROOM -2
LEVEL (1)=32 UNITS
STUDIOS -3
ONE BEDROOM -7
TWO BEDROOM -13
THREE BEDROOM -9
LEVEL (2)=32 UNITS
STUDIOS -3
ONE BEDROOM -7
TWO BEDROOM -13
THREE BEDROOM -9
LEVEL (3)=32 UNITS
STUDIOS -3
ONE BEDROOM -7
TWO BEDROOM -13
THREE BEDROOM -9
1 BR
25'-0"x30'-0"
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
I� W
C_ i+
0 ,
4
0
�I V
3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
ELEVATOR CORE/OFFICE /COMMON SPACE
BUILDING PLAN -CONCEPT ' C' -LOWER LEVEL PARKING
1/321f = 1'-011
.\Logo -Mainly Details\Mainly_Details_Logo_ 2_tall.jpg
Mainly Details Architectural Design, PLLC
PH 612-382-5682
Suite 213, 1710 North Douglas Drive, Golden
\
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly registered architect under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
\
\
Gregg S. Graton, AIA
264:0„
44/,
DATE:
Owner:
G
�^ -OUTDOOR
x PARKINGQ� vJv ".OUTDOOR
Architect: Mainly Details,
Architectural Design, PLLC.
Surveyor:
Civil Engineer:
Structural Engineer:
contractor
Contact:
\
Mobile:
o
^
P -2022.028 -Maple Lake -Briggs
\
\
=3 N
CO
C/) CO
CHED GARAGES -44 —
077
\
_ (n 213 O
� U
O
I TOTAL
W = G
This document is the property of Gregg S.
o
OP
IONA GE N BE
written consent of Gregg S. Graton
Architect. Use infringements will be
prosecuted.
C
NFIG RED O
dimensions. Any and all discrepancies
\
shall be reported to the general
contractor/ owner or architect prior to
MBI ED
drawing
Concept
1C1
date: 03.06.23
drawing no. revisions:
SP1.0 °00.00.00
®00.00.00
\
/0
A00.00.00
22
\
\
44 INDOOR GARAGE PARKING STALLS
\ o
� �
c
O �4040
x
xi O� �vj
gppROX
22
614,,4"APPROXIMATE
F�
30-OUTDOORLO
I O N
0T°7tijFNS
PARKIN
STALLS/0
3CAT
FCAT
OF
N PROPERTY
SFFS�'R�Fy
SURVEY
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF
ESTIMATED 40'-0"
BUILDING
SETBACK -SEE
SURVEY
BUILDING / SITE PLAN -CONCEPT 'C'
1/3222— 11-011
z - i
►0(1CI:311)I
1 • 1
10,
i
11)1)069001020
1 ��14'IM} 1 citi `-1�NE_ �J �Vrg4�
�.f t 155 1
50 1" 1-55500'1-11,3208
� —� S 155-50011►310
ar
�2 SITE DIAGRAM FROM COUNTY -GENERAL REFERENCE
NO SCALE
n
SITE PLAN -CONCEPT 'C' -LEVEL -0 (BELOW GRADE UNDERGROUND PARKING
1/32p$ = 11-011
V-
"T
x33;0., /
FENCED
I
PARK
26 / APPROXI E
/ LOCATION
OF
ESTIMATED
�J 30'-0"
/ BUILDING
SETBACK -SEE
22 / �O� SURVEY
O
3BR
45'-0'x30'-0"
2 BR
37'-0"x30'&-
2
3 28
4_ p�29
5 30
;n C�
Mr+o� Q 6 a1
xi J
m z 32
8 33
8 / 34
10 35
11 36
12 37
13 38
14 39
i5 40
16 41
17 / 42
18 42
19 44
20 45
21 46
22
\23
24 �
24 47
25
48
\ 48
50
X0,0„
3 B
45'-0"x30'-0"
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION
OF
PROPERTY
LINE -SEE
SURVEY
- Vim, •� � � � � - , .�,
R
±343'-1 "
BUILDING
NO SCALE
NOTE:
THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL SURVEY
This drawing was prepared by
the architect for preliminary
planning purposes only. Actual
building locations, property
boundaries , setbacks, utilities
and easements, are to be
determined by surveyor. See Site
Survey.
LOT 'C' SITE AREA ±6.00 ACRES
CONCEPT'C' -APARTMENT DWELLING UNITS
PROPOSED -(4) LEVEL 100 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS
100 UNITS (THREE LEVELS OF APARTMENTS AND ONE
LEVEL OF PARKING AND APARTMENT UNITS)
100 / 6.0=16.7 UNITS PER ACRE
=100 TOTAL APARTMENT UNITS
=96 INDOOR LEVEL (1) HEATED ATTACHED PARKING
STALLS
=88 INDOOR DETACHED GARAGE PARKING STALLS
=184 TOTAL INDOOR PARKING STALLS
155 OUTDOOR PARKING STALLS TOTAL
TOTAL PARKING STALLS=325
339/100=3.4 PARKING STALLS PER UNIT
UNIT MIX PER BUILDING
LEVEL (0)= 4 UNITS
STUDIOS -0
ONE BEDROOM -1
TWO BEDROOM -1
THREE BEDROOM -2
LEVEL (1)=32 UNITS
STUDIOS -3
ONE BEDROOM -7
TWO BEDROOM -13
THREE BEDROOM -9
LEVEL (2)=32 UNITS
STUDIOS -3
ONE BEDROOM -7
TWO BEDROOM -13
THREE BEDROOM -9
LEVEL (3)=32 UNITS
STUDIOS -3
ONE BEDROOM -7
TWO BEDROOM -13
THREE BEDROOM -9
1 BR
25'-0"x30'-0"
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
I� W
C_ i+
0 ,
4
0
�I V
3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
ELEVATOR CORE/OFFICE /COMMON SPACE
BUILDING PLAN -CONCEPT ' C' -LOWER LEVEL PARKING
1/321f = 1'-011
.\Logo -Mainly Details\Mainly_Details_Logo_ 2_tall.jpg
Mainly Details Architectural Design, PLLC
PH 612-382-5682
Suite 213, 1710 North Douglas Drive, Golden
Valley, MN 55422
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly registered architect under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
date:
Gregg S. Graton, AIA
certification no.
\GSG-SigniNre\ jpg
SIGNATURE
DATE:
Owner:
Larry Kasella
consultants
Architect: Mainly Details,
Architectural Design, PLLC.
Surveyor:
Civil Engineer:
Structural Engineer:
contractor
Contact:
Office:
Mobile:
project
P -2022.028 -Maple Lake -Briggs
=3 N
CO
C/) CO
C/) Ln
077
W z
8_0
_ (n 213 O
� U
O
W = G
This document is the property of Gregg S.
Graton Architect and is intended to be an
instrument of service for this project only.
No reproduction is allowed without the
written consent of Gregg S. Graton
Architect. Use infringements will be
prosecuted.
The contractor is responsible for the
verification of all on-site conditions and
dimensions. Any and all discrepancies
from that indicated by these documents
shall be reported to the general
contractor/ owner or architect prior to
commencement of work.
drawing
Concept
1C1
date: 03.06.23
drawing no. revisions:
SP1.0 °00.00.00
®00.00.00
&00.00.00
A00.00.00
A00.00.00
of:
C C16 0 O'M M
fft - &11 1
law
6mL Aa
ti
1
F.
Ma
�r
fir
+ AL
- F .
► Is
M k Olp M1 Lk I I
Yr►
��d �:
�! dna ��•
�k
Yr►
ULL
OR
;,jam
Eli It
2
0
U
z
W
CID
U)
0
00
z
U)
0
a
W
z
z
2
0
Cl)
W
F-
D
U)
T
W
Z)
z
W
a
a
z
W
X
0
wsb
May 31, 2023
Matt Leonard
City Engineer/Public Works Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street, Suite 1
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: Briggs Apartment Site Concept Stage PUD — Engineering Plan Review
City Project No. 2023-22
WSB Project No. 022968-000
Dear Mr. Leonard:
We have reviewed the Briggs Apartment site conceptual stage PUD site plans dated March 6,
2023. The applicant proposes to construct a new 50 -unit four story apartment project including a
70 stall detached garage complex with a mix of cold and heated spaces.
The documents were reviewed for general conformance with the City of Monticello's general
engineering and stormwater treatment standards. We offer the following comments regarding
these matters. City staff will provide additional comments under separate cover.
Site, Street, & Utility Plans
1. Streets, parking lots, and utilities shall be designed in accordance with the applicable City
Subdivision Ordinances and the City's General Specifications and Standard Details
Plates for Street and Utility Construction.
2. Provide a turning movement exhibit to show that a fire truck can access all building
structures, cul-de-sacs, and roundabout area as required by the City Fire Marshall. The
Fire Marshall will review and provide comments under separate cover.
3. The building department will review required fire hydrant location(s) and emergency
vehicle access/circulation. Fire truck circulation will need to accommodate the City's
ladder truck, provide an exhibit showing turning movements.
4. A utility plan shall be provided showing the existing and proposed sanitary sewer,
watermain and storm sewer serving the site. Watermain looping may be required through
the site to provide adequate fire flow supply. Additional utility stubs to adjacent properties
may also be required to accommodate future looping connections.
5. With future submittals, provide a full civil plan set that includes an existing/removals plan,
utility plan, more detailed site/paving plan, grading plan, erosion/sediment control, and
standard details plan. If the project will disturb once acre or more, a SWPPP will be
required consistent with the MPCA CSWGP standards.
K:\022968-000\Admin\Docs\2023-05-22 Submittal (Concept)\_2023-05-31 Briggs Apt Concept PUD Plans - WSB Engineering Comments.docx
Briggs Apartment Site Concept Stage PUD — WSB Engineering Plan Review
May 31, 2023
Page 2
Stormwater Management
6. Provide more clarity and detailed grading as to the location of the proposed stormwater
basins and storm sewer conveyance to these locations.
7. Below are General Stormwater Requirements for the Site:
a. The applicant will be required to submit a stormwater management plan for the
proposed development in accordance with the requirements in the City's Design
Manual
b. This site was designed to drain to the regional stormwater pond on the north side
of 7t" St. The pond will provide rate control for the site based on a curve number
of 89.
c. The new site will need to provide onsite volume control for runoff of 1.1" over the
new impervious area, Pre-treatment measures are required prior to discharging
to the volume control BMPs.
d. An operation and maintenance plan for all stormwater BMPs is required and
should be submitted with the stormwater report for review.
e. The site is outside of the DWSMA and is not subject to requirements of the City's
Wellhead Protection Plan.
8. The proposed project will disturb more than one acre. Develop and include a SWPPP
consistent with the MPCA CSWGP with future full set plan submittal.
9. An NPDES/SDS Construction Storm Water General Permit (CSWGP) shall be provided
with the grading permit or with the building permit application for review, prior to
construction commencing.
Traffic & Access
10. The applicant is proposing two driveway access points, one located on Elm Street and
one on 71" Street. The exact location of the access points including grades, sight lines
and their impact on adjacent intersection (Elm Street at 7t" Street and other development
driveways) should be provided and will be reviewed with future submittals.
11. The site would generate approximately 227 daily trips, 19 AM peak hour trips and 20 PM
peak hour trips. The existing Average Daily Traffic on 7th Street is 5300 and on Elm
Street is 1550. The addition of the proposed traffic should not have an impact on roadway
capacity or operations.
12. A pedestrian path will be required along Elm Street and 7t" Street adjacent to the
development site. Also, to provide connectivity, a pedestrian path is to be installed along
the south side of 7t" Street to the existing sidewalk at Minnesota Street.
Wetlands & Environmental
13. Any permanent or temporary impacts proposed as a result of roadway, culvert, or
stormwater outfall construction must be permitted via the Wetland Conservation Act.
Briggs Apartment Site Concept Stage PUD — WSB Engineering Plan Review
May 31, 2023
Page 3
A more detailed review of the development plans will be completed when the applicant submits
complete civil plans and a stormwater management report.
Please have the applicant provide a written response addressing the comments above. Feel free
to contact me at 612-419-1549 if you have any questions or comments regarding the engineering
review.
Sincerely,
WSB
James L. Stremel, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Br*iaas ComDanies
EL. ±950
01
APPROXIMATE
�� LOCAT
OF
MAT
-0"
DINT
�CJ sz
,P 0 3
0
0 3
QQ r v
P X;
1
R
/ z 0
x'10•.0..
APPROXIMATE / zs R
LOCATION °" °•
OF
PROPERTY EL. ±960 Deb°jo
A
LINE -SEE °•x30.0••
SURVEY
BR
MAIN ENTR
O F F E zs e x3°'•
STREET FOR
UP ER
PARKIN -SEE ,R
RVEY / WR z °x30•.
x30;0.. 0..
O ELM ST. DRI ENTRANCE / z
- -IAT
eR
3jro
y oR
� 3
,1010.
6G O,
< 6 O
TRASH
NCLOSURE /
31 -OUTDOOR
PARKING
STALLS
WATER
INFILTRATION
BASIN
AREA
24
3e
y �R
x30'.
9
53'-2°
E
C MMo s ARF/oF
CF p/CF
PARKING -
-9130
APPROXIMATE
CATION
OF
PROPERT
E -SEE
F� \9 SU Y
60
BgtCONY
0
1BR
x30;0..
STUD
z
BR
1e
a �R
x30;
3BR
4 °x'13;0,.
yc \
>`� S ' gPpR0X/M 4
/. gTF�OT 64.J„
Vv
" �S �
F
S
RFF F SUR�FY
APPROXIMA
`343; LOCATION OF
e�i�O7^/G
BUIL11
ESTDING SE -SEE
-SEE
SURVEY
zeR \
o••
1gTv0/p \
3
4
x30:0..
\R
\ 0x30
-0..
3e
QS
x33;0..
v PLAY
Q AREA
0 W /',
/
x O� �v
Q
`O" PARKI
SSTALLOR
z - i
►0(1CI:311)I
1 • 1
10,
i
11)1)069001020
1 ��14'IM} 1 citi `-1�NE_ �J �Vrg4�
�.f t 155 1
50 1" 1-55500'1-11,3208
� —� S 155-50011►310
ar
�2 SITE DIAGRAM FROM COUNTY -GENERAL REFERENCE
NO SCALE
n
SITE PLAN -CONCEPT 'C' -LEVEL -0 (BELOW GRADE UNDERGROUND PARKING
1/32p$ = 11-011
V-
"T
x33;0., /
FENCED
I
PARK
26 / APPROXI E
/ LOCATION
OF
ESTIMATED
�J 30'-0"
/ BUILDING
SETBACK -SEE
22 / �O� SURVEY
O
3BR
45'-0'x30'-0"
2 BR
37'-0"x30'&-
2
3 28
4_ p�29
5 30
;n C�
Mr+o� Q 6 a1
xi J
m z 32
8 33
8 / 34
10 35
11 36
12 37
13 38
14 39
i5 40
16 41
17 / 42
18 42
19 44
20 45
21 46
22
\23
24 �
24 47
25
48
\ 48
50
X0,0„
3 B
45'-0"x30'-0"
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION
OF
PROPERTY
LINE -SEE
SURVEY
- Vim, •� � � � � - , .�,
R
±343'-1 "
BUILDING
NO SCALE
NOTE:
THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL SURVEY
This drawing was prepared by
the architect for preliminary
planning purposes only. Actual
building locations, property
boundaries , setbacks, utilities
and easements, are to be
determined by surveyor. See Site
Survey.
LOT 'C' SITE AREA ±6.00 ACRES
CONCEPT'C' -APARTMENT DWELLING UNITS
PROPOSED -(4) LEVEL 100 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS
100 UNITS (THREE LEVELS OF APARTMENTS AND ONE
LEVEL OF PARKING AND APARTMENT UNITS)
100 / 6.0=16.7 UNITS PER ACRE
=100 TOTAL APARTMENT UNITS
=96 INDOOR LEVEL (1) HEATED ATTACHED PARKING
STALLS
=88 INDOOR DETACHED GARAGE PARKING STALLS
=184 TOTAL INDOOR PARKING STALLS
155 OUTDOOR PARKING STALLS TOTAL
TOTAL PARKING STALLS=325
339/100=3.4 PARKING STALLS PER UNIT
UNIT MIX PER BUILDING
LEVEL (0)= 4 UNITS
STUDIOS -0
ONE BEDROOM -1
TWO BEDROOM -1
THREE BEDROOM -2
LEVEL (1)=32 UNITS
STUDIOS -3
ONE BEDROOM -7
TWO BEDROOM -13
THREE BEDROOM -9
LEVEL (2)=32 UNITS
STUDIOS -3
ONE BEDROOM -7
TWO BEDROOM -13
THREE BEDROOM -9
LEVEL (3)=32 UNITS
STUDIOS -3
ONE BEDROOM -7
TWO BEDROOM -13
THREE BEDROOM -9
1 BR
25'-0"x30'-0"
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
I� W
C_ i+
0 ,
4
0
�I V
3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
ELEVATOR CORE/OFFICE /COMMON SPACE
BUILDING PLAN -CONCEPT ' C' -LOWER LEVEL PARKING
1/321f = 1'-011
.\Logo -Mainly Details\Mainly_Details_Logo_ 2_tall.jpg
Mainly Details Architectural Design, PLLC
PH 612-382-5682
Suite 213, 1710 North Douglas Drive, Golden
\
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly registered architect under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
\
\
Gregg S. Graton, AIA
264:0„
44/,
DATE:
Owner:
G
�^ -OUTDOOR
x PARKINGQ� vJv ".OUTDOOR
Architect: Mainly Details,
Architectural Design, PLLC.
Surveyor:
Civil Engineer:
Structural Engineer:
contractor
Contact:
\
Mobile:
o
^
P -2022.028 -Maple Lake -Briggs
\
\
=3 N
CO
C/) CO
CHED GARAGES -44 —
077
\
_ (n 213 O
� U
O
I TOTAL
W = G
This document is the property of Gregg S.
o
OP
IONA GE N BE
written consent of Gregg S. Graton
Architect. Use infringements will be
prosecuted.
C
NFIG RED O
dimensions. Any and all discrepancies
\
shall be reported to the general
contractor/ owner or architect prior to
MBI ED
drawing
Concept
1C1
date: 03.06.23
drawing no. revisions:
SP1.0 °00.00.00
®00.00.00
\
/0
A00.00.00
22
\
\
44 INDOOR GARAGE PARKING STALLS
\ o
� �
c
O �4040
x
xi O� �vj
gppROX
22
614,,4"APPROXIMATE
F�
30-OUTDOORLO
I O N
0T°7tijFNS
PARKIN
STALLS/0
3CAT
FCAT
OF
N PROPERTY
SFFS�'R�Fy
SURVEY
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF
ESTIMATED 40'-0"
BUILDING
SETBACK -SEE
SURVEY
BUILDING / SITE PLAN -CONCEPT 'C'
1/3222— 11-011
z - i
►0(1CI:311)I
1 • 1
10,
i
11)1)069001020
1 ��14'IM} 1 citi `-1�NE_ �J �Vrg4�
�.f t 155 1
50 1" 1-55500'1-11,3208
� —� S 155-50011►310
ar
�2 SITE DIAGRAM FROM COUNTY -GENERAL REFERENCE
NO SCALE
n
SITE PLAN -CONCEPT 'C' -LEVEL -0 (BELOW GRADE UNDERGROUND PARKING
1/32p$ = 11-011
V-
"T
x33;0., /
FENCED
I
PARK
26 / APPROXI E
/ LOCATION
OF
ESTIMATED
�J 30'-0"
/ BUILDING
SETBACK -SEE
22 / �O� SURVEY
O
3BR
45'-0'x30'-0"
2 BR
37'-0"x30'&-
2
3 28
4_ p�29
5 30
;n C�
Mr+o� Q 6 a1
xi J
m z 32
8 33
8 / 34
10 35
11 36
12 37
13 38
14 39
i5 40
16 41
17 / 42
18 42
19 44
20 45
21 46
22
\23
24 �
24 47
25
48
\ 48
50
X0,0„
3 B
45'-0"x30'-0"
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION
OF
PROPERTY
LINE -SEE
SURVEY
- Vim, •� � � � � - , .�,
R
±343'-1 "
BUILDING
NO SCALE
NOTE:
THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL SURVEY
This drawing was prepared by
the architect for preliminary
planning purposes only. Actual
building locations, property
boundaries , setbacks, utilities
and easements, are to be
determined by surveyor. See Site
Survey.
LOT 'C' SITE AREA ±6.00 ACRES
CONCEPT'C' -APARTMENT DWELLING UNITS
PROPOSED -(4) LEVEL 100 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS
100 UNITS (THREE LEVELS OF APARTMENTS AND ONE
LEVEL OF PARKING AND APARTMENT UNITS)
100 / 6.0=16.7 UNITS PER ACRE
=100 TOTAL APARTMENT UNITS
=96 INDOOR LEVEL (1) HEATED ATTACHED PARKING
STALLS
=88 INDOOR DETACHED GARAGE PARKING STALLS
=184 TOTAL INDOOR PARKING STALLS
155 OUTDOOR PARKING STALLS TOTAL
TOTAL PARKING STALLS=325
339/100=3.4 PARKING STALLS PER UNIT
UNIT MIX PER BUILDING
LEVEL (0)= 4 UNITS
STUDIOS -0
ONE BEDROOM -1
TWO BEDROOM -1
THREE BEDROOM -2
LEVEL (1)=32 UNITS
STUDIOS -3
ONE BEDROOM -7
TWO BEDROOM -13
THREE BEDROOM -9
LEVEL (2)=32 UNITS
STUDIOS -3
ONE BEDROOM -7
TWO BEDROOM -13
THREE BEDROOM -9
LEVEL (3)=32 UNITS
STUDIOS -3
ONE BEDROOM -7
TWO BEDROOM -13
THREE BEDROOM -9
1 BR
25'-0"x30'-0"
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
I� W
C_ i+
0 ,
4
0
�I V
3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
ELEVATOR CORE/OFFICE /COMMON SPACE
BUILDING PLAN -CONCEPT ' C' -LOWER LEVEL PARKING
1/321f = 1'-011
.\Logo -Mainly Details\Mainly_Details_Logo_ 2_tall.jpg
Mainly Details Architectural Design, PLLC
PH 612-382-5682
Suite 213, 1710 North Douglas Drive, Golden
Valley, MN 55422
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly registered architect under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
date:
Gregg S. Graton, AIA
certification no.
\GSG-SigniNre\ jpg
SIGNATURE
DATE:
Owner:
Larry Kasella
consultants
Architect: Mainly Details,
Architectural Design, PLLC.
Surveyor:
Civil Engineer:
Structural Engineer:
contractor
Contact:
Office:
Mobile:
project
P -2022.028 -Maple Lake -Briggs
=3 N
CO
C/) CO
C/) Ln
077
W z
8_0
_ (n 213 O
� U
O
W = G
This document is the property of Gregg S.
Graton Architect and is intended to be an
instrument of service for this project only.
No reproduction is allowed without the
written consent of Gregg S. Graton
Architect. Use infringements will be
prosecuted.
The contractor is responsible for the
verification of all on-site conditions and
dimensions. Any and all discrepancies
from that indicated by these documents
shall be reported to the general
contractor/ owner or architect prior to
commencement of work.
drawing
Concept
1C1
date: 03.06.23
drawing no. revisions:
SP1.0 °00.00.00
®00.00.00
&00.00.00
A00.00.00
A00.00.00
of:
4!
GREAT RIVER ADDITION
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That RiverWood Bank, fka First Federal Savings Bank and the City of Monticello, a Minnesota municipal corporation under the laws of the
State of Minnesota, fee owners of the following described property situated in the County of Wright, State of Minnesota to wit:
RIVERWOOD BANK PARCELS
Lot 1, Block 1, Kirkman Addition, Wright County, Minnesota
AND
n
Lot A of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 121, Range 25, according to a plat filed March 14, 1886 in Book 1 of Plats, page 566 and that part of Lot C
of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 10, Township121, Range 25 accordingto a plat recorded October 23, 1913 as Document No. 74600 lying Northerlyand
Northeasterly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the Northast comer of said Northeast g
st Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South along the East line of saiNortheast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 526.92 feet to the point of beginning of said line to be described; thence West deflecting 89 degrees 52 minutes 18 seconds right, a distance
of 137.25 feet; thence Northwesterly along a tangential curve concave to the North having a radius of 600.00 feet and a central angle of 43 degrees 16 minutes 32 seconds, a distance of
453.18 feet; thence Northwest tangent to said curve, a distance of 357.48 feet to the Northwest line of said Lot C of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter and said line there terminating,
Wright County, Minnesota.
AND
That part of Lot C of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 121, Range 25,.according to a plat recorded October 23, 1913, Document No. 74600 lying Northeasterly
of the Northeasterly right of way line of Interstate 94 and lying Southerly and Southwesterly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of the Northeast Quarter of
the Southeast Quarter of said Section 10; thence South along the East line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 526.92 feet to the point of beginning of said line
to be described; thence West deflecting 89 degrees 52 minutes 18 seconds right, a distance of 137.25 feet; thence Northwesterly along a tangential curve concave to the North having a
radius of 600.00 feet and a central angle of 43 degrees 16 minutes 32 seconds, a distance of 453.18 feet; thence Northwest tangent to said curve, a distance of 357.48 feet to the Northwest
line of said Lot C of the North Half of the Southeast Quarter and said line there terminating, Wright County, Minnesota.
AND
Also that part of Lot A of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 11, Township 121, Range 25 according to the plat of record, filed October 23, 1913, File No. 74602, lying
Northeasterly of the Northeasterly right of way line of Interstate 94 and lying South of a line described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Northwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter; thence South along the West line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 526.92 feet to the point of beginning of said line to be described;
thence East deflecting 90 degrees 07 minutes 42 seconds left a distance of 441.39 feet to the East line of said Lot A of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and said line there
terminating. Except that part of said Lot A of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Northwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter, thence East along the North line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 407.67 feet to the center line of Minnesota Street being the East line
of said Lot A of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence deflecting 87 degrees 34 minutes 45 seconds right along said center line, a distance of 361.82 feet to the point of
beginning; thence West deflecting 90 degrees right, a distance of 373.37 feet; thence South deflecting 90 degrees left, a distance of 350.00; thence East deflecting 90 degrees left, a distance
of 373.37 feet to said center line of Minnesota Street, thence North along said center line a distance of 350 feet to the point of beginning, Wright County, Minnesota
0T]
That part of Lot A of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 11, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Lot A; thence East, along the North line of said Lot A, a distance of 407.67 feet to the center line of Marvin Road; thence South, along said center line,
deflecting right 87 degrees, 34 minutes 45 seconds a distance of 361.82 feet to the point of beginning; thence West, deflecting right 90 degrees, a distance of 373.37 feet; thence South deflecting left 90
degrees a distance of 350 feet thence East deflecting left 90 degrees a distance of 373.37 feet to the center line of said Marvin Road; thence north, along said center line, a distance of 350 feet to the
point of beginning.
Subject to the right of way of said Marvin Road.
Except that part thereof described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Lot A; thence East along the North line of said Lot A, a distance of 407.67 feet to the center line of said Marvin
Road; thence South deflecting 87 degrees 34 minutes 45 seconds right along said center line, a distance of 361.82 feet to the point of beginning of the exception to be described; thence West, deflecting
right 90 degrees a distance of 373.37 feet thence South deflecting left 90 degrees a distance of 108 feet; thence East deflecting left 90 degrees a distance of 373.37 feet to the center line of said Marvin
Road; thence North, along said center line, a distance of 108 feet to the point of beginning.
WHICH LIES southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northwest Comer of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence South 00 degrees 12 minutes 57 seconds West,
assumed bearing along the West line thereof, 548.14 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be hereinafter described; thence easterly along a non-tangential curve, concave to the north, 177.43 feet,
having a radius of 496.00 feet, central angle of 20 degrees 29 minutes 46 seconds, chord bearing of South 80 degrees 50 minutes 17 seconds East and a chord distance of 176.49 feet thence North 88
degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds East, 235.25 feet to the westerly right of way line of Minnesota Street; thence North 84 degrees 59 minutes 04 seconds East, 33.03 feet to the center line of Minnesota
Street and said line there terminating.
CITY OF MONTICELLO PARCEL
That part of Lot A of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 11, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof, described as
follows: Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Lot A; thence East, along the North line of said Lot A, a distance of 407.67 feet to the center line of Marvin Road; thence South, along
said center line, deflecting' right 87 degrees, 34 minutes 45 seconds a distance of 361.82 feet to the point of beginning; thence West, deflecting right 90 degrees, a distance of 373.37 feet;
thence South deflecting left 90 degrees a distance of 350 feet; thence East deflecting left 90 degrees a distance of 373.37 feet to the center line of said Marvin Road; thence north, along said
center line, a distance of 350 feet to the point of beginning.
Subject to the right of way of said Marvin Road.
Except that part thereof described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Lot A; thence East along the North line of said Lot A, a distance of 407.67 feet to the center line of
said Marvin Road; thence South deflecting 87 degrees 34 minutes 45 seconds right along said center line, a distance of 361.82 feet to the point of beginning of the exception to be described;
thence West, deflecting right 90 degrees a distance of 373.37 feet; thence South deflecting left 90 degrees a distance of 108 feet; thence East deflecting left 90 degrees a distance of 373.37
feet to the center line of said Marvin Road; thence North, along said center line, a distance of 108 feet to the point of beginning.
WHICH LIES northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the Northwest Comer of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence South 00 degrees 12 minutes 57 seconds West,
assumed bearing along the West line thereof, 548.14 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be hereinafter described; thence easterly along a non-tangential curve, concave to the north, 177.43 feet,
having a radius of 496.00 feet, central angle of 20 degrees 29 minutes 46 seconds, chord bearing of South 80 degrees 50 minutes 17 seconds East and a chord distance of 176.49 feet thence North 88
degrees 54 minutes 50 seconds East, 235.25 feet to the westerly right of way line of Minnesota Street; thence North 84 degrees 59 minutes 04 seconds East, 33.03 feet to the center line of Minnesota
Street and said line there terminating.
Have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as GREAT RIVER ADDITION, and do hereby dedicate to the public for public use the public ways and drainage and utility �e
easements as created by this plat.
In witness whereof said RiverWood Bank, fka First Federal Savings Bank, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer
this L day of , 20 -La-.
Keva orenson (Regional President)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this AL- day of DO [Illi &A .201.3, by Kevan Sorenson, Regional President of said RiverWood Bank, fka First
Federal Savings Bank.
Notary Public,1AM4C44n lrL County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires -4 A --o
V0 San LAA3dPP—
Printed name
DAArlemc AeAr-
In witness whereof the City of Monticello, a Minnesota municipal corporation under the laws of the State of Minnesota, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officers
this "�Ih day of ']era vm 13vt , 20 1 '6.
Clint Herbst (Mayor)
Jeff e' (City Administrator)
n
STATE OF MINNESOTA y�
COUNTY OF &%.:rJ&
t r r
n s a�D -t°o
U- q��� A�lin}•}kX►.xi-, Mayer and oc{�' D Ntill, Ci•ly AoIh,11 i -r
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -&hday of Y2096 'st &0 , 201,5, by the City of Monticello, a Minnesota municipal corporation under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
ignature e/
Notary Publicshm&a.tt� County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires
r r
Printed name
I Kyle L. Klasen do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this
plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have
been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate
are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat.
Dated this Z5 day of 41C MID?- , 20-!2—
.
Kyle L. Klasen, Licensed Land Surveyor
Minnesota License No. 44606
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
The foregoinZ.&D
or's Certificate was acknowledged before me this 9 day of , 20J-5,- by Kyle L. Klasen, Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 44606
L.•LzAt% .
Signatu Printed narhe
Notary lic,� lU ffil " County, Minnesota �.J
My Commission Expiift—MAj_
PLANNING COMMISSION
This plat of GREAT RIVER ADDITION was approved and accepted in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Section 505.03 Subd 2, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota ata meeting held this 0!�-- day of Nee b9le , 20,#—S.
jarae��i
Bill Spa (Chairma )
CITY COUNCIL
This plat of GREAT RIVER ADDITION was approved and accepted in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Section 505.03 Subd 2, by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota
at a meeting held this '%Ya- day of '110&&srh 6A , 20 l3 .
Clint -Herbst (Mayor)
Jeff OTWJPft Administrator)
WRIGHT COUNTY SURVEYOR
I hereby certify that in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 11, this plat has been reviewed and approved this 2hdday of h3er_em �(, 20-U.
"4 i J • �aYf.e._ . ,
Wright County SurveydY
WRIGHT COUNTY AUDITOR
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 272.12, there are no delinquent taxes on the land hereinbefore desdtibed on this plat and transfer entered this 9" day of Q e Ltw�be r-
Wright County Auditor
By:
Deputy
WRIGHT COUNTY TREASURER
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.021, Subd. 9, taxes payable for the year 2013 on the land hereinbefore described have been paid this 3L day of �)e-eP-wtber• , 201L
1
Wright County Treasurer.
By:
Deputy
WRIGHT COUNTY RECORDER
I hereby certify that this instrument was filed in the office of the County Recorder for record on thisirr4 day 20-L-3, at 1;k DOt o'dodc P M. and was duly
rgcorded in Cabinet No. 'I Sleeve a 094 , as Document No. 1253SOM
01J FILt: by P. CITY OF /�OA)TIC�l„d 0
WSB
Associamr, Inc.
1 ENGINEERING 9 PLANNING r CONSTRUCTION
451op0 TAJVohr✓I<
SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS
■
ooplurtG PA.0#T
GREAT RIVER ADDITION /
0 �� NORTHEAST CORNER NORTHEAST 1/4
SOUTHEAST I/4 SECTION 5 -- ------------------------------------------
43.
---------_ _
TOWNSHIP 121, RANGE 25 --1 - 7
43.05 / 1
� 1
NORTHWEST CORNER NORTHWEST 1/4
I\ SO�STIM RANGEON 11 --� i i
A�jphh ' I \\ \\ 11 ; 1 i 2 i I 3 i 4 i I 5 ., 6 T
a ,
o�p�1` i I NORTH UNE OF THE NORTH I2 SOUTHEAST I/4 \\ 1\ L---L---I `---J,y-) `---L---I----L---1' ,� /
SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 121, RANGE 25 1 y; ••
-ELM STREET % \\ 11 NORTHWEST NORTHLINEOFLOTA-7
F_ CORNEROFLOTA 407.67 (RECORD) / ' 100 I I "
S88050'00"E / 681.38 \1
407. 54
I f- �
---- I
3a 1 i I 30 FOOT UT7LITYE4SEMENT DOC. #561692 --1------
638.33 \ R
-- 30 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT DOC. #561892 --
54.34 ---- --1�--------------------�--/ i \\ \---NNOO nONNEOFTHE
NORTHWEST
E2 �!
N45°09'18„E --------------------------------------------------�
RAN
t-----------------=------------- 1--- ---------------------------------------
y(�� �\ _`i'➢ ,<--- =R=1037.34 LOT A--------------------------------------�f---
I I 33 33 '�#p `L�\i�=04°48'02" II,N06°43'02"E L=86.91 ------------------ `----
\ I( 12 FOOTDRA/NAGE AND U17LITY ------I37.69 --- ' OUTLOT A A(EASEMENT DOC.#,567618�-----------------------------------------------------------=---------
,�---12FOOTDR41NAGE AND UTILITY , ,EASEMENT DOC. #587618 @ i I WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 I , 0 1 i
RA/NAGEANO UTILITYEASEMENT I Q
�c OVERALL OF OUTLOT A) I OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 SECTION 11 /
N46016'20"W i ; T WNSH/P121,RANGE25
14.40
\♦ `♦ •7•:•( (: • s ..:. : .: : •. t•• ':'I I::' ':: i'1't t� • a.: ;•: a I---- PO --- In W
♦ L
\ _: DOC #795345
- CENTERLINE MINNESOTA STREET , M
VICINITY MAP �` ..:_.:: :.:; ::::::= .'i.::i:•::• `•'':. ». .:z. # 9 N CENTERLINEMARVINROAD I I in
NOINITYMT TO LE 3� \` ` ♦ QR•g16 i I o EASTLINEOFLOTAOFTHENORTHWEST--4- �� C4N
9 I 0 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 ' rn m
,�O --'� \ \�%%y ``` (`2g 1327„ LOT C I 0 1 I <C "I N v
LOT B ,� 53.14 \` S `♦ i 1 i i� Mo
N85009'10"W �� \` ��% ♦ ` N87°11'47"W 4R'9g I I--EASTLINENORTHEAST 114OFTHE SOUTHEAST 114 , VI
p`v i \♦ `� ♦ 30.00 (� 900 •00 ' I o SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 121, RANGE 25
C.` C 6 7„ ------------------- u
��•� I`t9. `♦ `♦ `1.3g 67o t^� :a'i• :::.. ... ... .. •.. ... .:: �:.. i sC I
05,33 W m 2 # R I ( I
�a 353 sD°D \ S�EFT N WU O " 6 i i - r.. .. F i i I ( '
0 \ 8R .5733„ ¢p F .: _. S E e:S:. _: '?: ,I+
O�1 \ C.c3 S
-'V66
6609 \.\♦ ♦\ _---_ ld•'l9/6 I co �a I I 28.44
` ?K I NO2°33' 36"W
o \ 3 6.3 30.00�ti C `J 90 •0 0�
i �h \ O"/y �N87 11'47"W .` QC 1 s N -iz - 373.37 (RECORD) -
o (,.e93920 I �o Z------------376_69-------------------�9��0 0
-- NORTHWEST LINE OF LOT C OF THE `
In , ----- I o9 0
NORTH 12 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 \.\ ` ` QR q l0 0 I q2. SS6 i , L9 oPO� I c o� m / // / CEN //NE MINNESOTA STREET
289 12 S0. > j , I 1 �O I 0 / �/ CENTERUNE MARVIN ROAD
•12 0 SO,, e 01 \!F /� /I /---EASTLINEOFLOTAOFTHE
28 h6 �� /` 0'01 33 00 I / j NORTHWEST I/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST I/4
' AoQ LOT C ` 3,23 7005 ¢� Iml OUTLOT C -- I �. / I
° j K �� I o l \\ T Vii----------------------------
SOUTH UNE OF PARCEL - N89 55'19"W O /
4 DOC. #A 1224384 - - - -------- -- 137.25 '1 I / 9 0 „ 1373.34 / I h...... -01' • _ _ _ --------------------
- „ 1 9 -_ _ _ ------ --
DOC. 34 40 E I
-----------�--- f1�� �� I 111E 1 ti L Ii_v
--------\ v 4-L�-- 340.33 28.03-6 33 W
33 i DOR7HLI224386 RCELC --� (_'130 .p0-�'\-`-`- / 1 --� v I I -- R 416. 233.65 588°54'50-W _-- - m Y /
DOC.#A1224388 C, 8,9 832 �-�---- 1 21.25�\� ' 1 \\ 4_14°59,17" M ��.
�i 0 108.8---- 441.39 (RECORD) o M
C.,Iv. H6 / --;-- �- - - M p - 7TH STREET t` -507 31
q8 80l)
e.;..:•<•.:,. - /i / - c�202S0 9o9 r67.34 _ o -
a
C (?60 t'26 77H STREET 1001, 59
03 "'v N 0NBc 0=17.69J5. 42.84 33 a L=9
.
= ---- -�:_� Q€_ - ------ S89 44 23"W (PLAT)--
r..
%.'•'c / 22„ / 1 496.00 ° I / v \ 26- - - _2_67_._81_ _( P_
LAT ) I
4 54 5 / \i\ o
3 .25 N88 \ -�-
r
IND UTILITY EAE / j o L=2jo 346" Via I `33.04 / I
AND UTILITY EASEMENT---/ / 1 7?q 33.03 �f 3 33 I \� EXISTlNG12'DRA/NAGE-
\ ^'` r: r.•
DOC, #567618 89°52'18" vro C'BRG.=5800 N84°59'04"E - I AND UTIUTYEASEMENT I
DEFLECTION - Wo 77 50.17„ �__=
iz. _ .-. (RECORD) 100 u 6.49 E I NO2°33'36"W 1
•:ri•ii ••: •. I o Ww to
\ 1 51.22 _ I
r I ESTERLYRIG T FWAYLINE ' :: , sr.n-•:•-::::
.;•..•`•.•.», mo OF STREET
(PLAT) :._. .: ..... .:. ..»...._._....
.<: •.
-- : / 1
to
(,76 SI '•; .f I ( •' 51.26 (PLAT)
928., OUTLOT 8
m l r l i :luts::4
NO3°04'19"W (P
_ m 1 � �P♦c- �o m � I � I
I, J IOC i 1
IZ? `9, : i t : In 1 1 O --------� Nl 1 :p n•
`eD4 SS 36„ \ \----=-----------370.71 ---- WO
+ { 0 373.37 (RECORD) x2 _ I e t[1 I W a
iF 0 COO
Jacm
Lu
~� Z I' j WN
Zo WN 0 I w LOT 1 LOT 2
loI
E)OSTINGWDRAINAGE
tM AND UT/LITYEASEMENT-- -Co
o I tM0
1192.
1 82.98
a i to
1 I
EXISTING 12'DRA/NAGE
YNJ
ANDUTIL/TYEASEMENT
DRA/NAGEAND UIIUTYEASEMENTS ARE SHOASTHUS
: 'i3 r I
i N7 023 I 3 341 ' Ij I
I5 161,1
I
- - / • - - EASEMENT I
--12 / \� - j -M DRA/NAGEAND U77UUTyF
12-,
I I \ NORTHEASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY UNE INTERSTATE 94--- �- \
-��--�- r `-40.29
I
-_ 87) 96 fP�A7j(P(AT) ----__-- r �
BEING 12 FEET /N WID7HAND AD/OINING LOTUNES N79e
UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE ON THE PLAT \ _ - \ I 45 9 27„w �-34.48
- - -
,� 153-94 _
53N80091 19"N (PLAT
0
01
r, ■
NR/GHT COUN7YMONUMENT
THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 SOUTHEAST
�,`-
I
9 (PLAT) )
1/4 SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 121, RANGE 25
FDUNDMONuMENT
IS ASSUMED -TO BEAR S 88050'00"E
O ImWPIPEkWWPLAS77C
-__--
___-- DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT
1
CAPSTAMPED(4MM
--- -- EXISTING ROAD RIGHT OF WAY
I -�
(RECOfiD)-/a3'AI M, NO A1224 INDOLE NO. A12243(WI,
NO. A1224981, NO. Af22198f� N0.527'Srf
1 INCH = 80 FEET - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING EASEMENT
I \
-
(PL47) -FIBERS TO Dv®VSIONSIN DOC . NO. A1224M
0 40 80 180 240 320 400
PLS LINES
1
; SOUTHWEST CORNER `
WSB
------------------------
PARCEL LINE
1 NORTHWEST 1/4 SOUTHWEST 1/4
_
-SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 121, RANGE 25 `
-
_ `
\
\ L
do Amociagm, Inc.
- '
INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING i PLANNING CONSTRUCTION
SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
Open Space
--
Increased open space areas per unit
beyond code minimums of 10% or
more
Parking
--
All required garage parking attached
to principal building
Building Materials
Increased use of stone, brick beyond
Increased use of stone, brick beyond
front, or on other exterior walls
front, or on other exterior walls
Architecture
Extensive use of ornamental
Extensive use of ornamental
features, building and/or roofline
features, building and/or roofline
articulation, fenestration and
articulation, fenestration and
building wall undulation atypical of
building wall undulation atypical of
other buildings in similar zoning
other buildings in similar zoning
districts
districts
Site Work
Use of decorative paving materials in
Use of decorative paving materials in
parking, sidewalks, etc.; Extensive
parking, sidewalks, etc.;
use of ornamental site lighting or
Extensive use of ornamental site
similar features.
lighting or similar features.
Housing for Seniors
Accommodations to design and
Accommodations to design and
restricted to 55 years of age
density through PUD process only
density through PUD process only
or more
(1) Medium -High Density Residence District (R-4). 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 ten 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. This district is intended to provide exclusively multiple -
family housing as defined in this chapter, as opposed to lower density housing types
such as townhouses, two-family homes, or single-family homes. 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:
(1) Replacement land uses. R-4 zoning fits the following zoning categories and
circumstances:
(a) Land already zoned for R-3 — Medium Density Residential District
(b) Land currently zoned for commercial uses, but which would not be
considered "prime" commercial and critical to "Successful Commercial Centers and
Corridors" consistent with the City's 2040 Vision + Plan.
(2) Proximity to other residential neighborhoods.
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(3) Architectural compatibility and building massing.
(a) 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.
(4) Requirement for adequate public facilities. High density residential development
shall be located to provide for the following essential services and amenities:
(a) 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.
(b) Connection to public utilities.
(c) Access to major streets, or at the very minimum, avoidance of traffic
generation that would utilize local streets in lower density residential areas.
(d) Proximity to commercial and/or medical services.
(5) Minimum and maximum density: 10 units minimum — 25 dwelling units
maximum per acre.
TABLE 3-9: R-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
R-4 District Multi -Family (13+ units/building)
Base Lot Area
30,000 sf.
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 ROW
60 feet
Clear open space setback from Property Line
40 feet - no more than 50% of any yard facing a street
covered with parking/drive aisles
Buffer Req. to Single-family
C buffer
Common open space per du
500 sf/du
Landscaping
2 ACU 2,500 sf. open space + 4 shrubs /10 feet bldg.
perimeter
Parking requirements
1.2 spaces/bedroom, 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
800 sf. Minimum finished floor area per unit average, with
no more than 10% of the units as studio units.
Garages
Attached or Underground Detached accessory garages
allowed only after base requirements are met; requires
authorization through Conditional Use Permit
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
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 to 55 years of
Accommodations to design and density through PUD
age or more
process only
INTRODUCTION
The Land Use, Growth and Orderly Annexation Chapter outlines the goals, policies
and land use strategy that will guide future land use development and decision-
making in the community as well as in the Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA). The
MOAA is included in this land use plan to help plan for and ensure orderly and
efficient growth, and to protect and maintain the MOAA until that growth occurs.
This Chapter also serves to inform other aspects and chapters of the Comprehensive
Plan, including transportation and mobility, housing, community facilities and parks
and open space. Overall, the Future Land Use Plan will help define the pattern
and location of development in the City for the next 20 years. Monticello desires a
balanced land use pattern to ensure a stable and growing tax base that promotes
economic diversity and resiliency to changes in the local, regional, state and
national economy.
The Future Land Use Plan describes a strategic, recommended pattern of land
uses in the City and MOAA. The strategy also emphasizes the improvement and
enhancement of Monticello's downtown and surrounding traditional neighborhood
blocks, the repositioning of the City's commercial areas to take advantage of
emerging economic opportunities, and the diversification of the tax base through
ongoing economic development efforts that promote job growth and expand existing
employment centers. The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) illustrates land use planning
according to specific land use categories.
In addition, this Chapter is an important tool for achieving Monticello's environmental
sustainability and public health goals. Specific policies and strategies are included
that advance an efficient land use and transportation pattern to reduce greenhouse
gases and promote clean air and water, provide new mobility options, support local
businesses, and is accessible and inclusive of persons of all ages, races and physical
capabilities. This Chapter supports goals for economic sustainability consistent with
the Economic Development Chapter. This Chapter also integrates transportation
strategies recommended in the Mobility and Connectivity Chapter with an aim
toward implementing a complete multi -modal transportation system. This Chapter
introduces concepts that reinforce goals and strategies for other chapters of
the Monticello 2040 Plan, including Parks, Pathways and Open Space and
Community Character.
TABLE 31- EXISTING LAND USEACREAGES (WITHIN CITYBOUNDARIES)
CategoriesLand Use
Acreage
Residential
(Single -Family, Twin and Townhomes, Multi -Family, Manufactured)
3,479
Agriculture
1,078
Vacant (Only Commercial and Industrial Designated Land)
1,112
Infrastructure (Railway, ROW, Utility)
465
Open Space (Natural Resources, Parks and Open Space)
457
Commercial
425
Industrial
194
Source: City of Monticello Geographic Information System (GIS) 2019 Existing Land Use Data
Downtown Monticello Looking East on West Broadway Street
48 LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
DEVELOPMENT RESERVE
A Development Reserve land use designation applies to a significant portion of the
Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA). The Development Reserve includes
3,100 acres on the Future Land Use Map. The purpose of this designation is to
serve as a growth reserve that maintains lands for agricultural, rural residential or
other similar permitted uses until such time those lands are developed for other
uses. Future uses could include residential, commercial or industrial development.
As described previously, the Development Reserve is a long-term tertiary growth
objective for the City. Future development and change of use would require a
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATIONS
Monticello has approximately 3,484 acres of land currently used for residential
purposes. The majority of this land, 3,127 acres or roughly 90%, is developed with
single-family homes. The remaining 357 acres accommodates a limited variety of
attached single- and multi -family housing types, including townhomes, duplexes,
multi -story apartment buildings, and manufactured homes.
There are approximately 4,496 acres of land designated for residential use on
the Future Land Use Map, including 3,374 acres for single-family homes and
1,122 acres for a variety of mixed and multi -family style housing types. This
acreage is projected to accommodate the existing uses and future anticipated
housing needs in the City over the next twenty years consistent with the Primary
Growth Strategy. This acreage does not include the 49 acres of Downtown Mixed -
Use and 174 acres of Commercial/Residential Flex (both described in the following
section on commercial land use) which also have potential to contain future
residential development.
The Future Land Use Plan establishes six different residential designations to
achieve a variety of housing and neighborhood character that differ between
housing type, scale and form, and density. Three designations allow and
encourage a range of new single-family, multi -family and mixed housing types
and densities. The purpose of the residential designations is to characterize and
preserve neighborhoods, promote a range of housing types and housing stock
diversity, continue to provide areas for single-family homes, and encourage the
infill development of small -lot single-family homes, townhomes, condominiums,
senior housing and mixed or alternative styles of multi -family development.
TABLE 3.2: FUTURE LAND USE RESIDENTIAL ACREAGES
CategoriesLand Use
ag
Estate Residential
1,102
Low -Density Residential
2,198
Traditional Residential
74
Mixed Neighborhood
635
Mixed -Density Residential
348
Manufactured Home
135
Low -Density
There is ample available land that could be developed for low-density, single-
family residential uses and create new neighborhoods. Two land uses, Estate
Residential and Low -Density Residential, will guide new single-family residential
neighborhoods in the City. By 2040, the Comprehensive Plan envisions low density
single-family uses and conservation style development in these areas of the City
and contiguous to the MOAA. Generally, an average density of 4 housing units per
acre characterizes single-family neighborhoods but these areas could likely be
developed between 3-6 units per acre depending on utility infrastructure, sensitive
natural resources, conservation style development, developer preferences and
project specifics. Other types of single-family housing styles, including small -lot
development and attached single-family homes is encouraged in this and other
residential land use designations.
Eastwood Knoll Residential Property, Source: City of Monticello
56 LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION
The Missing Middle Housing consists of multi-
unit housing types such as duplexes, fourplexes,
bungalow courts, and mansion apartments no bigger
than a large house, These housing types are often
integrated into blocks with primarily single-family
homes, provide diverse housing choices and generate
enough density to support transit and locally -serving
commercial amenities. Although many of these are
a common feature in pre-war building stocks, these
housing types have become much less common.
Ul—K -
wNN V5E
cOURTVARD euNGnLau ccvRT
TWPLEx/ APARTMENT`
DE.AcwED .. D1P�" rcuRP�Ex Hp1,I51NG-----------
MI551NG MIDDLE
Source: Opticos Design, Inc.
Traditional Residential and Mixed Neighborhood
Two new designations have been applied to both older and newer areas of
the City in effort to capture correlating neighborhood types and compatibility
with existing uses while allowing opportunities for development, improvement
and growth. The existing neighborhoods surrounding and emanating from
the downtown are designated as Mixed Neighborhood to recognize this area's
potential for additional density and mixed housing types with neighborhood scaled
commercial uses and services. Commercial uses are considered minor and are
only intended for small, neighborhood serving uses. They should only be located
on minor arterials or higher street classification. There may be other locations
appropriate for these designations.
A smaller Traditional Neighborhood designation has been applied to portions of
the riverfront and properties along River Street and Broadway Avenue where the
street network and land parcels similar to older, traditional neighborhoods with
residential -scaled streets, sidewalks, large street trees and mature housing stock.
Mixed -Density Residential
A Mixed -Density Residential designation encourages a wide range of housing
types, densities and residential development between 8-25 dwelling units per
acre. This designation applies primarily along the 7th Street corridor, south
along State Highway 25, and other pockets of the City where higher densities
and mixed housing types is encouraged, such as near the Downtown. The broad
density range promotes a wide variety of housing types including small lot
single-family, apartments, condominiums, and townhomes. This designation
may be allowed in proximity to other medium to high density residential areas,
however the nature and concentration of existing residential uses shall be
carefully considered to avoid an over concentration of these uses. For example,
there may be some locations more appropriate for small -lot single family
development, and others where a four-story multi -family building is the best
choice. This will be determined by the parcel size, surrounding land uses, and the
existing form and scale of the neighborhood. In locations where the Mixed -Density
Residential designation is applied adjacent to the low-density residential uses,
new residential development should be of similar mass, scale and architectural
character to existing neighborhoods.
Manufactured Home
Two manufactured home neighborhoods exist in Monticello. These include the
West Side Park and River Terrace along River Street and Kjellberg's Manufactured
Home Park along State Highway 25 in the southern part of the City. The intent of
the designation is to recognize and maintain these neighborhoods as locations for
manufactured housing types.
MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 57
TABLE 3.7 FUTURE LAND USE ACREAGES
Note: This acreage includes both developed and undeveloped land within the City and MOAA.
MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 63
COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL FLEX (CRF)
The purpose of the Commercial Residential Flex designation is to provide limited locations where commercial and residential uses may be allowed and located in close proximity to
each other. Mixed-use buildings are typically not appropriate in this designation although they may be considered at discretion of the City. Rather, the intent is to provide locations
where a range of compatible uses can be established close to one another. This is a hybrid designation that allows a range of uses including residential, professional office,
personal and professional services, hotels, retail and restaurants, entertainment uses and educational services. The goal is to create an urban mix of uses
and provide the opportunity for inventive, flexible development standards characteristic of an urban lifestyle center.
Commercial
• Office/Retail
• Professional Service
• Restaurants
• Hotels
• Entertainment
Residential
• Mixed -Density
Residential
• Senior Living
Facility
Public/institutional
• Educational Centers
Recreational
• Plaza
• Public Space
• Parks/Playgrounds
Primary Mode
Vehicular with
access to collectors
and arterials
Transit or
shuttle service
Secondary Mode
Pedestrian -friendly
streetscape
Bicycle facilities
and parking
• PUD Standards
• Density
(Low to High
Density Residential)
• Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
0.30-0.50
'♦1 2018 Correlating
J Zoning District
PUD
Planned Unit
Development
MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 79
CITY OF
MONTICELLO
Housing Needs &
Market Demand
Executive Summary
Mo ce noOF
GENERAL HOUSING CONDITIONS
ABOUT THE MONTICELLO HOUSING
MARKET:
Monticello has several strengths as a community
that drive the housing market - it is well
positioned within the region with easy access to
transportation, has amenities that attract a wide
range of household types, and - especially when
compared to the larger Metro - many housing
options that are relatively more affordable.
Though Monticello has housing that is relatively
affordable when considering incomes for the
larger region, overall incomes for residents of
the City are less than in studied regional peer
communities, Wright County, and the 1 1 -County
Metro. But there are differences between
income by tenure (rent vs. own). In the ownership
market, many homes that would be considered
"affordable" to moderate -income residents are
disproportionately purchased by households with
that can easily afford them - spending much less
than they could potentially afford. This indicates
that these households are actively seeking out
housing that is extremely affordable to them - as
they have the choice to purchase in other areas,
but are attracted to the City for its combination
of amenities and affordability. Even with these
existing homes, values and costs of housing have
been increasing quickly, doubling in value since
2010, with cost per square foot increasing more
quickly than regional peer communties.
For renters who are residents of the City, most
are much lower-income than their owner
counterparts. Through this study, residents
frequently discussed two disparate themes -
one that there is a perception of an excess of
affordable housing in the City, the other being that
there is a lack of affordable housing that needs to
be addressed through new development. Data
for the City implies a middleground: there are
many units with rents between what would be
colloquially considered "affordable" and "luxury"
rental housing. In general, rents are increasing
in line with incomes - though there are many
major occupation groups with incomes that do
not support the levels of rent that exist in the City.
Overall, the City could add up to 265 income -
restricted units that would serve residents already
living in the City that don't currently have access
to housing affordable to them. Overall, vacancy
in the market is tight and decreasing. Bringing
new units online can help to relax the tension and
increasing cost in the market, but new units are
needed that serve residents of all incomes, not
solely low- or high-income households.
Though the City does not act as a master
developer of housing, housing supply that meets
the needs of local employers and employees
should remain a top consideration in zoning
updates, regulation and fees, and providing
incentive to increase specific types of housing
stock, whether entry-level or step-up.
GENERAL CONDITIONS IMPACTING THE
HOUSING MARKET:
• Recent increase in average household size
indicates more households with young children
(p• 6)
• Aging households are the fastest increasing
demographic since 2010 (p. 7)
• Aging households will be a significant portion
of households through 2050 (p. 10)
• Households with children will continue to
increase, driving need for larger units (p. 10)
• Monticello residents have lower average
incomes compared to peer communities
(p. 11)
• Monticello residents have lower degrees of
educational attainment compared to the
County (p. 12)
• Common occupation groups in the City
indicate a need for affordable housing,
especially for entry-level positions (p. 14)
• Large shares of residents (42% as of 2015)
commute into metro counties daily for work.
Forty-eight percent of survey respondents
indicated Twin Cities or a suburb as place of
employment (p. 15)
• Housing unit production has not kept pace
with new households moving to the area,
decreasing vacancy and increasing cost
(p. 17)
City of Monticello Housing Needs and Demand
OWNER 8c RENTAL FINDINGS
MAJOR OWNERSHIP MARKET FINDINGS
• Though the majority of ownership housing is
single-family detached, there are also many
attached ownership units (p. 48)
• Owners make up a smaller portion of the
overall housing market than in most regional
communities (p. 50)
• The majority of owners in Monticello (53%)
have incomes above the median for the
entire Metro region ($103,400 in 2020) (p. 51)
• Most homeowners can comfortably afford
their current housing costs (p. 55)
• There is an ample supply of homes affordable
to households at 50% AMI - though 4 out of 5
are owned by higher -income households (p.
55)
• Though affordable homes exist in the market,
residents still identified the largest negative
aspect of the market as lack of affordability,
with more than half of survey respondents
indicating that affordable housing is
becoming harder to find (p. 55)
• There are generally more affordable
ownership opportunities in the city core,
though attached ownership units are
affordable in many areas (p. 57)
• Many households are remaining in their
housing longer than the 7 -year national
average (p. 58)
• Since 2014, home costs have drastically
outpaced income growth, reducing
affordability and access for potential
homebuyers (p. 59)
• The median home cost has more than
doubled since 2010 (p. 59)
• Cost per square foot has increased more in
Monticello than in peer communities studied
(p. 60)
• The median starter home in the City is
approximately affordable to households
earning 80% AMI and above (p. 61)
• Monticello has the current highest Sales:List
price ratio among peer communities (p. 65)
• There is an opportunity for missing middle
townhouse redevelopment in the core city
(p. 67)
MAJOR RENTAL MARKET FINDINGS:
• There is good geographic distribution of
rental units throughout the City (p. 26)
• Renter households have been increasing
slightly as a total percentage of City
households since 2010 (p. 29)
• Lower-income households are much more
likely to be renters (p. 29)
• Rental housing in the City is easily accessible
within the region, with good access and
amenities (p. 30)
• Monticello has the 2nd highest rate of renter
households among peer communities
studied (p. 30)
• Rates of cost burden is much higher for renter
than owner households (p. 31)
• There are significant housing gaps at both
the top and bottom of the rental housing
market (low- and high-cost) (p. 32)
• There is a lack of units appropriately priced
for low-income households already living
in the City (265 units), indicating need for
subsidized, income -restricted units (p. 32)
• Most renters that are housing cost burdened
pay more than 50% of their income toward
housing costs (p. 33)
• There are very few rental options in 2-4 unit
structures in the City (p. 36)
• New units are needed to bring the vacancy
rate back to healthy and balanced levels
(p. 39)
• 3+ bedroom units will be needed at all price
points for projected household growth (p. 40)
• Fiber internet is a key rental amenity that
is attractive to households throughout the
region (p. 41)
• Housing subsidies (both local and state/
federal) will be needed to offset increasing
construction costs and ensure lower-income
households can afford rental costs (p. 44)
Executive Summary
4
UNIT DEMAND
This study projects the need for net new housing of various types through 2025, including units to
accomodate growth and units to restore healthy vacancy rates. Two growth scenarios are offered -
above (2.4%) and below (1.7%) Monticello 2040 projections.
New
- Housing Demand
-
New Affordable
93 units
New Mid -Level
75 units
New High Market
19 units
Demand
Demand
Demand
Additional Need for
52 units
Additional Need for
32 units
Additional Need for
19 units
Vacancy
Vacancy
Vacancy
Total Affordable
145 units
Total Mid -Level Need
107 units
Total High Marker
38 units
Need
Need
Total Unit Need = 290 units
New
- D-
-
New Affordable
127 units
New Mid -Level
102 units
New High Market
25 units
Demand
Demand
Demand
Additional Need for
54 units
Additional Need for
34 units
Additional Need for
20 units
Vacancy
Vacancy
Vacancy
Total Affordable
181 units
Total Mid -Level Need
136 units
Total High Market
45 units
Need
lNeed
L
AL
Total Unit Need = 362 units
Unit need is also calculated for senior and aging households as part of this study. Due to Monticello's
amenities within the region, slightly higher rates of in -migration are projected for senior households. All
demand calculations and recommendations are found on pages 96-108 of the full study.
City of Monticello
Housing Needs and Demand
Properties for Sale I Guided Commercial
community.development@ci.monticello.mn.us 1763.295.2711
Updated December 2022
CITY OF
Monticello
1
155-248-001030
J X Bowers LLC
8.02
$372
IBC
2
155-248-001020
J X Bowers LLC
4.98
$258
IBC
3
155-248-001010
J X Bowers LLC
4.96
$256
IBC
4
155-125-000070
Ocello LLC
12.96
$6,514
B-3
5
155-151-003010
Bradley & Sharon Larson
1.78
$3,544
B-4
6
155-157-001010
Steven & Deborah Muth
1.55
$7,904
B-4
7
155-174-001010
Steven & Deborah Muth
0.9
$5,634
B-4
8
155-151-004010
Ohana Properties Family LP
0.57
$3,172
B-4
9
155-189-001010
Steven & Deborah Muth
2.99
$19,454
B-4
10
155-260-001020
Krishna LLC
2.01
$4,690
B-4
11
155-260-001010
Krishna LLC
2.57
$4,904
B-4
12
155-164-000030
City of Monticello
7.02
$0
B-4
13
155-164-000040
City of Monticello
6.14
$0
B-4
14
155-176-001020
Robbins Living Trust
2.7
$0
B-4
15
155-269-000010
Ocello LLC
20.82
$0
PCD
16
155-227-000010
Ocello LLC
9.61
$7,656
PCD
17
155-230-000010
City of Monticello
35.69
$24,028
PCD
18
155-500-142303
City of Monticello
2.98
$0
PCD
19
155-500-142300
City of Monticello
3.75
$0
PCD
20
155-265-000010
Deephaven Development LLC
6.95
$0
PCD
21
155-079-001010
Jyoti R Patel
0.79
$2,282
B-3
22
155-029-002050
Nuvision Management LLC
2.75
$5,348
IBC
23
155-226-000020
Riverwood Bank
20.17
$67,550
B-3
24
155-083-001040
GGH Enterprises LLC
1.01
$2,820
B-3
25
155-083-001030
GGH Enterprises LLC
0.31
$1,442
B-3
26
155-083-001021
GGH Enterprises LLC
0.16
$25,500
B-3
27
155-241-002010
Venturian Holdings LLC Etal
2.39
$18,990
PUD
28
155-241-000010
Venturian Holdings LLC Etal
2.34
$18,670
PUD
29
155-011-000101
Monticello Industrial Park Inc
4.76
$3,032
IBC
30
155-011-000111
Monticello Industrial Park Inc
7.76
$5,786
IBC
31
155-011-000171
Monticello Industrial Park Inc
10.5
$10,689
IBC
32
155-011-000171
Monticello Industrial Park Inc
17.8
$14,123
B-2
33
155-215-002010
Church of St Henry of Monti MN
2.04
$0
B-4
34
155-212-001020
McDonald's USA LLC
1.22
$27,644
B-4
35
155-212-001030
RGC-Monticello MN LLC
1.1
$11,574
B-4
36
155-178-002030
RGC-Monticello MN LLC
1.27
$14,914
B-4
37
155-229-001020
RGC-Monticello MN LLC
0.66
$6,978
B-4
38
155-037-001010
Kean of Monticello Inc
1.92
$7,830
B-2
39
155-037-001030
Deborah Dahlheimer Rev Trust
0.39
$2,034
B-2
40
155-205-001020
RGC-Monticello MN LLC
0.93
$10,564
B-4
41
155-214-001010
PRC Acquisitions VI LLC
1.01
$4,062
B-4
42
155-214-001020
PRC Acquisitions VI LLC
2.38
$5,718
B-4
43
155-117-001030
Kwik Trip Inc
2.23
$13,536
B-2
44
155-257-001010
Mivva LLC
0.99
$1,574
B-2
45
155-011-000010
Steven G. & Thomas E. Hoglund
3.16
$5,704
B-2
46
155-247-001020
Ryan Buffalo Land Company LLC
4.94
$55,276
B-3
47
155-271-000030
Gold Nugget Dev. Inc
88.97
TBD
IBC
AGENDA
6-6-23
PC & CC Joint Meeting
Questions for Discussion
1. How can we help Monticello be proactive and transition to the new housing
supply needs due to Interest rate increases in the housing market? (3.0%-
5.5%)
Supporting documentation 2020 Market Study Recap Pre-Covid
Ownership monthly payment PITI $3000 vs $2000 33% purchase power lost.
(Average sales price $375,000 zero down @ 6.5%(3%) = $2370 P&I-PMI $100, $303 Property
taxes & $131 HI
Total payment $2,904 plus garbage, water/sewer/heat $3000 Plus maintenance & Cap x. $3000
2. How can we help Monticello ensure that current & prospective residents
have enough rental housing options for the starter horse households that
can no longer afford home ownership knowing they occupy 57% of the
market?
Supporting documentation 2020 Market Study Recap Pre-Covid
Ownership Findings (Pg98) Households with children continue to increase, driving the
need for larger units
Common Occupation groups need for affordable housing.
Especially for entry level
Ownership Recommendations (Pg 99) Moderate income residents who previously have been able to
afford homeownership are now finding themselves being outpriced in the
competitive market.
3. How can we help Monticello plan for future 3 -bedroom units in the Market
rate & income restricted rental communities knowing that 42% of the most
common size is 3 -bedroom units in the owner occupied sector in which a
large percentage of them have been priced out of the market?
Supporting documentation 2020 Market Study Recap Pre-Covid
Ownership Findings (Pg98) Households with children continue to increase, driving the
need for larger units
Common Occupation groups need for affordable housing.
Especially for entry level
Ownership Recommendations (Pg 99) Moderate income residents who previously have been able
to afford homeownership are now finding themselves being
outpriced in the competitive market.
Mortgage Status (Pg 66) 69% of all owner -occupied homes are under the age of 55.
This is the largest portion of the ownership market.
Ownership housing size (Pg 68) 2 -person household size is the most common. Younger +
no kids. Starter home. 57% of the market. As these households
continue to undergo expansion, or changes in life circumstances,
they often look to move up into options that afford more space to
grow. This includes 3- & 4 -bedroom units as family sizes grow.
Most common bedroom size for owner occupied housing is in 3 -
bedroom units at 42%. Followed by 31% & 2 -bedroom units at
20%. Ownership housing often has
Local Impacts (Pg 79/83) Increased demand from In -Migration means that more
affordable options are needed to ensure current residents can
continue to call Monticello home.
Entry -Level Affordability (Pg 61) Households will be increasingly priced out of ownership
opportunities.
Rental Findings (Pg 104) Recent increase in avg household size indicates more
households with young children. 20-34 yrs old .97% (Pg7)
Aging households are the fastest increasing demographic since
2010.
Households with Children will continue to increase, driving need
for larger units. Decreasing vacancy rates. Based on lack of new
construction supply.
Rental Findings (Pg 104) Recent increase in avg household size indicates more
households with young children. 20-34 yrs old .97% (Pg7)
Aging households are the fastest increasing demographic since
2010.
4. How can we help Monticello fulfill accessibility options in Market Rate &
income restricted communities for the active family and active baby boom
generation that prefers to be in a Market Rate rental community vs a senior
rental community?
Supporting documentation 2020 Market Study Recap Pre-Covid
(Pg 104) What residents want.
• Affordable housing for those who work in the community, higher
amenity options to move up as income increases.
0 Larger units for families and/or spaces to have an office.
0 Ranges of housing types (Structures/Sizes) to provide a range of options.
® Need for income restricted units.
0 3+ bedroom units will be needed at all price points for projected
household growth.
0 Fiber internet is key.
Housing subsidies will be needed to offset high construction costs.
0 Accessibility
0 Roll in & Grab bars in all showers.
0 ADA Door Operators
0 ADA Toilets
5. How can we help Monticello prepare to accommodate & provide current &
prospective residents to have unique additional storage space and options
at home in Market rate & Income restricted rental communities knowing
this amenity is not available in current and proposed Rental space ? ex.
Work trucks & trailers, Recreational personal property such as Boats,
Trailers, Ice Castle fish houses/campers/Trucks/Classic
cars/snowmobiles/jet skis/Kayaks.
Supporting documentation 2020 Market Studv Recap Pre-Covid
(Pg 104) What residents want.
• Affordable housing for those who work in the community, higher
amenity options to move up as income increases.
• Larger units for families and/or spaces to have an office.
• Ranges of housing types (Structures/Sizes) to provide a range of
options.
• Need for income restricted units.
® 3+ bedroom units will be needed at all price points for projected
household erowth.
• Fiber internet is key.
• Housing subsidies will be needed to offset high construction costs.
1' MmIle Lacs Health System
Human Resources
3/7%22
22 Beechstone, #2,
Portsmouth, NH, 03801
Dear Dr.
� Js
We want to thank you for taking time to visit us at Mille Lacs Health System. We all have enjoyed our time getting
to know you. After speaking with everyone that you interviewed with, Mille Lacs Health System is delighted to
offer you the opportunity to join our medical staff. There are opportunities for your passion, growth and further
development here.
The offer is as follows, upon completion of facility due diligence, including the eligibility to work in the United
States:
Compensation MLHS agrees to pay the physician a salary base of $265,000 for Full Time, which
includes 4 days in clinic per week and hospitalist call rotation divided between
the other Family Medicine MDs and Hospitalists (which could be 3-6 shift per
month).
RVUs are currently at $50 and paid quarterly in accordance with the Company's
ordinary payroll policies and procedures.
Cost H -IB Visa MLHS agrees to legal costs and filing fees associated with applications and filing
for waivers, cap -exempt H-113 visa, 1-140 and green card (if still employed with
MLHS during the time next steps are required).
Sign -on Bonus MLHS agrees to pay a sign on bonus of up to $150,000, plus an additional
$30,000 as a gift for signing by May 1, 2022 with an agreed start date in August
of 2023. Under immigration rules, the gift would come on.the. first paycheck after
employment begins, in August of 2023.
This "bonus" is processed as a "note receivable" with some minimal interest.
Relocation MLHS agrees to pay relocation up to $10,000 if moving within the service area.
Live. Learn. Love what you do. Do it h-re_
Mille Lacs Health System 200 Elm Street North Onamia, MN 563591 Human Resources - Phone 320-532-2586
BARRIER -FREE SHOWER
ANS17-LS package
FLAT WALL ROLL -IN MODEL S H M D-6232
Rough -In Dimensions
62" wide x 33-1/4" deep x 76-1/2" high
Finished Dimensions
62" wide x 32" deep x 75-1/4" high
Unit Features
•
One - Piece Fiberglass Composite Construction
•
Sanitary Grade Polyester Gelcoat Surface
•
3-3/8" Dia. Center Drain (see reverse side for location)
•
3/4" Threshold for Unobstructed Entry
•
1" Floor Flange To Secure Unit Along Threshold
•
Elevated Back Wall Accessory Ledges
Home Innovation
•
Flat Wall Design To Accommodate Grab Bar & Seat Applications
LAB CERTIFIED,,
•
Textured Floor Pattern
Special Notes
•
Factory Applied Reinforcement Packages Available
•
Factory Applied Bar Configurations Available
•
Factory Applied ADA & ANSI Compliant Bar & Seat Packages Available