IEDC Agenda 04-02-2013
AGENDA
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013
7:00 a.m., Mississippi Room
MEMBERS: Chair Joni Pawelk,Vice Chair Wayne Elam, Rich Harris, Patrick Thompson, Bill Tapper,
Dick Van Allen, Dan Olson, Zona Gutzwiller, Jim Johnson, Don Roberts, Mary Barger,
Tara Thurber
LIASIONS: Sandy Suchy, Chamber
Clint Herbst, Mayor
Glen Posusta, City Council
1. Call to Order
2. Approve Minutes:
a. January 15th, 2013
b. February 5th, 2013
c. March 5th, 2013
3. Consideration of adding items to the Agenda
4. Reports:
a. Economic Development Report
b. City Council
c. Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Grow MN Update
d. TAC
5. Continued - Comprehensive Plan Update and Recommendation
6. Consideration to review Building Materials Requirements (Monticello Zoning
Ordinance) for Industrially Zoned Properties
7. Adjournment. (8:00am)
MINUTES
INDUSTRIAL&ECONOMICDEVELOPMENTCOMMITTEE(IEDC)MEETING
Tuesday,January15,2013-7:00a.m.,BoomIslandRoom
Present:LukeDahlheimer,JoniPawelk,RichHarris,DickVanAllen,DanOlson,Zona
Gutzwiller,WayneElam
Absent:PatrickThompson,BillTapper,JimJohnson,DonRoberts
Others:JeffO’Neill,AngelaSchumann,ClintHerbst,GlenPosusta,SandySuchy
1.CalltoOrder
LukeDahlheimercalledthemeetingtoorderat7:00a.m.
2.Considerationtoappoint2013officers
OrganizationalguidelinesrequirethattheIEDCelectaChair,ViceChairandSecretary
eachyearatitsJanuarymeeting.CitystaffhasactedasIEDCSecretaryinpastyears.
WAYNEELAMMOVEDTOAPPOINTJONIPAWELKASIEDCCHAIR.DAN
OLSONSECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTIONCARRIED7-0.
DANOLSONMOVEDTOAPPOINTWAYNEELAMASIEDCVICECHAIR.RICH
HARRISSECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTIONCARRIED7-0.
3.ApproveMinutes
a.October2nd,2012
WAYNEELAMMOVEDTOAPPROVETHEOCTOBER2ND,2012MEETING
MINUTES.DANOLSONSECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTIONCARRIED7-0.
4.Considerationofaddingitemstotheagenda None
5.Reports
a.EconomicDevelopment
TIFAnalysis -TheTIFDistrict1-22knockdownanalysiswascompletedandthe
associatedManagementPlanwasacceptedbytheEDAandtheCityCouncil.
BertramPark -CityCouncilapprovedthepurchaseagreementandshareduse
agreementforPhaseIVpropertyacquisitionatBertramChainofLakesRegional
Park.TheCityandCountywill,afterthispurchase,jointlyown640acresofthe
property.Eachjurisdictionhasreceivedgrantfundingandapprovedmatchamounts
IEDCMinutes1/15/13
2
fortheathleticcomplexareaandsecured$2millioningrantsforadditionalpark
purchases.
DowntownRedevelopment -Citystaffcontinuetheprocessofrelocatingtenantsfrom
theMontgomeryFarmsBuilding.
JohnsonProperty -TheEDAandCityCouncilhadconsideredacquisitionofSteve
Johnson’spropertylocatedatthenorthwestcornerofHighway25andCountyRoad
75buthadnotcometoagreementonanacquisitionprice.
b.CityCouncil
BudgetWorkshop –TheCity’sdebtloadwillbereducedin2016.CityCouncil
discussedthefutureoftheEconomicDevelopmentDirectorposition.
WastewaterTreatmentFacility –CityCouncilauthorizedmovingforwardwith
upgradestothewastewatertreatmentfacilityinanefforttoimproveefficiency.
Highway25Improvements–CityCounciltableddiscussionaboutdevelopingproper
accessfortheKjellbergproperty.
FiberNetMonticello–FiberNetmanagementtrimmedcostsandcontinuestoworkto
improveitsabilitytocashflowoperationsandexpenses.Competitorpricinghas
becomeincreasinglyaggressive.
MYSA –TheMinnesotaYouthSoccerAssociationmembershipvotedagainstmoving
forwardwiththeproposedfacilityconstructionprojectatBertramPark.TheBoard
mayfurtherconsidertheissuelaterintheyear.
c.ChamberofCommerceandIndustry -SandySuchyreportedthat400ticketswere
soldfortheFrostbiteChallengeevent.Staffmayreevaluatethescopeoftheevent
plannedfornextyearasaresultoflowerattendanceatsomeactivities.
d.TAC
Highway25Improvements–Timingforintersectionimprovementsplannedfor
Highway25andCountyRoad75arecontingentuponstateandfederalfundingfor
the$1.5millionproject.TheCityhasappliedfor$450,000infederalfundingforthis
project.MnDOTisplanningtoextendafourlanesectionfromitscurrentendpoint
onHighway25toCountyRoad106in2014.
7th Street&FallonAvenue –CitystaffcontinuetomeetwithSt.Henry’sChurchto
discussthe7th StreetandFallonAvenueoverpass.Projectengineeringisproposedto
becompletedin2013andconstructionscheduledfor2014.MnDOTwilladdanother
IEDCMinutes1/15/13
3
laneinbothdirectionstoI-94betweenCountyRoad18andHighway25
interchangesinthenext2yearstooffsettrafficcongestion.
SecondRiverCrossing -CitystaffplantomeetwithSherburneCounty
representativessoontoconsideraplanforasecondrivercrossing.
6.ConsiderationtoreviewandreviseasnecessarytheIEDCMissionStatement
StaffhaddraftedthreemissionstatementsforIEDCconsideration.Thesestatementsfocused
onadvocacy,businessretentionandexpansion,andcommunicationsandoutreach.
IEDCmemberssharedtheirperspectivesabouttheevolvingroleoftheIEDC.Manynotedthat
thereweredifferingexpectationswithinthecommitteeandthatitwouldbeusefultodefinea
visionformovingforward.Therewassomediscussionaboutthechangeinscopefrom
promotingindustrialgrowthaswellasbroadereconomicdevelopment.Membersseemedto
agreethatthemeetingshadprovidedanawarenessofbigpictureCityeffortsandthatsharing
thisinformationhelpstobuildtrustwithinthecommunity.Citystaffunderlinedthevalueof
theirfeedbackasissuesareconsidered.
ThereweresomequestionsabouttheauthorityoftheIEDCtodirectformalresolutionsto
theCityCouncil.JeffO’NeillsuggestedthatitmaybemoreappropriatefortheIEDCtoserve
asaforumandprovideperspectivetootherboardswhicharetaskedwithbringingforwarda
recommendationtoCityCouncil.AngelaSchumannindicatedthatthePlanningCommission
oftenaskediftheIEDChadweighedinonanissuepriortodevelopingtheirrecommendation.
MemberspointedtotheneedforaclearrolefortheIEDCtoensurethattherewouldbeno
duplicationofeffortamongrelatedboardsororganizations.Therewasalsoarequestthat
updatesbewrittenratherthanverbaltokeepthelengthofthemeetingtoanhourand
reserveampletimeformemberinput.
LUKEDAHLHEIMERMOVEDTOAPPROVEAREVISEDMISSIONSTATEMENT
ASDIRECTEDBYTHEIEDCANDTODIRECTSTAFFTOPREPAREAN
AMENDMENTTOTHEIEDC’SENABLINGRESOLUTION.WAYNEELAM
SECONDEDTHEMOTION.
Afterbriefconsideration,themotionwaswithdrawnbyLukeDahlheimerandthesecond
waswithdrawnbyWayneElam.
RICHHARRISMOVEDTOTABLEAPPROVINGAREVISEDMISSION
STATEMENTASDIRECTEDBYTHEIEDCANDDIRECTINGSTAFFTO
PREPAREANAMENDMENTTOTHEIEDC’SENABLINGRESOLUTION.LUKE
DAHLHEIMERSECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTIONCARRIED7-0.
SandySuchyindicatedthatDistrictSchoolSuperintendentJimJohnsonhadrecentlyasked
theChambertoarrangeforlocalindustryleaderstotalkwithstudentsabouthowskills
IEDCMinutes1/15/13
4
learnedintheSTEMprogramareputtouseintheirworkplace.Shesuggestedthatthe
IEDCmightnotethisinitiativeintheiremailrecapand,atthesametime,broadenitsreach.
ClintHerbstsuggestedthattheIEDCsponsoraFiberNetluncheoninanefforttolet
businessleadersknowwhorepresentstheirinterestsontheIEDC.
7.Considerationof2013IEDCWorkplan
StaffwillworkwiththeChambertorecrafttheIEDCworkplansothatitmoreclosely
relatestoitscurrentmissionandprovideadraftworkplanforconsideration.
8.Considerationtoappointnewmembers
RichHarris,DickVanAllen,DanOlsonandLukeDahlheimeragreedtoserveanother3
yearterm.ChrisKruseandWesOlsonresignedattheendoftheirterm.Staffdetermined
that,accordingtoIEDCguidelines,theChamberrepresentativewastobeavoting
member.ClintHerbstsuggestedthateachyearthecurrentChamberPresidenttakeonthat
role.SandySuchyagreedtoinvitecurrentpresidentTaraThurbertodoso.Staffwill
continuetorecruitnewmembers.
WAYNEELAMMOVEDTORECOMMENDTOTHECITYCOUNCILTHE
APPOINTMENTOFIEDCCOMMITTEEMEMBERSDAHLHEIMER,HARRIS,VAN
ALLEN,ANDDANOLSONTOANEW3-YEARTERMONTHEIEDC.DICKVAN
ALLENSECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTIONCARRIED7-0.
9.Adjournment
LUKEDAHLHEIMERMOVEDTOADJOURNTHEMEETINGAT8:30A.M.
DICKVANALLENSECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTIONCARRIED7-0.
Recorder:KerryBurri__
Approved:April2,2013
Attest:_______________________________________________
AngelaSchumann,CommunityDevelopmentDirector
MINUTES
INDUSTRIAL&ECONOMICDEVELOPMENTCOMMITTEE(IEDC)MEETING
Tuesday,February5,2013-7:00a.m.,BoomIslandRoom
Present:JoniPawelk,WayneElam,BillTapper,ZonaGutzwiller,JimJohnson,Don
Roberts,TaraThurber
Absent:LukeDahlheimer,RichHarris,PatrickThompson,DickVanAllen,DanOlson
Others:JeffO’Neill,AngelaSchumann,ClintHerbst,GlenPosusta,SandySuchy
1.CalltoOrder
JoniPawelkcalledthemeetingtoorderat7:00a.m.ShewelcomedTaraThurber,anew
votingmemberoftheIEDC,whowillrepresenttheMonticelloChamberBoard.
2.ApproveMinutes
a.January5,2013–Notavailable
3.Considerationtoaddingitemstotheagenda None
4.Reports
a.EconomicDevelopment -None
b.CityCouncil -BillTapperaskedaboutthestatusoftheroadimprovementsneeded
neartheKjellbergMobileHomePark.ClintHerbstacknowledgedthatCityCouncil
hadapprovedmovingforwardwithplanningforafullintersectionsouthofthemobile
homepark.TheprojecthadrecentlybecomealocalprioritybecauseMnDOThad
committedtocontributing$400,000tobuildaccesspointsonbothsidesofHighway
25.MobileHomeParkpropertyownerKentKjellberghadaskedthattheCity
purchasetheportionofthepropertythatwouldbeaffectedbytheseroad
improvements.TheCityhastheauthorityhowevertoutilizeeasementsforsuch
projects.Theintersectionwillprovideimprovedaccesstothemobilehomepark.
c.ChamberofCommerceandIndustry -SandySuchyreportedthatCornerstoneCafé
businessownerSueSwiecichowskiandStateRepresentativeMarionO’Neillhad
beeninvitedtotestifyattheMinnesotaStateCapitoltopresenttheirviewsonthe
minimumwageissue.SuchyalsonotedthattheChamberhadsentalettertoCity
CouncilandMnDOTfullysupportingtheHighway25improvementsasanecessary
stepinlocalgrowthandimprovedcitysafety.JimJohnsonwillmakeapresentationat
theChamberLuncheonscheduledforFebruary19th.Hospitalstaffwillsharetheir
perspectiveontheissueofthestatelegislatureproposedmandateofstaffingratiosat
IEDCMinutes2/5/13
2
anupcomingGovernmentAffairsmeeting.JoniPawelkprovidedfurtherdetailsabout
theMNNursesAssociationlobbyingefforts.
d.TAC -None
5.ConsiderationtoreviewdraftofIEDCMissionStatement
InJanuary,theIEDChadconductedanin-depthdiscussionregardingthebenefitsand
purposeoftheIEDC.AfterreviewingthreeproposedmissionstatementstheIEDChad
directedstafftoprepareamissionstatementfocusedonadvocacyandwhichreferenced
involvementwithbusinesscommunications.Severalmembersindicatedapreferencefor
thealternateversionofthemissionstatementwhichstated,“TheMonticelloIEDCwill
advocateforindustrialandeconomicgrowthwithintheCityofMonticellobypromoting
awarenessandcommunicationeffortsonbehalfofthebusinesscommunity.”
AngelaSchumannpointedoutthattheupdatedmissionwouldguidetheIEDCtotakeon
theroleoffosteringeconomicdevelopmentwithinMonticelloandsuggestedthatthe
proposedDirectorpositionwouldtakeonamoreexternaleconomicdevelopmentrole.
DONROBERTSMOVEDTOAPPROVEAREVISEDMISSIONSTATEMENTAS
DIRECTEDBYTHEIEDCANDTODIRECTSTAFFTOPREPAREAN
AMENDMENTTOTHEIEDC’SENABLINGRESOLUTION.BILLTAPPER
SECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTIONCARRIED7-0.
ArevisedenablingresolutionwillbeincludedaspartofthenextagendaforIEDC
considerationandadoption.
6.Considerationof2013IEDCWorkplan
Staffoutlinedthe2013workplandirectedataccomplishingtheIEDC’supdatedmission
statementandidentifiedthreeareasoffocusaspossibleobjectivesfor2013:on-going
efforts,projectsandcommunications.Therewassomereviewofthevariousinitiatives
involvedineachareaoffocus.TheConciergeProgram,theBusinessRecognitionProgram
andGrowMinnesotawerecitedasexamplesofongoingeffortsthathavebeenmakingan
impactinthewayMonticellodoesbusinesslocallyandbeyond.ProjectssuchasIEDC
networkingandprospectingefforts,participationinthesmallgroupComprehensivePlan
update,andactiverepresentationontheTransportationAdvisoryCommittee,ReStoreing
Downtown,andBertramChainofLakesAdvisoryBoardhavefurtherinvolvedtheIEDC
inaffectingCitypolicies.Theemphasisoncommunicationsthroughthecreationofa
one-stopEconomicDevelopmentresourceonline,theinitiationofane-newsdistribution,
reachingouttobusinessesthroughindustrytoursandtheMayor/CityAdministrator
breakfastshavemadeforstrongconnectionsthroughoutthecommunity.
JeffO’NeillsuggestedthattheIEDCconsideraddinganobjectiverelatedtohostinga
IEDCMinutes2/5/13
3
FiberNetOpenHousetotheworkplan.Heindicatedthatitwouldprovideagreat
opportunitytoshowcasethisbusinesscommunityasset.
SandySuchyaskedtheIEDCtopartnerwiththeChamberinconducting20sitevisitsa
yearaspartoftheGrowMinnesotabusinessadvocacyeffort.GrowMinnesotaworksto
makesureresourcesareidentified,needsaremetandproblemsaresolvedinbusiness
communitiesthroughoutthestate.Theprogramgenerallyfocusesonsurveyingsmall
manufacturingfirmstoobtaintrendinformation.Surveyquestionscouldbecustomizedto
obtainbroaderdatawhichcouldbeusedtoexplorenewbusinessprospects.
Therewassomequestionaboutrollingoverspecificgoals,suchastheneedforasecond
industrialparkandinterchangelocation,fromthe2012workplan.Staffpointedoutthatthe
dataderivedfrommanyIEDCeffortswouldinformissuesandenableaction.
BILLTAPPERMOVEDTOADOPTTHE2013WORKPLANASDIRECTEDBYTHE
IEDC.WAYNEELAMSECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTIONCARRIED7-0.
7.IEDCMembershipUpdate
WhiletheIEDChasnosetsizerequirement,broadercommunityrepresentationwouldbe
desirable.StaffhadcontactedAroplax,UMC,BondhusCorporation,ElectroIndustriesand
SuburbanManufacturingtoinvitetheopportunitytoserveonthecommittee.MaryBarger
ofSuburbanManufacturingagreedtorejoin.StaffaskedthattheIEDCreachoutto2-4
additionalcandidatesforatotalcommitteesizeof16-18.
8.EconomicDevelopmentPosition
CityCouncilandtheEDAhadmettodiscussnextstepsinhiringaneconomic
developmentdirector.Staffhadsuggestedredefiningthepositiontoemphasizeanexternal
salesandmarketingrolewhichwouldfocusonleaddevelopmentandprospectingoutside
thecommunitytoattractbusinessesandjobsintothecommunity.TheIEDCdiscussedthe
importanceofclarifyinganeconomicdevelopmentvisionandthepotentialvalueof
incentivizingthepositionandprovidinganappropriatemarketingbudget.
9.Adjournment
BILLTAPPERMOVEDTOADJOURNTHEMEETINGAT8:15A.M.
WAYNEELAMSECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTIONCARRIED7-0.
Recorder:KerryBurri__
Approved:April2,2013
Attest:_______________________________________________
AngelaSchumann,CommunityDevelopmentDirector
MINUTES
INDUSTRIAL&ECONOMICDEVELOPMENTCOMMITTEE(IEDC)MEETING
Tuesday,March5,2013–7:00a.m.,BoomIslandRoom
Present:JoniPawelk,LukeDahlheimer,PatrickThompson,DickVanAllen,DanOlson,
ZonaGutzwiller,DonRoberts,MaryBarger
Absent:WayneElam,RichHarris,BillTapper,JimJohnson,TaraThurber
Others:JeffO’Neill,AngelaSchumann
1.CalltoOrder
JoniPawelkcalledthemeetingtoorderat7:00a.m.
2.ApproveMinutes
a.January15,2013–Notavailable
b.February5,2013–Notavailable
3.Considerationofaddingitemstotheagenda None
4.Reports
a.EconomicDevelopment -CityCouncilapprovedplansandspecificationsand
authorizedthebidprocessfortheGreatRiverTrailssystem.Theprojectconsistsof
constructingatrailheadandfourtrailsegmentsthatconnecttotheexistingpedestrian
underpassconstructedin2011duringtherealignmentofCSAH75.Thetrailsystem
willprovidebicyclistsandpedestriansasafe,grade-separatedmeanstocrossCSAH
75whentravelingbetweenresidentialneighborhoodsandcityandcountypark
facilities.TheCityreceived100%ofthegrantandfederalfundingneededfor
constructioncostsforallfourtrailsegmentsandthetrailhead.Trailconstructionis
plannedforspringwithestimatedsummercompletiondates.Therewillbea
groundbreakingceremonyplannedduringthesummerandmapswillbeavailable
onlineandatlocalevents.
b.CityCouncil -JeffO’NeillreportedthattheCityCouncilhadreinstatedstep
increasesforemployeesafterseveralyearsofapprovingabudgetwhichdidnotfund
anypayincreases.Heexplainedthatstepincreasesprovideaformalprocessfor
employeestomovethroughapayrangeastheygaininexperience.Hepointedoutthat
theCity’spayscalehadnotkeptpacewiththemarketaverageduringtheeconomic
downturn.
IEDCMinutes03/05/13
c.ChamberofCommerceandIndustry None
d.TAC -Staffcontinuestoworktoaddressissuesrelatedtoa1998roadagreement
withSt.Henry’sChurchinanefforttomoveforwardwithakeycomponentofthe
FallonAvenueOverpassProjectin2014.
5.ComprehensivePlanUpdate–EconomicDevelopmentChapter
AngelaSchumannsummarizedtheprocessinvolvedinreviewingtheEconomic
Developmentchapter(Chapter4)oftheMonticelloComprehensivePlan.Shenotedthat
representativesfromtheIEDC,thePlanningCommission,theEDAandtheCityCouncil
hadparticipatedintheupdateasasmallgroup.
ThesmallgroupupdatedChapter2(theCommunityContextsection)byincludingrecent
datafromvariedsourcestoensureanaccurateframeofreferencefromwhichtoconsider
broadpolicy.Theynextconfirmedthattheguidingprinciplesandeconomicdevelopment
goalsestablishedremainrelevantbutrecommendedthatthegoalofjobattractionbe
broadenedtoincludejobretention.Theyconductedathoroughinventoryreviewto
determinethattheCityhadanadequateexistingandplannedsupplyoflandguidedfor
PlacestoWork.TheydeterminedthatseveraldevelopmentstrategiesoutlinedinChapter4
wereinneedofrevisiontomoreclearlyreflectmethodsforaccomplishinggoals.The
groupproposedafocusonattractingbusinesseswhicharesynergistictothosealreadyin
placeratherthanlookingtoattractspecificallybioscienceindustries.Theyadditionally
recommendedcapitalizinguponcommunityassetssuchasFiberNet,XcelEnergyandthe
hospitalandemphasizedplanningforcapitalinfrastructureexpenses.
TheIEDCagreedtocontinuetoconsidertheinformationprovidedanddiscussitfurtherat
itsnextmeeting.TheupdatewouldthenbebroughtbeforetheEDAandPlanning
CommissionforfurtherinputpriortoreviewbyCityCouncil.
6.Addeditems
NewCommitteeMember –JoniPawelkwelcomedMaryBargerofSuburban
ManufacturingbacktotheIEDC.Bargerhadbeenamemberanumberofyearsago.
SiteVisit –IEDCmemberswereinvitedtoparticipateinatourscheduledfor9:30a.m.on
Thursday,March7thatTireService,whichislocatedat201ChelseaRoad.
CentraCare-JoniPawelkreportedthattheNewRiverMedicalCenterandCentraCarewill
becomeCentraCareHealthMonticelloonApril1,2013.CentraCarehaspledgedtoinvest
over$68millioninthecommunityinthenexttenyears.
MYSA–TheMinnesotaYouthSoccerAssociationplanstosecuresponsorstoassistin
fundingconstructionofanewheadquartersproposedattheMonticellobiosolidssiteand
hopestoobtainmembershipapprovaltomoveforwardwiththisprojectinthefall.
IEDCMinutes3/05/13
3
7.Adjournment
DONROBERTSMOVEDTOADJOURNTHEMEETINGAT7:54A.M.DICKVAN
ALLENSECONDEDTHEMOTION.MOTIONCARRIED8-0.
Recorder:KerryBurri__
Approved:April2,2013
Attest:_______________________________________________
AngelaSchumann,CommunityDevelopmentDirector
IEDC Agenda: 04/02/13
1
4. Reports - Economic Development
City Engineer – Statement from City Administrator
Bruce Westby has resigned from his position as Monticello City Engineer after providing 7
years of service to the City. Bruce leaves to take a position as City Engineer for the City of
Ramsey in Anoka County. His last day with the City of Monticello is Wednesday, April 3rd.
Bruce leaves as his legacy the successful completion of a number of important transportation
and infrastructure projects, along with the establishment of a foundation for future projects,
which are now in the planning and development stage. This list includes:
Oversight of the development of the 2010 City of Monticello Transportation Plan, the
City’s foundation for Monticello’s transportation network for the next 15 years
Development of City's Geographic Information System
Completion of NE Quadrant intersection improvements at TH Highway 25/ CSAH 75,
and the successful development of funding sources for future intersection
improvements
Planning, grant management and expansion of the community pathway network,
including construction of CSAH 75 underpass and Great River trailways (to be
constructed in spring 2013)
Assistance with recent planning for waste water treatment plant upgrades
Coordination of numerous road reconstruction projects
Staff support and direction for planning efforts for the future Fallon Avenue Overpass
and 2nd Mississippi River crossing
Development of plans for the extension of 7th Street from Minnesota to Elm Street
and improvements at 7th Street and TH 25
Management of the build-out of numerous residential and commercial subdivisions
Formation of the Transportation Advisory Committee for the City of Monticello
In addition to his efforts on these and other important engineering projects, Bruce has
provided top notch, conscientious service to Monticello’s citizens. His integrity and
dedication to the residents and businesses of Monticello was a constant in his work. The City
extends a sincere “thank you” to Bruce and wishes for continued success in his career as a
City Engineer.
The City Council and city staff are currently evaluating options for filling the City Engineer
position. In the interim, engineering services for the City will be provided by the city’s long-
time consulting engineering firm, WSB & Associates. In addition to assisting with
identifying work redistribution, WSB is preparing a proposal outlining projected costs
associated with maintaining the new arrangement. This information will be used for
budgeting purposes and as a resource for evaluating this interim direction.
In summary, it is being recommended that the position is not filled at this time and see what
happens with greater use of WSB. However, at some point in the near future, the concept of
hiring an engineer will likely be revisited.
IEDC Agenda: 04/02/13
2
Economic Development Position – Update from the City Administrator
Subsequent to discussions with the EDA regarding the Economic Development position, a
new idea for filling the need has emerged which staff will requests that Council consider
jointly with the EDA in the near future. To follow is a quick summary of the idea.
The concept involves utilizing the services of an economic development professional as a
consultant, representing Monticello to prospects. The particular approach we would like to
examine is novel because it involves multiple cities (“competitors”) sharing the same
individual (hired by WSB) for conducting prospecting and responding to prospects at the
initial level. Staff believes that this idea has merit because we can reduce the costs of
prospecting and could very well have better results. Yes, the consultant would have mixed
loyalties because of representing multiple cities, but cities are in competition anyway and the
consultant might have a better chance of getting noticed if representing multiple cities to a
business prospect.
The cost of this service would likely be less than that to hire our own staff person and could
actually be a more effective method for the City of Monticello to get noticed. The details
regarding this idea and how the position would function will be reviewed by the City Council
and the EDA at an upcoming meeting. At the moment, we are putting the details of the
proposal together, along with a list of issues or topics that might come to mind when thinking
about this idea. We felt it important to evaluate this option before going further in hiring our
own Economic Development professional.
Industry Tour – TSI
On Thursday, March 7th, members of the IEDC, Monticello Chamber of Commerce and City
of Monticello attended a tour of Tire Service Equipment Manufacturing Company, Inc. TSI
is a manufacturer and innovator of products and equipment for the tire service and tire
recycling industries. TSI is located at 201 Chelsea Rd. and just completed an expansion of
their facility to better accommodate office and sales needs for their growing company.
Ten members of the IEDC and Chamber tour were in attendance at the tour, which was hosted
and guided by TSI owner Wes Sprunk. The facility itself is 45,000 square feet, and the
company has completed three expansions since its opening in Monticello in 1992. The
company employs 20 at their Monticello facility and 8 in Phoenix.
Tour attendees were able to see a variety of the 85-90 products manufactured at the
Monticello facilities and hear more about the company’s innovation and worldwide reach.
Communications Internship
Staff interviewed a candidate for a 10-15 hour/week communications internship. The
candidate specializes in organizational communications and outreach, which would be highly
beneficial to the City at this time. She is currently in the Masters program for
IEDC Agenda: 04/02/13
3
Communications at SCSU and would be completing the unpaid internship for course credit.
The communications internship is expected to begin in May and run for 10 weeks.
Fall/Winter Newsletter
During the last IEDC meeting, the group encouraged City staff and the Chamber work to
coordinate industry tours in tandem with GrowMN visits, to reduce the potential time
intrusion for local business and industries.
Staff is proposing another component for the tour/visit combination. As noted above, the City
will be bringing on a communications intern in May. One of the intern’s responsibilities will
be to attend the tours and draft spotlight features on the businesses for the upcoming
fall/winter edition of the City newsletter. The goal will be to spotlight the 4-5 businesses
visited as part of the GrowMN interviews between now and the end of the internship. A
video portion may also be offered, which would then be edited and presented as a short
packaged program for the City’s website.
Obviously, each component of the visits will be clearly explained to businesses during the
preliminary outreach and each business will need to agree to each component of the visit they
would like to participate in – tour, newsletter feature and GrowMN interview. Other than
general facts and data, information gained from the GrowMN visit will NOT be used in the
newsletter features.
The Chamber’s report in this agenda provides more detail on the timing and work occurring
for the GrowMN program.
7th Street Extension
On March 25th, the City Council approved the feasibility report for the extension of 7th Street
West from Minnesota to Elm Streets. This important collector route connection is planned for
2014 construction, pending approval of plans and specifications and final outcomes of
assessment hearings.
Membership Update
After staff’s initial phone calls, follow-up emails have been sent to the Aroplax and Electro
Industries for possible IEDC commission positions. No response has been received to date.
Staff would welcome IEDC member outreach and recruitment efforts for the open IEDC
positions.
Monticello Chamber Director’s Report – April 2013
NEW CHAMBER MEMBERS: Quiznos, Metro Insurance Brokers (Big Lake), American Legion #260,
Fotomatic Party Booth-Jeff Bullert, St. Mary’s University-Mike Benedetto
RIBBON CUTTINGS: Deb’s Dry Cleaning, Bob Somerville Photography & Quizno’s
BUSINESS VISITS: Imperial Medical Outlet, Lemon Drop Stop, Cut Hut
Rachel took a group of Monticello business professionals to BUSINESS DAY AT THE CAPITOL…Don
Roberts (Cargill), Sue Swiecichowski (Cornerstone Café) & Darek Vetch (Russell’s on the Lake). They had
the opportunity to meet with Rep. Marion O’Neill and Sen. Bruce Anderson as well as hear updates from
MN Chamber lobbyists.
The Chamber held a volunteer appreciation evening at River City Extreme this past month. March
Chamber Lunch was well attended and spotlighted our local community organizations. April’s Chamber
Lunch, Tuesday, April 16th will provide CentraCare Health-Monticello an opportunity to share updated
information regarding changes taking place at the hospital. Pancho Villa will host the next Business
After Hours on April 10th from 5 – 7PM and Culver’s will treat us to breakfast on April 24th 7:30 -9:00 AM
for the next Good Morning Monticello.
Grow Minnesota! Annual Meeting is April 11th from 10-2PM at Bernick’s in St. Cloud. If anyone from the
IEDC is interested in attending please let me know. Program updates are presented but more
interesting is hearing overall what has been learned from these visits this past year.
Sandy, Wayne Elam & city staff are in the process of revising the Grow Minnesota! survey tool to
personalize it for Monticello’s use. We have also identified manufacturing, developers and banking
institutions as suggested primary businesses for Grow Minnesota visits this year. Fastest growing
companies, those with signs of relocation or changing business conditions and those promising potential
for future success would also prompt a visit or revisit.
ADVOCACY! This year, more than ever, it’s important for each of us to follow upcoming legislation and
offer our comments/stories to elected officials so they better understand how proposed legislation
affects business. MN Chamber recently revised their website to allow easy access to this information.
Check out https://www.mnchamber.com/advocate/policy-agenda. You will also find legislative contact
information and easy to use templates. If you prefer, attend our bi-weekly teleconferences/
Government Affairs meetings on Friday mornings (next update: April 12, 8:00 AM, Premier Bank,
basement conference room).
I will participate in the Workforce Center’s Partners in Workforce Development Forum on April 12th.
The forum is to get better acquainted with workforce partners in the area and to share local and
regional issues and concerns.
IEDC Agenda: 04/02/13
5. Continued - Comprehensive Plan Update – Economic Development Chapter (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
At the March IEDC meeting, the group requested an additional month to
review and consider the information presented in the staff report and
accompanying exhibits.
At this time, staff is requesting IEDC action as related to a recommendation
on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Any comments
and recommendation made by the IEDC will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission as part of their May public hearing review.
The IEDC is asked to make a recommendation on the draft amendments to the
Economic Development chapter of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan.
The Monticello Comprehensive Plan is the City’s guiding document for land use
policy. The Comprehensive Plan is a statutorily required planning document,
providing the underpinning for all City land-use decisions. The plan includes
goals and strategies as related to overall land use, transportation, economic
development and parks. It is intended to guide development within the City and
its growth area for the next 20 years.
Monticello’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for an annual review to
ensure that it remains a relevant planning document for Monticello’s growth
policies. The Planning Commission has completed these annual reviews,
focusing on Chapter 3, the Land Use Plan. However, for 2013, staff had
recommended that Chapter 2 (the Community Context section) of the plan be
updated to include more recent data, including 2010 census info. This data
provides an important perspective on the complexion of the community and sets a
frame of reference for land use policy.
Also, as the Parks, Transportation and Land Use chapters have been updated with
recently adopted plans, the Commission also asked for a more focused review of
the Economic Development Chapter, as we reach the 5-year mark for the plan.
For a more inclusive review process, two members of the Planning Commission
have been joined by two members of the IEDC and one member of the EDA.
The City Council has also been invited to participate.
Summary of Small Group Review
Chapter 3 – Land Use of the Comprehensive Plan provides for where the City
will seek to establish new industrial land uses (designated “Places to Work”) and
describes the importance of this land use to the City’s overall growth objectives.
The Places to Work section notes that “It is critical that Monticello preserve
sufficient land for Places to Work for the next twenty-five years.” The Land Use
chapter then lays out five overall land use policies for Places to Work, as follows:
2
1. Designate and preserve land for Places to Work
2. Provide land use controls to encourage development of Places to Work sites
consistent with the City’s vision for “step-up” development
3. Provide for “business campus” development area
4. Provide for “general industrial” development area
5. Provide for areas for businesses which support both types of industrial
development
With these overall goals in mind, the small group used its first meeting to review
the location and amount of land areas guided as “Places to Work”, as well as an
inventory of currently available industrial land. In subsequent small group
discussions, it was determined that the City had an adequate existing and planned
inventory of land guided for Places to Work.
With the land use goals and areas for Places to Work” set in Chapter 3, the small
group then focused their work on Chapters 2 and 4.
The group spent some time reviewing the new data prepared for inclusion in
Chapter 2 – Community Context and provided feedback on clarifications which
would help make the data more usable and relevant to decision-making. Data
from the 2010 Census, 5-year American Community Survey and other sources
was included as part of the update to Community Context, which previously
relied on 2000 Census data.
The group then turned their attention to the Economic Development Chapter.
The small group directed the inclusion of references to the Embracing Downtown
study (which was adopted as a whole into the Land Use chapter previously) and
the Business Retention & Expansion study. These two documents provide
additional economic development background and strategy for the City. Their
direct reference within this chapter was viewed as a support for their continued
application.
The small group then confirmed the City’s four overall economic development
goals, with only slight modification:
Attract & Retain Jobs
Expand the Tax Base
Enhance the Downtown
Encourage Redevelopment
The group’s final task was to determine whether the development strategies in
Chapter 4 adequately reflected the City’s current and intended methods for the
3
accomplishment of the goals above.
As the IEDC will note, the proposed amendments to the eight strategy statements
indicate that there will be less attention on specifically attracting bioscience
industries, with more focus on attracting businesses which are synergistic to
existing businesses and services. The proposed amendments also suggest a more
dedicated effort in the near future on determining the utility and transportation
improvements needed to support the development of new “Places to Work” in
guided areas. There are minor changes in the Land Use chapter that correspond to
the revisions to the strategies in Chapter 4.
At this time, the IEDC is asked to review the proposed amendments as developed
by the small group and make a formal recommendation to the Planning
Commission. The IEDC may wish to suggest revisions to the draft document,
which may be considered as part of the Planning Commission’s consideration.
Pending IEDC and EDA recommendations, the Commission will review the
amendments during a public hearing to be held in April.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend the adoption of the proposed amendments to
Chapter 4 – Economic Development of the 2008 Monticello
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the proposed amendments. While the majority of
the City’s overall economic development goals remain the same, over the last five
years, minor adjustments to the strategies employed to achieve these goals have
shifted slightly. The proposed amendments reflect those shifts and provide a
roadmap for directing the City’s economic development activities.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. Monticello Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development (Proposed
Amendments)
B. Monticello Comprehensive Plan – Economic Development (Existing)
C. Monticello Comprehensive Plan – Community Context
D. Places to Work – Chapter 3 Guide Plan
Economic Development | 4-12008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Ideally, the Comprehensive Plan does not have an Economic Development
chapter. The Land Use Plan would be sufficient to channel market forces
to meet the development objectives of the community. In reality, certain
development needs cannot be met without public intervention. The
Economic Development chapter of the Plan focuses on the aspects of
Monticello’s future that require particular attention and action by the City.
These actions include:
f Attracting and retaining jobs
f Expanding the tax base
f Enhancing the economic vitality of Downtown
f Facilitating redevelopment
Attracting and Retaining Jobs
The creation and retention of jobs is one of the most important objectives
for Monticello. Jobs, particularly jobs with income levels capable of
supporting a family, are key to achieving many elements of Monticello’s
vision for the future.
f Jobs attract residents to the community. Jobs will pay a critical role in
creating the type of “move up” housing sought by the City.
f Jobs provide the income needed to support local business and
government services.
f Retention of businesses promote community stability by keeping jobs
and residents in Monticello
The Community Context chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains a
section on Employment. This section contains data about employment in
Monticello and of its residents. Among the key findings in this section are:
f While the community added nearly 5,000 people between 2000 and
2010 according to the U.S. Census, it only added 1,430 jobs according
to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). In 2010,
the community had 6,992 jobs according to the QCEW but 7,093
people in the labor force according to the Census.
4Economic Development
Chapter Contents
Attracting Jobs ............................4-1
Expanding the Tax Base ............4-3
Enhancing Downtown ...............4-5
Facilitating Redevelopment .....4-7
Development Strategies ...........4-7
4-2 | Economic Development City of Monticello
f The U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic
Studies’ OntheMap website shows that in 2010
4,597 people leave the community each day to
work, while 3,849 people come into the community
to work. Only 835 both live and work in the
community.
f Approximately 15% of residents in 2010 are
employed within the community. This has dropped
from 18% in 2002.
f As shown in Figure 4.1, 2012 data from the
Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED) on their
mnprospector.com website shows that Monticello
is made up of a wide range of small to medium
sized employers. Only 10 employers have more
than 100 employees. Over half have fewer than
four (4) employees.
f Workers for Monticello businesses come primarily
from Monticello and the surrounding region.
Nearly 75% of people working in Monticello live in
Monticello, adjacent townships, or other places in
Wright and Sherburne counties (2010 OntheMap).
f Nearly 40% of Monticello residents work in
Hennepin County, with the largest percentage in
Minneapolis, Plymouth and Maple Grove. Another
15% work elsewhere in Wright County, including
Buffalo and St. Michael.
f The 2007-2011 American Community Survey
(ACS) Census reported a mean travel time to work
of 28.5 minutes. This is up from the 2000 Census
travel time of 24 minutes. The mean travel time in
the 2007-2011 ACS was 29.7 minutes for Wright
County and 24.5 minutes for the region overall.
Background Reports
The City of Monticello conducts studies and assessments
as needed to help guide its economic development
efforts. The findings and recommendations of these
studies are summarized below with the most recent
provided first.
2010 Business Retention and Expansion Research (BR&E)
Report
Monticello’s Business Retention and Expansion (BR&E)
program was initiated by the City of Monticello, the
Monticello Chamber of Commerce and Industry,
DEED, and the University of Minnesota Extension. It
was also sponsored by over a dozen local businesses.
Through the BR&E program, 60 businesses were visited.
Findings from the visits and data analysis found:
f 78% of the visited businesses were locally owned
and operated.
f 20% of businesses were in manufacturing, 18% in
retail trade, and 13% in other services.
f The businesses employed over 1,600 full-time and
975 part-time employees, with a trimmed average
(an average where the low and high were discarded
to prevent skewing) of 15.38 full-time employees,
slightly down from 15.52 three years ago. The firms
also had a trimmed average of 7.76, up from 6.96
three years ago.
f Most full-time employees are in manufacturing,
food and beverage, retail trade and medical, while
part-time employees are in medical, retail trade,
and tourism/recreational services.
f Survey results indicated that the medical industry
is the highest employer in Monticello, followed by
retail trade and manufacturing.
f Businesses in the community are fairly stable with
about half expecting some type of change.
The BR&E identified four strategies aimed at helping
businesses become more profitable. Each strategy
was accompanied by a list of potential projects
intended to be ideas for the community to explore.
The implementation of the projects is intended to be
a collaborative effort among the various sectors of the
community. The four strategies identified included:
Number of
Establishments by SizeNumberPercent
1-4 Employees 25452.05
5-9 Employees 9719.88
10-19 Employees 6413.11
20-49 Employees 428.61
50-99 Employees 214.30
100-249 Employees 71.43
250-499 Employees 20.41
500-999 Employees 10.20
Figure 4-1: 2012 Total Establishments by Size
Economic Development | 4-32008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
f Improve Business Retention and Expansion
Through Technical and Development Assistance.
f Improve Labor Force Availability and Productivity.
f Improve Infrastructure to Help Move Goods,
Customers, and the Labor Force More Efficiently.
f Improve and Promote the Quality of Life in
Monticello.
During the 2013 comprehensive plan economic
development update process, it was noted that the 2010
Business Retention and Expansion Research strategies
were similar to the 2008 Development Strategies. The
review process identified the need to continue similar
strategies into the future.
Preceding the development of the 2008 Comprehensive
Plan an assessment was conducted by St. Cloud State
University to determine whether a bioscience park
should be established in Monticello. At that time the
bioscience industry was an economic development
focus statewide. While the attraction of a bioscience
business is not a particular focus of Monticello today,
there are findings of that study that can be useful to
consider in the overall development of economic
development strategies for the community.
Some of the Monticello’s strengths for attracting
businesses included:
f Land availability (compared to Metro Area).
f Access to major highways (I-94, U.S. 10 and STH
25).
f Regional growth of employment base.
f Development of local fiber optic system.
f Proximity to universities.
f Overall location.
f Expansive park system.
f Monticello Community Center.
Recommended business development activities that
apply to the attraction and retention of all businesses
include ensuring that there are sites suitable and
attractive to potential businesses available and ready
for development. The community should continue to
explore and establish partnerships with a variety of
stakeholders that can work together to support business
attraction and retention. This includes the identification
of funding sources which may be an incentive for
businesses locating in Monticello. When available the
City should participate in special tax zones that have
been made available at the state and federal level to
support business development and retention.
Expanding the Tax Base
A traditional objective of local economic development
planning is the expansion of the property tax base.
Under the current system of local government finance,
property taxes are the largest source of city revenue.
For this reason, it is an important aspect of economic
development planning in Monticello.
Understanding the Property Tax System
Effective strategies to promote the growth of the tax
base require a clear understanding of the property tax
system.
Property Valuation
There are three forms of property valuation. The
foundation of the property tax system is Estimated
Market Value. This amount is the value of a parcel
of property as set by the County Assessor. In some
circumstances, the State Legislature limits the amount
of Estimated Market Value that can be used for taxation.
These adjustments result in the Taxable Market Value.
The value used to calculate property taxes is Tax
Capacity. Tax Capacity Value is a percentage of Taxable
Market Value. The percentage factors are set by the
State Legislature and vary by class of property.
Changes in the Tax System
Traditional economic development theory seeks
commercial and industrial development as a means of
building tax base. Historically, the system supported
this approach. A dollar of estimated market value of
commercial-industrial property carried a higher tax
capacity value than residential property. Over the past
twelve years, tax “reforms” by the State Legislature have
changed this situation.
4-4 | Economic Development City of Monticello
Industrial Retail Office Single Townhome Apt
Acres 10 10 10 10 10 10
Coverage 30%30%30%3 6 12
Development (SF or Units)130,680 130,680 130,680 30 60 120
EMV per SF or Unit 65 80 100 400,000 250,000 150,000
EMV 8,494,200 10,454,400 13,068,000 12,000,000 15,000,000 18,000,000
Tax Capacity 169,134 208,338 260,610 120,000 150,000 225,000
Figure 4-3: Tax Capacity Comparison
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,00
1997 19981999200020012002 to 2012
Ta
x
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
V
a
l
u
e
Figure 4-2: Changes in Tax Capacity Value - Commercial/Industrial
Economic Development | 4-52008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
The chart in Figure 4-2 shows how legislative changes
have reduced the tax base created by commercial-
industrial development. This chart is based on the
tax capacity value for $3,000,000 of Taxable Market
Value. The legislative changes in the rates used to set
tax capacity mean that this property produced 56% less
tax base in 2012 than in 1997.
This trend takes on additional meaning when compared
to other classifications of property. Figure 4-3
compares the tax capacity value for the primary forms
of development in Monticello. The valuations in this
chart are based on assumptions about the density
of development and estimated market value of new
development. Changes in these assumptions will alter
the results.
This chart clearly illustrates the current reality for
economic development strategies. All forms of
development contribute tax base to the community.
It is risky placing too much weight on one type of
development for tax base growth. In addition, cities
do not control the critical elements of the tax system.
Changes in the system lead to unanticipated results at
the local level.
Tax base growth has implications that are unique
to Monticello. The chart in Figure 4-4 shows the
distribution of taxes payable in 2011. Utilities, likely
largely Xcel Energy, contributes about one-third of
the City’s taxes, while both commercial/industrial and
residential uses contribute 28% each.
Enhancing Downtown
Maintaining a successful Downtown is an important
element of the economic development plan for
Monticello. Downtown is a key business district
providing goods, services and jobs for the community.
Downtown is unlike any other business district because
of its unique role in Monticello’s identity and heritage.
The Land Use chapter describes plans, policies and
strategies related to Downtown Monticello. Downtown
is part of the Economic Development chapter because
of the likelihood that city actions and investments
will be needed to achieve community objectives for
Downtown. This intervention may include:
f Public improvements to provide services or to
enhance the Downtown environment.
f Provision of adequate parking supply.
f Acquisition of land.
f Preparation of sites for development.
f Removal of other physical and economic barriers
to achieve community objectives.
These actions may require the use of tax increment
financing, tax abatement or other finance tools available
to the City.
In 2011 the City of Monticello conducted a retail market
study for Downtown Monticello. The report, Embracing
Downtown Monticello, has been incorporated in the
Comprehensive Plan as an appendix and serves as a
resource for the implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan. The study included many components including
an identification and analysis of existing businesses,
evaluation of shopping areas that are competition for
Downtown, a survey of customers, delineation of the
trade area, and the establishment of market demand
for various businesses.
Figure 4-4: Distribution of 2011 Taxes Payable
Public Utility
5,910,074
34%
Residential
Homestead
4,886,235
28%
Commercial/Industrial
4,846,152
28%
All Other
1,757,819
10%
4-6 | Economic Development City of Monticello
Some findings of the study included:
f Downtown Monticello enjoys a strategic location
between the Mississippi River and I-94. This
focuses traffic on TH-25 resulting in traffic counts
higher than south of I-94
f Due to physical barriers created by the Mississippi
River and I-94, about one-third of Downtown and
secondary trade area shoppers must pass through
Downtown Monticello to reach the shopping areas
south of I-94.
f Downtown has the largest concentration of
shopping goods stores and restaurants.
f Downtown’s trade area population was estimated at
93,500 in 2010 and is projected to have an annual
growth rate of 2.2%.
f Monticello’s large anchor stores (Cub Foods,
SuperTarget, Walmart and Home Depot) create
a secondary trade area. The population of the
combined Downtown and secondary trade areas
was 127,190 in 2010.
f CentraCare Health System, with 25 beds and 600
employees has established Monticello as a regional
medical center.
f Increased residential development stimulates
increased commercial development. The recent
economic conditions have slowed residential
development, thus resulting in reduced tenant
demand for retail space.
f Additional retail space in Downtown Monticello
can be supported by the trade area population. A
range of store types can be considered including
shopping goods, convenience goods, and food
establishments. Downtown’s existing wide variety
of services limits potential future opportunities.
However, market research indicates that Monticello
could support additional medical practices.
Figure 4-5: Embracing Downtown Monticello Primary and Secondary Trade Areas
Economic Development | 4-72008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Facilitating Redevelopment
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create a place where
land use plans, policies and controls work together with
private investment to properly maintain all properties
in Monticello. It is recognized that this approach may
not succeed in all locations. Despite the best plans
and intentions, properties may become physically
deteriorated and/or economically inviable. In such
places, city intervention may be need to facilitate
redevelopment and prevent the spread of blight. This
intervention may include:
f Acquisition of land.
f Preparation of sites for development.
f Construction or reconstruction of public
improvements.
f Provision of adequate parking supply.
f Remediation of polluted land as needed.
f Removal of other physical and economic barriers
to achieve community objectives.
These actions may require the use of tax increment
financing, tax abatement or other finance tools available
to the City.
Development Strategies
The following strategies will be used to implement
the Comprehensive Plan in the area of Economic
Development:
1. The City must use the Comprehensive Plan
to provide adequate locations for future job-
producing development (Places to Work).
2. The City should adhere to the Comprehensive Plan
to encourage stable business setting and promote
investment and expansion of facilities.
3. The City should coordinate utility planning
and manage other development to ensure that
expansion areas are capable of supporting new
development in a timely manner.
4. The City will continue to work with existing
businesses to maintain an excellent business
environment, retain jobs and facilitate expansions.
5. In addition to assisting business seeking to locate
in Monticello, the City should actively target and
market to businesses which will be a supplier,
customer or collaborative partner to existing
businesses within the community.
6. The City should target and market to businesses
which would benefit from Monticello’s utility and
communications infrastructure.
7. The City will work with the CentraCare Health
System to ensure the retention and to promote the
expansion of health care services in Monticello.
8. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to
maintain and enhance the quality of life in
Monticello as a tool for attracting businesses and
jobs.
Economic Development | 4-12008 Comprehensive Plan
Ideally, the Comprehensive Plan does not have an Economic Develop-
ment chapter. Th e Land Use Plan would be suffi cient to channel market
forces to meet the development objectives of the community. In reality,
certain development needs cannot be met without public intervention.
Th e Economic Development chapter of the Plan focuses on the aspects
of Monticello’s future that require particular attention and action by the
City. Th ese actions include:
Attracting jobs
Expanding the tax base
Enhancing the economic vitality of Downtown
Facilitating redevelopment
Attracting Jobs
Th e creation and retention of jobs is one of the most important objec-
tives for Monticello. Jobs, particularly jobs with income levels capable of
supporting a family, are key to achieving many elements of Monticello’s
vision for the future.
Jobs attract residents to the community. Jobs will pay a critical role in
creating the type of “move up” housing sought by the City.
Jobs provide the income needed to support local business and govern-
ment services.
Retention of businesses promote community stability by keeping jobs
and residents in Monticello
Th e Community Context chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains a
section on Employment. Th is section contains data about employment
in Monticello and of its residents. Among the key fi ndings in this section
are:
Monticello has been a net importer of employment - there are more
jobs in Monticello than workers living in the community. According
to the 2000 Census, 5,111 people reported working in Monticello while
4,262 Monticello residents were part of the civilian labor force.
4
Comprehensive Plan does not have an Economic Develop-
er. Th e Land Use Plan would be suffi cient to channel market
eet the development objectives of the community. In reality,
elopmentneedscannotbemetwithoutpublicintervention
Economic Development
Chapter Contents
Attracting Jobs ............................4-1
Expanding the Tax Base ............4-2
Enhancing Downtown ...............4-5
Facilitating Redevelopment .....4-5
Development Strategies ...........4-5
4-2 | Economic DevelopmentCity of Monticello
Th e job base in Monticello is made up of a wide
range of small to medium sized employers. In 2007,
Only fi ve employers report more than 100 employ-
ees, Monticello Public Schools, Xcel Energy, Cargill
Kitchen Solutions, Monticello-Big Lake Hospital,
and Ultra Machining Company (according to listing
of major employers from Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development).
Workers for Monticello businesses come primar-
ily from Monticello and the surrounding region.
Over 80% of people working in Monticello lived
in Monticello, adjacent townships, Big Lake, or
other places in Wright and Sherburne counties
(2000 Census).
Th e 2000 Census found that only 26% of people
working Monticello also lived in the city.
69% of working Monticello residents held jobs in
other places (2000 Census). More than one-third
worked in Hennepin County.
Th e 2000 Census reported a mean travel time to
work of 26 minutes. 45% of Monticello workers
indicated travel time to work of 30 minutes or
more.
In 2007, St. Cloud State University conducted an as-
sessment of establishing a bioscience park in Mon-
ticello. Th e results of this study provide important
insights on future job growth. Th e study identifi ed
a series “strengths” for attracting bioscience fi rms to
Monticello:
Land availability (compared to Metro Area).
Access to major highways (I-94, U.S. 10 and STH
25).
Regional growth of employment base.
Development of local fi ber optic system.
Proximity to universities.
Overall location.
Expansive park system.
Monticello Community Center.
Many of these factors would also apply to attracting
other types of businesses.
Th e St. Cloud State study also made note of several
weaknesses in attracting these business to the com-
munity. Th e list included:
Lack of hotels and lodging.
No defi ned plan.
Small community.
Low tax base.
Th e recommendations of this Study apply to eff orts to
establishing a bioscience park and to overall develop-
ment of Places to Work:
Site Location - Need to have site that are suitable
and attractive to potential businesses available and
ready for development.
Funding - Funding is essential to provide sites and
for incentives to attract and retain the appropriate
businesses. Local, state and private funding sources
should be explored.
Tax treatment - Th e City gains important tools
from special tax zones that have been made avail-
able at state and federal level.
Partnerships - Attracting jobs to Monticello re-
quires partnerships with other stakeholders.
Expanding the Tax Base
A traditional objective of local economic development
planning is the expansion of the property tax base.
Under the current system of local government fi nance,
property taxes are the largest source of city revenue.
For this reason, it is an important aspect of economic
development planning in Monticello.
Understanding the Property Tax System
Eff ective strategies to promote the growth of the tax
base require a clear understanding of the property tax
system.
Property Valuation
Th ere are three forms of property valuation. Th e foun-
dation of the property tax system is Estimated Market
Value. Th is amount is the value of a parcel of property
as set by the County Assessor. In some circumstances,
the State Legislature limits the amount of Estimated
Economic Development | 4-32008 Comprehensive Plan
Market Value that can be used for taxation. Th ese adjustments result in
the Taxable Market Value. Th e value used to calculate property taxes is
Tax Capacity. Tax Capacity Value is a percentage of Taxable Market Value.
Th e percentage factors are set by the State Legislature and vary by class
of property.
Changes in the Tax System
Traditional economic development theory seeks commercial and in-
dustrial development as a means of building tax base. Historically, the
system supported this approach. A dollar of estimated market value of
commercial-industrial property carried a higher tax capacity value than
residential property. Over the past twelve years, tax “reforms” by the State
Legislature have changed this situation.
Th e chart in Figure 4-1 shows how legislative changes have reduced the
tax base created by commercial-industrial development. Th is chart is
based on the tax capacity value for $3,000,000 of Taxable Market Value.
Th e legislative changes in the rates used to set tax capacity mean that this
property produced 56% less tax base in 2007 than in 1997.
Th is trend takes on additional meaning when compared to other classi-
fi cations of property. Figure 4-2 compares the tax capacity value for the
primary forms of development in Monticello. Th e valuations in this chart
are based on assumptions about the density of development and estimated
market value of new development. Changes in these assumptions will
alter the results.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
199719981999200020012002 to 2007
Ta
x
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
V
a
l
u
e
Figure 4-1: Changes in Tax Capacity Value - Commercial/Industrial
4-4 | Economic DevelopmentCity of Monticello
Industrial Retail Offi ce Single Townhome Apt
Acres101010101010
Coverage30%30%30%3612
Development (SF or Units)130,680130,680130,6803060120
EMV per SF or Unit6580100400,000250,000150,000
EMV 8,494,20010,454,40013,068,00012,000,00015,000,00018,000,000
Tax Capacity169,134208,338260,610120,000150,000225,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
IndustrialRetailOfficeSingleTownhomeApt
Ta
x
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
V
a
l
u
e
Figure 4-2: Tax Capacity Comparison
Figure 4-3: Tax Capacity Comparison
Other "Larger"
6%
Xcel Energy
39%
All Other Tax Capacity
55%
Economic Development | 4-52008 Comprehensive Plan
Th is chart clearly illustrates the current reality for eco-
nomic development strategies. All forms of develop-
ment contribute tax base to the community. It is risky
placing too much weight on one type of development
for tax base growth. In addition, cities do not control
the critical elements of the tax system. Changes in the
system lead to unanticipated results at the local level.
Tax base growth has implications that are unique to
Monticello. Th e chart in Figure 4-3 shows the distribu-
tion of taxable (Tax Capacity) value in Monticello. Xcel
Energy creates almost 40% of the City’s tax base. While
it has provided a unique asset for the community, it
is essential that the tax base become more diversifi ed.
Enhancing Downtown
Maintaining a successful Downtown is an important
element of the economic development plan for Mon-
ticello. Downtown is a key business district providing
goods, services and jobs for the community. Down-
town is unlike any other business district because of its
unique role in Monticello’s identity and heritage.
Th e Land Use chapter describes plans, policies and
strategies related to Downtown Monticello. Downtown
is part of the Economic Development chapter because
of the likelihood that city actions and investments will
be needed to achieve community objectives for Down-
town. Th is intervention may include:
Public improvements to provide services or to
enhance the Downtown environment.
Provision of adequate parking supply.
Acquisition of land.
Preparation of sites for development.
Removal of other physical and economic barriers
to achieve community objectives.
Th ese actions may require the use of tax increment
fi nancing, tax abatement or other fi nance tools avail-
able to the City.
Facilitating Redevelopment
Th e Comprehensive Plan seeks to create a place where
land use plans, policies and controls work together with
private investment to properly maintain all properties
in Monticello. It is recognized that this approach may
not succeed in all locations. Despite the best plans and
intentions, properties may become physically deterio-
rated and/or economically inviable. In such places, city
intervention may be need to facilitate redevelopment
and prevent the spread of blight. Th is intervention
may include:
Acquisition of land.
Preparation of sites for development.
Remediation of polluted land.
Construction or reconstruction of public improve-
ments.
Provision of adequate parking supply.
Removal of other physical and economic barriers
to achieve community objectives.
Th ese actions may require the use of tax increment
fi nancing, tax abatement or other fi nance tools avail-
able to the City.
Development Strategies
Th e following strategies will be used to implement the
Comprehensive Plan in the area of Economic Develop-
ment:
Th e City must use the Comprehensive Plan to pro-1.
vide adequate locations for future job-producing
development (Places to Work).
Th e City should adhere to the Comprehensive Plan 2.
to encourage stable business setting and promote
investment and expansion of facilities.
Th e City should coordinate utility planning and 3.
manage other development to ensure that expan-
sion areas are capable of supporting new develop-
ment in a timely manner.
Th e City should evaluate the need and feasibility 4.
of additional city-owned business parks as a means
attracting the desired businesses.
4-6 | Economic DevelopmentCity of Monticello
Th e City should establish a plan to evaluate the 5.
feasibility of implementing the recommendation
of the St. Cloud State study and if feasible to take
necessary action to attract bioscience businesses
to Monticello.
Th e City will continue to work with existing busi-6.
nesses to maintain an excellent business environ-
ment, retain jobs and facilitate expansions.
Th e City will work with the Monticello-Big Lake 7.
Hospital to ensure the retention and to promote the
expansion of health care services in Monticello.
Th e City will use the Comprehensive Plan to main-8.
tain and enhance the quality of life in Monticello as
a tool for attracting businesses and jobs.
Land Use | 3-12008 Comprehensive Plan
3Land Use
The future vision for Monticello provides the foundation for the
Comprehensive Plan (the vision statement appears in Chapter 1). The
Land Use Plan, in turn, provides the framework for how land will be used
to help achieve the future vision for Monticello. The Land Use Plan seeks
to reinforce desirable land use patterns, identify places where change is
needed and guide the form and location of future growth.
The Land Use Plan for Monticello was shaped by a variety of factors,
including:
f Community input gathered through public workshops and Task Force
discussions.
f The existing built and natural environment in Monticello.
f The vision for Monticello’s future.
f Factors described in the Community Context chapter of the Plan.
f Systems plans for transportation, sanitary sewer and water supply.
This represents a departure in form from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan.
The 1996 Plan included the land use plan as part of a broader Development
Framework section. The 1996 Plan described Monticello’s land use
plan by general district of the community as a means of attending to the
unique issues in each district. The 2008 Update of the Comprehensive
Plan establishes a separate land use chapter consisting of the following
components:
f A section on Future Growth describes the implications of future
resident growth and the amount of growth anticipated by the Plan.
f The Land Use Plan Map (see Figure 3-2) shows the land uses assigned
to each parcel of land.
f Land Use Categories further explain the Land Use Plan by describing
the land uses depicted in the Map. This section includes land use
policies describe the objectives that Monticello seeks to achieve
through the implementation of the Land Use Plan and the supporting
elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
f Focus Areas provide a more detailed discussion of characteristics,
goals and policies for key areas of the community.
Chapter Contents
Future Growth ............................3-2
Growth Policies ........................3-2
Land Use Plan Map ....................3-3
Land Use Categories .................3-3
Places to Live .............................3-5
Places to Work .......................3-10
Places to Shop ........................3-13
Downtown ..............................3-13
Mixed Use ...............................3-14
Places to Recreate .................3-15
Places for Community ..........3-15
Urban Reserve .......................3-15
Interchange Planning Area .3-16
Private Infrastructure ...........3-16
Greenway ...............................3-16
Focus Areas ..............................3-16
Northwest Monticello ..........3-16
Downtown Focus Area ........3-19
South Central Focus Area ...3-22
East Focus Area .....................3-23
The Embracing Downtown Plan
was adopted by City Council
resolution 2012-011 on January 9,
2012 and is incorporated herein as
an appendix of the Comprehensive
Plan.
3-2 | Land Use City of Monticello
Future Growth
In looking to the future, Monticello must not just
consider the qualities of the future community, but also
the nature of growth. Assumptions about the amount
and pace of future growth are important parts of the
foundation for the Comprehensive Plan. Growth has
several important implications for the Comprehensive
Plan:
f Growth projections are used to plan for the capacity
of municipal utility systems.
f Growth projections are used to create and manage
finance plans for capital improvements.
f The school system uses growth projections to
forecast enrollments and to plan for programs and
facilities.
f Market studies use growth projections to analyze
the potential for locating or expanding businesses
in Monticello.
f The characteristics of growth influence the amount
of land needed to support this development.
f Growth adds trips to the local street system.
f Assumptions about growth influence the
policies and actions needed to implement the
Comprehensive Plan.
For these reasons, it is essential that the Comprehensive
Plan state assumptions of the nature of future growth. A
challenge in forecasting future residential development
is that the Comprehensive Plan influences, but does not
control, the factors that determine where people live.
These factors include:
f Quality of life.
f Access to employment.
f Availability of desired housing and neighborhood
options.
f Affordability.
f Competition from other places in the region.
Given these uncertainties, the Comprehensive Plan
seeks a balance between optimism and prudence.
For many reasons, the Plan should not significantly
understate the growth potential of Monticello. The
balancing force lies with the implications of assuming
more growth than is reasonable. The chart in Figure
3-1 shows the projection of future residential growth
assumed in the Comprehensive Plan.
The projections assumes that the rate of growth slowly
rises over the next five years and continues at a level
of 190 units per year from 2012 to 2020. This amount
falls below the 229 units/year average for 2001 through
2005. This rate of growth is intended to reflect several
factors. Monticello will remain a desirable place to
live, attracting both builders and residents. Housing
market conditions will improve from the weaknesses
experienced in 2006 and 2007. A combination
of market conditions, local policy objectives, and
changing demographics may reduce the potential for
achieving and sustaining higher rates of residential
growth. Slower future growth reflects the belief that
achieving the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, in
particular seeking more move up housing, will result
in less development than in previous years.
Growth Policies
1. The City will consistently review recent development
trends and update growth projections to serve as a
basis for public and private planning.
2. Over the life of this Comprehensive Plan, growth
will occur within the boundaries of the current
municipal boundaries and the Orderly Annexation
Area.
3. Future development should be guided to locations
that utilize existing infrastructure and locations
242
223
208
229
256
30 30
50
70
90
110
130
150150150150150150150167
77
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
Actual
Projected
Figure 3-1: Growth Trends and Projections
Land Use | 3-32008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
that facilitate the construction of street and
utility systems that meet the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate
action by Monticello to annex or extend utility
systems to property immediately north of the
Mississippi River. Development in this area will
place additional traffic on STH 25 (particularly
in the Downtown area) and channel investment
away from other parts of the City, especially the
Downtown.
Land Use Plan Map
The Land Use Plan Map (shown in Figure 3-2) shows the
desired land use for all property in Monticello and the
Orderly Annexation Area The land use plan depicted
in this map builds on the previous community planning
in Monticello.
The Comprehensive Plan uses the Land Use Plan to
define the broad land use patterns in Monticello. The
Land Use Plan seeks to:
f Organize the community in a sustainable
manner.
f Make efficient use of municipal utility systems
and facilitate the orderly and financially feasible
expansion of these systems.
f Provide the capacity for the type of growth desired
by the community.
The Land Use Plan Map is only one piece of the land
use plan for Monticello. The other parts of the Land
Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan work with this
map to explain the intent and objectives for future land
use. Further, this map lays the foundation for land use
controls that are used by the City to implement the
Comprehensive Plan.
Land Use Categories
The Land Use Plan Map uses a set of specific categories
to guide land use in Monticello. One element missing
from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan was a description
of the land use categories shown in the Land Use
Plan. The ability to use the Comprehensive Plan as
an effective land use management tool requires a
definition of each land use. These definitions provide
a common understanding of the basic characteristics
of each category used in the Land Use Plan.
The 1996 Plan relies on three basic categories of private
land use: residential, commercial and industrial.
Each of these categories is further divided into
subcategories that distinguish between the character,
type and intensity of development desired in different
locations.
The 2008 update of the Comprehensive Plan uses a
different approach to achieve similar land use patterns.
The Land Use Plan map depicts series of “places” for
private development: Places to Live, Places to Shop,
Places to Work, and Downtown. This approach is based
on the following rationale:
f These broad categories more clearly illustrate the
pattern of development and the plan for future
growth.
f Although residential land uses vary by type and
density, they share many public objectives.
f This approach makes a more enduring
comprehensive plan. The Plan can guide an area
for the appropriate land use without the need
to predict future community needs and market
forces.
f The Plan relies on policies, land use regulations,
performance standards and public actions to
provide a more detailed guide for land use and
development. This approach conveys more
flexibility and control to the City Council and the
Planning Commission.
Role of Zoning Regulations
Zoning regulations play a critical role in implementing land use plans in
Monticello. State Law gives zoning regulations priority over the Comprehensive
Plan. If land uses are different, zoning regulations control the use of land.
Zoning regulations are particularly important in the application of the land
use categories in the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The “places to” land
use categories set forth a broad and flexible land use pattern for Monticello.
Zoning regulations (and other land use controls) will be used to determine the
appropriate location for each form of development and other regulations on
the use of land, consistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
3-4 | Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3-2: Land Use Plan Map
£¤10
£¤10
Æÿ2
5
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5
!(81
§¨¦94
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37
!(
1
3
1
0
0.5
1
0.25
Miles
-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates.
Land Use Plan
Legend
Places to Live
Places to Shop
Places to Work
Places to Recreate
Places for Community
Downtown
Mixed Use
Interchange Planning Area
Urban Reserve
Infrastructure
Rivers and Streams
Public Waters Inventory
Wetlands (National & Public Waters Inventories)
Potential Greenway
Potential Interchange
Future Bridge
Existing Arterial or Collector Road
Proposed Arterial or Collector Road
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
£¤10
£¤10
Æÿ2
5
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5
!(81
§¨¦94
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37
!(
1
3
1
0
0.5
1
0.25
Miles
-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates.
Land Use Plan
Legend
Places to Live
Places to Shop
Places to Work
Places to Recreate
Places for Community
Downtown
Mixed Use
Interchange Planning Area
Urban Reserve
Infrastructure
Rivers and Streams
Public Waters Inventory
Wetlands (National & Public Waters Inventories)
Potential Greenway
Potential Interchange
Future Bridge
Existing Arterial or Collector Road
Proposed Arterial or Collector Road
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
£¤10
£¤10
Æÿ2
5
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5
!(81
§¨¦94
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37
!(
1
3
1
0
0.5
1
0.25
Miles
-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates.
Land Use Plan
Legend
Places to Live
Places to Shop
Places to Work
Places to Recreate
Places for Community
Downtown
Mixed Use
Interchange Planning Area
Urban Reserve
Infrastructure
Rivers and Stream
s
Public Waters Inventory
Wetlands (National & Public Waters Inventories)
Potential Greenway
Potential Interchange
Future Bridge
Existing Arterial or Collector Road
Proposed Arterial or Collector Road
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly A
nnexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
Land Use | 3-52008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
The remainder of this section describes the categories
used in the Comprehensive Plan in greater detail.
Places to Live
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create and sustain
quality places for people to live in Monticello (see Figure
3-3). This category designates areas where housing is
the primary use of land. The emphasis behind Places to
Live is to help ensure that Monticello offers a full range
of housing choices, while preserving and enhancing the
quality of neighborhoods. Although a single land use
category, Places to Live does not suggest housing is a
homogenous commodity or that any type of housing is
desirable or allowed in any location.
When someone says “house” the most common image
is a single family detached dwelling. This housing style
is characterized by several features. There is a one-to-
one relationship between house and parcel of land - the
housing unit is located on a single parcel. The house is
not physically attached to another housing unit. The
housing is designed for occupancy by a single family
unit. The typical neighborhood in Monticello is made
up exclusively of single family detached homes.
The primary variables become the design of the
subdivision, the size of the lot and the size and style of
the dwelling. Many older neighborhoods in Monticello
(north of Interstate 94) were built on a traditional grid
street system. Over the past thirty years, development
patterns have moved to a new suburban curvilinear
Figure 3-3: Land Use Plan - Places to Live
3-6 | Land Use City of Monticello
pattern, characterized by curvilinear street layout with
the use of cul-de-sacs.
A variety of factors, including consumer preference
and housing cost, have increased the construction
of attached housing in recent years. Duplexes, twin
homes quads and townhomes are common examples
of this housing style. Although the specific form
changes, there are several common characteristics.
Each housing unit is designed for occupancy by a single
family. The housing units are physically attached to
each other in a horizontal orientation.
Places to Live will include some neighborhoods designed
to offer a mixture of housing types and densities.
Mixed residential neighborhoods create a pattern of
that combines single-family detached housing with a
mixture of attached housing types. Using good design
and planning, these mixed residential neighborhoods
can achieve a higher density without compromising
the overall integrity of the low-density residential
pattern.
This integration strengthens neighborhoods by
increasing housing choice and affordability beyond what
is possible by today’s rules and regulations. It also avoids
large and separate concentrations of attached housing.
It enhances opportunities to organize development in
a manner that preserves natural features.
A complete housing stock includes higher density
residential areas that consist of multi-family housing
types such as apartments and condominiums. In the
near term, the Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate
expanding the existing supply of higher density housing.
It is likely that Monticello will need additional higher
density housing to:
f Provide housing suited to the needs of an aging
population.
f Facilitate redevelopment in the Downtown or in
other appropriate locations of the community.
f Provide housing needed to attract the work force
required to achieve economic development goals
of the City.
Higher density residential land uses should be located
where the setting can accommodate the taller buildings
and additional traffic.
Policies – Places to Live
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the following
objectives for residential land use in Monticello:
1. Provide a range of housing choices that fit all stages
of a person’s life-cycle (see below).
2. Support development in areas that best matches the
overall objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Develop quality neighborhoods that create a
sense of connection to the community and inspire
sustained investment. The Comprehensive
Plan seeks to maintain the quality and integrity
of existing neighborhoods by encouraging the
maintenance of property and reinvestment into
the existing housing stock. Changes in housing
type should be allowed only to facilitate necessary
redevelopment.
4. Create neighborhoods that allow residents to
maintain a connection to the natural environment
and open spaces.
5. Seek quality over quantity in residential growth.
Achieving the objectives for quality housing and
neighborhoods may reduce the overall rate of
growth.
6. Reserve areas with high amenities for “move up”
housing as desired in the vision statement. These
amenities may include forested areas, wetland
complexes, adjacency to parks and greenways.
Some of the City’s policy objectives require further
explanation.
Life Cycle Housing
Housing is not a simple “one size fits all” commodity.
Monticello’s housing stock varies by type, age, style
and price. The Community Context chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan describes the characteristics of
the housing stock based on the 2000 Census and recent
building permit trends.
The concept of life cycle housing recognizes that
housing needs change over the course of a person’s
life (see Figure 3-4). Young adults may not have the
Land Use | 3-72008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
income capacity to own the typical single family
home. This segment of the population often seeks
rental housing. Families move through different sizes,
styles and prices of housing as family size and income
changes over time. With aging, people may desire
smaller homes with less maintenance. Eventually, the
elderly transition to housing associated with options
for direct care. As noted in the Vision Statement,
Monticello’s population will continue to become more
diverse. This diversity will be seen in age, race, culture
and wealth. These factors will influence the housing
needs of Monticello.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes these differences
and seeks to create a balanced housing supply that
encourages people to move to and stay in Monticello.
This balance may not be achieved solely by market
forces guided by this Land Use Plan. Actions by the
City may be needed to promote the creation of housing
in underserved segments of the market.
Neighborhood Design
A priority for the community is diversification of the
housing stock by providing more “move up” housing.
In this context, the term “move up” housing refers to
larger homes with more amenities in structure and
setting. This type of housing may not be exclusively
single-family detached or low density. Attached forms
of housing with medium or high densities may meet
the objectives for move up housing in the appropriate
locations. In this way, the objectives for move up
housing and life cycle housing are compatible and
supportive.
While every community wants a high quality housing
stock, this issue has particular importance in Monticello.
It is a key to retaining population. Without a broader
variety of housing options, families may encouraged to
leave Monticello to meet their need for a larger home.
It is a factor in economic development. One facet of
attracting and retaining professional jobs is to provide
desirable housing alternatives.
It must be recognized that creating move up housing
requires more than policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for achieving
the desired results. The desired outcomes require
Figure 3-4: Life Cycle of Housing Supply
3-8 | Land Use City of Monticello
private investment. This investment occurs when
demand exists or the City can provide an incentive to
attract investment.
Part of attracting move up housing comes from
creating great neighborhoods – places that will attract
and sustain the housing options sought by the City.
Neighborhoods are the building block of Places to Live
in Monticello. The goal of the Comprehensive Plan is
to create and maintain attractive, safe and functional
neighborhoods. The following policies help to achieve
this objective:
1. Neighborhoods should incorporate the natural
characteristics of the setting. Trees, terrain,
drainageways, and other natural features provide
character to neighborhoods.
2. Housing should be oriented to the local street,
minimizing access and noise conflicts with collector
streets.
3. The City will use public improvements to enhance
the appearance and character of a neighborhood.
Some examples of improvements that define an
area include streets with curb and gutter, trees in
the public boulevard, street lighting systems, and
storm water ponding.
4. Sidewalks, trails, and bikeways will connect the
neighborhood to other parts of the community.
5. Every neighborhood should have reasonable access
to a public park as a place for residents to gather
and play.
All of these elements work together to create a desirable
and sustainable place to live.
Balancing the Built and Natural Environments
The natural amenities of the growth areas (west and
south) in Monticello should serve as a catalyst for
residential development. The proposed regional park
(YMCA property) offers the dual assets of natural
features and recreational opportunities. Lakes,
wetlands and other natural amenities exist throughout
the orderly annexation area.
Studies have shown that parks and open space have a
positive economic effect on adjacent development. An
article published by the National Park and Recreation
Association states that “recent analyses suggest that
open spaces may have substantial positive impacts
on surrounding property values and hence, the
property tax base, providing open space advocates
with convincing arguments in favor of open space
designation and preservation.” Balancing the built and
natural environments should provide a catalyst to the
types of development desired by the City and in the
expansion of the property tax base.
In attempting to meet residential development
objectives, the City should not lose sight of long-term
public benefit from access to these same natural areas.
The original development of Monticello provides an
excellent illustration. The majority of the riverfront
in Monticello is controlled by private property. Public
Figure 3-5: Relationship Between Development and
Natural Features - Parkway
Figure 3-6: Relationship Between Development and
Natural Features - Trail Corridor
Land Use | 3-92008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
access to the River comes at points provided by public
parks.
A well known example of balancing public use with
private development is the Minneapolis chain of lakes
and Minnehaha Creek. Public streets (parkways)
and trails separate neighborhoods from the natural
features, preserving public use and access. These
neighborhoods are some of the most desirable in the
region, demonstrating that public use and private
benefit are not mutually exclusive.
The figures below show two options for integrating
housing, natural features and public use. Figure 3-5
is the parkway concept. An attractive street forms
the edge between the park (or natural area) and the
housing. A multi-use trail follows the street while
homes face the street and draw on the attractiveness
of both the parkway and the natural amenities.
The alternative is to use a trail corridor to provide public
access to these areas (see Figure 3-6). The trail follows
the edge of the natural area. Access to the trail between
lots should come at reasonable intervals.
There are a variety of real world examples of how
Minnesota cities have used conservation design
strategies to promote high quality development and
preserve the natural environment. The illustrations in
Figure 3-7 shows elements of the Chevalle development
in Chaska. Using open space design and rural
residential cluster development techniques, HKGi’s
concept plan provides for a variety of housing options
while preserving a majority of the area as permanent
open space, including public and common open
spaces. Amenities would include access to protected
open spaces (lakeshore, woods, meadows, pastures,
wetlands), walking/biking trails, equestrian trails
and facilities, common outdoor structures and an
environmental learning center. The experience of other
Figure 3-7: Example of Conservation Design Development
OPEN SPACE DESIGN
-Pastures
-Equestrian Facility
-Wetlands Enhancements
-Conservation Easements
-Central Park
-27 Acre Park South of Lake
NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD
Total Housing Units:66
Custom, Luxury Twin Homes
Lot Width:45’x 90’Twinhome
Lot Size:4,050 Sq. Ft.
House Sq. Ft.:2,800 to 3,800 Sq. Ft.
Price Point Packages:$475,000 to
$750,000
NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD
Total Housing Units:98
Semi-Custom, Single-Family Homes
Lot Width:82’Minimum
Lot Size:9,900 to 16,000 Sq. Ft.
House Sq. Ft.:2,400 to 4,800 Sq. Ft.
Price Point Packages:$450,000 to
$650,000
NEIGHBORHOOD FEATURES
-Central Park
-Northeast Neighborhood Green
-South Neighborhood Green
-Association Dock and Park
3-10 | Land Use City of Monticello
cities and developments can guide future planning and
decision making in Monticello.
Attractive Places
Attractive physical appearance is one of the most
common attributes of Places to Live in Monticello.
Attractiveness is a combination of design, construction
and maintenance. These characteristics apply to
buildings and sites. Attractiveness is relevant for both
private and public property. Attractiveness reflects
individual pride in property as well as an overall sense
of community quality.
The City may use a variety of regulatory tools to
influence the potential for attractive neighborhoods:
f Building codes and additional regulations to
promote quality construction.
f Subdivision regulations control the initial
configuration of lots.
f Zoning regulations establish limitations on the size
of lots, placement of the house on a lot, relationship
of structure size to lot area, and building height.
f Nuisance ordinances enable the City to prevent and
correct undesirable uses of property.
f Other City regulations control other ancillary uses
of residential property.
Maintenance of property is a factor in sustaining
quality neighborhoods. The tenure (form of ownership)
influences the responsibility for housing maintenance.
The owner-occupant of a single family detached home
is solely responsible for the maintenance of building
and grounds. If this same home is rented, maintenance
responsibilities are often shared between tenant and
owner. This relationship may include a third party
property manager retained by the owner to perform
maintenance duties. Owners of attached housing may
act collectively through a homeowner’s association.
In multiple family rental housing, the tenants have no
direct responsibility for property maintenance. This
discussion does not imply a preference, but is intended
solely to highlight the differences. This understanding
becomes relevant when public action is needed to
address a failure of the private maintenance approach.
Nuisance ordinances are one tool used by the City
to address failures in private maintenance and use of
property.
Economics also influences property maintenance. The
greater the portion of income devoted to basic housing
costs (mortgage/rent, taxes, utilities), the less money
available for maintenance activities. Maintenance
can be deferred, but not avoided. If left unchecked,
this cycle of avoided maintenance produces negative
effects.
Safe Places
Safety is frequently identified as the most desired
characteristic of Places to Live. Several aspects of the
Comprehensive Plan and city government influence
safe neighborhoods.
1. The City will encourage existing neighborhoods
and develop new neighborhoods where people
are involved in the community, interact with their
neighbors and support each other.
2. The City will design, build and maintain a system
of streets that collects traffic from neighborhoods,
allows movement within Monticello to jobs,
shopping and other destinations and minimizes
traffic that “cuts through” neighborhoods on local
streets seeking other destinations.
3. The City will provide, directly or by contract,
services needed to protect people and property.
4. The City will support the Land Use Plan with a
water supply that provides clean water at pressures
needed to support fire suppression.
5. The City will protect the natural environment
by requiring new development to connect to the
sanitary sewer system and by adequately treating
all municipal wastewater.
6. The City will provide water that is safe to drink by
protecting water supply sources.
Places to Work
This land use is primarily intended for industrial
development. Places to Work seeks to provide
locations for the retention, expansion and creation of
businesses that provide jobs for Monticello residents
and expansion and diversification of the property tax
base. In order to be a center of employment with a wide
Land Use | 3-112008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
range of job opportunities, it is critical that Monticello
preserve sufficient land for Places to Work over the
next twenty-five years. These land uses can be one of
the most challenging to locate because of its need for
convenient transportation access and influence on
surrounding land uses. In planning for future Places to
Work, the Comprehensive Plan considers the goals of
the community; what type of industrial development
is sought; and what factors should be considered when
locating an industrial land use.
In planning for sustaining existing businesses and
attracting new development, it is necessary to
understand why Places to Work are important to
Monticello. The objectives for this land use include:
f Expanding and diversifying the property tax base.
f Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for
people to work and live in Monticello.
f Promoting wage levels that provide incomes
needed to purchase decent housing, support
local businesses and support local government
services.
f Take advantage of opportunities to attract
companies that have a synergy with existing
companies in the community, including suppliers,
customers and collaborative partners.
f Encouraging the retention and expansion of
existing businesses in Monticello.
Figure 3-8: Land Use Plan - Places to Work
£¤10 £¤10
Æÿ25
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5!(81
§¨¦
9
4
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37!(1 3 1
0 0.5 10.25
Miles-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates. Land Use Plan
Legend
Public Waters Inventory
Rivers and Streams
Potential Interchange
Potential Bridge
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Jobs
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
3-12 | Land Use City of Monticello
Policies – Places to Work
1. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to
designate and preserve a supply of land for Places
to Work that meets current and future needs.
2. Consistent with the vision for the future of
Monticello, the Land Use Plan promotes the
establishment of business campus settings that
provide a high level of amenities, including
architectural controls, landscaping, preservation of
natural features, storage enclosed within buildings,
and other features. The zoning ordinance,
subdivision regulations and other land use controls
will also be used to create and maintain the desired
business campus settings.
3. Places to Work supports the City’s desire to attract
businesses that complement existing businesses
or benefit from the community’s infrastructure,
including power and telecommunications.
4. The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that
Places to Work should provide locations for
other general industrial development in the areas
of manufacturing, processing, warehousing,
distribution and related businesses.
5. Places to Work may include non-industrial
businesses that provide necessary support to the
underlying development objectives of this land use.
Examples of supporting land uses include lodging,
office supplies and repair services.
Additional public objectives and strategies for Places
to Work can be found in the Economic Development
chapter.
Figure 3-9: Land Use Plan - Places to Shop
£¤10 £¤10
Æÿ25
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5!(81
§¨¦
94
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37!(1 3 1
0 0.5 10.25
Miles-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates. Land Use Plan
Legend
Public Waters Inventory
Rivers and Streams
Potential Interchange
Potential Bridge
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Commerce
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
Land Use | 3-132008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Places to Shop
Places to Shop designate locations that are or can be
developed with businesses involved with the sale of
goods and services. Places to Shop may include offices
for service businesses. Places to Shop guides land uses
that are both local and regional in nature.
Policies - Places to Shop
In guiding land uses for Places to Shop, the
Comprehensive Plan seeks to:
1. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to attract and retain
businesses that provide goods and services needed
by Monticello residents.
2. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to capture the
opportunity for commercial development that
serves a broader region. Places to Shop with a
regional orientation should be located where
the traffic does not disadvantage travel within
Monticello.
3. Commercial development will be used to expand
and diversify the local property tax base and as an
element of a diverse supply of local jobs.
4. Places to Shop will be located on property with
access to the street capacity needed to support
traffic from these businesses.
5. Each parcel should supply an adequate supply of
parking that makes it convenient to obtain the
goods and services.
6. Building materials, facades and signage should
combine with public improvements to create an
attractive setting.
7. Site design must give consideration to defining edges
and providing buffering or separation between the
commercial parcel and adjacent residential uses.
These policies help to create sustainable locations for
Places to Shop in a manner that enhances Monticello.
Downtown
The Embracing Downtown Plan was adopted by City
Council resolution 2012-011 on January 9, 2012
and is herein incorporated as an appendix of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Downtown is a unique commercial district that is part
of Monticello’s heritage and identity. It is, however,
no longer possible for Downtown to be Monticello’s
central business district. The mass of current and
future commercial development south of Interstate 94
along TH 25 and in east Monticello along interstate 94
have replaced the downtown area as primary shopping
districts. The future success of downtown requires it
to be a place unlike any other in Monticello.
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the Vision,
Guiding Principles and Goals described in the
Embracing Downtown Plan. Downtown is intended to
be a mix of inter-related and mutually supportive land
uses. Businesses involved with the sale of goods and
services should be the focus of Downtown land use.
Residential development facilitates reinvestment and
places potential customers in the Downtown area. Civic
uses draw in people from across the community.
During the planning process, the potential for
allowing commercial activity to extend easterly out of
the Downtown along Broadway was discussed. The
Comprehensive Plan consciously defines Cedar Street
as the eastern edge of Downtown for two basic reasons:
(1) Downtown should be successful and sustainable
before new areas of competition are created; and
(2) The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain and
enhance the integrity of residential neighborhoods
east of Downtown.
More than any other land use category, Downtown has
strong connections to other parts of the Comprehensive
The Comprehensive Plan describes issues, plans and policies related to the Downtown in several sections
of the Plan.
3-14 | Land Use City of Monticello
Plan. Therefore the City has adopted the Embracing
Downtown Plan as its guiding planning document
for the Downtown. The following parts of the
Comprehensive Plan also address community desires
and plans for the Downtown area:
f The Land Use chapter contains a specific focus
area on Downtown. The focus area contains a
more detailed discussion of the issues facing the
Downtown and potential public actions needed to
address these issues.
f The operation of the street system is a critical
factor for the future of Downtown. The
Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
and the Transportation chapter of the Embracing
Downtown Plan influence the ability of residents to
travel to Downtown and the options for mitigating
the impacts of traffic on Highway 25 and other
Downtown streets.
f The Parks chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
provides for parks in the Downtown and the trail
systems that allow people to reach Downtown on
foot or bicycle.
f The Economic Development chapter of
the Comprehensive Plan and the Financial
Implementation chapter of the Embracing
Downtown Plan lay the foundation for public
actions and investments that will be needed to
achieve the desired outcomes.
Policies/Guiding Principles – Downtown
1. Downtown is a special and unique part of
Monticello. It merits particular attention in the
Comprehensive Plan and in future efforts to achieve
community plans and objectives.
2. Downtown is intended to be an inter-connected
and supportive collection of land uses. The primary
function of Downtown is as a commercial district.
Other land uses should support and enhance the
overall objectives for Downtown.
3. The City will build on core assets of greater
Downtown Monticello as identified in the
Embracing Downtown Plan.
4. A shared vision among property owners, business
owners and the City is the foundation for effective
team work and long term success.
5. A shared understanding of realistic market potential
is the foundation for design and generation of a
healthy business mix.
6. A safe, attractive human scale environment and
entrepreneurial businesses that actively emphasize
personal customer service will differentiate
Downtown from other shopping districts.
7. Property values can be enhanced if property
owners and the City share a vision for Downtown
and actively seek to cultivate a safe, appealing
environment and attractive business mix.
8. Housing in the Downtown can facilitate necessary
redevelopment and bring potential customers
directly into the area. Housing may be free-
standing or in shared buildings with street level
commercial uses.
9. Downtown is the civic center of Monticello. To
the degree possible, unique public facilities (such
as the Community Center, the Library and the Post
Office) should be located in the Downtown area as
a means to bring people into the Downtown.
10. Downtown should emphasize connections with
the Mississippi River that are accessible by the
public.
11. Downtown should be a pedestrian-oriented place
in a manner that cannot be matched by other
commercial districts.
12. Downtown should have an adequate supply of free
parking for customers distributed throughout the
area.
13. The City and business community must work
actively with MnDOT to ensure safe local access
to business districts.
All of these policies work together to attract people to
Downtown and to enhance the potential for a successful
business environment.
Amendment to Comprehensive Plan/1997 Downtown
Revitalization Plan
Resolution 2010-049, adopted 7/12/10:
At the intersection of Broadway and Pine Streets,
parking lots may be constructed only when all of the
following conditions exist:
Land Use | 3-152008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
f Applicable traffic safety and access requirements
limit the ability to comply with building location
standards of this Plan.
f At least fifty (50) percent of either the Broadway
or Pine Street frontage is occupied by a building
(non-parking area).
f An alternative vertical element is located at
the street corner which, as determined by City
Officials, establishes an architecturally compatible
corner presence. Such elements may include, but
not be limited to public art, interpretive signage,
architectural business signs and architecturally
appropriate lighting.
Mixed Use
The Mixed Use is a transition area between the
Downtown and the hospital campus. It has been
created in recognition of the unique nature of this area.
The area serves two functions. It is the edge between
long-term residential neighborhoods and a major
transportation corridor (Broadway Street). It is also a
link between the Downtown, the hospital campus and
the east interchange retail area.
The primary goal of this land use is to preserve and
enhance housing in this part of Monticello. Any
non-residential development should be designed to
minimize the impacts on and conflicts with adjacent
neighborhoods.
Policies - Mixed Use
1. Development should not have direct access to
Broadway street. Access should come from side
street.
2. Non-residential development should be limited to
small retail, service and office businesses. The scale,
character and site design should be compatible with
the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
3. All non-residential development will be oriented
to Broadway Street and not to 3rd Street or River
Street.
4. Commercial development compatible with the
Downtown should be encouraged to locate there.
5. More intense housing and commercial uses may be
allowed if directly related to the hospital.
Places to Recreate
Places to Recreate consist of public parks and private
recreation facilities. The land uses are essential
elements of the quality of life in Monticello. The Parks
and Trails chapter of the Comprehensive describes the
current park and trail system and the future plan to
maintain and enhance this system.
The Comprehensive Plan is only one aspect of managing
the land use for public parks and private recreation
facilities. The City’s zoning regulations place these
locations into a zoning district. Often, the purpose
of the zoning district is to guide private development,
such as housing. Under current State Law, zoning
regulations “trump” the Land Use Plan and govern the
use of land. With the potential for the redevelopment
of golf courses, it is important the Comprehensive Plan
and other land use controls work in concert to achieve
the desired outcomes.
The City’s plans and policies for parks, trails and
open space can be found in the Parks chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan
Places for Community
Places for Community consist of public and semi-
public land uses. Public uses include all governmental
facilities (city, county, state and federal) and schools.
This category also applies to churches, cemeteries,
hospitals, and other institutional uses.
It is important to note that these land uses relate only
to existing land uses. The Comprehensive Plan does
not guide the location of new churches, schools, public
buildings and other institutional land uses. Places for
Community will be needed in the Northwest area as
it develops.
These uses are typically allowed in residential areas and
governed by zoning regulations. These institutional
uses (such as schools and churches) are important parts
of the fabric of the community, but require guidance
to ensure a proper fit with its residential surroundings.
New institutional use should be allowed in residential
areas under certain conditions. These conditions
should address the aspects of the use that conflict with
3-16 | Land Use City of Monticello
desired characteristics of residential neighborhood.
Criteria for locating an institutional use in a residential
land use area include:
1. Size. Large buildings and site areas can disrupt
neighborhood cohesiveness. Use in lower density
residential areas should not be more than [to be
determined] square feet in lot area.
2. Parking. Parking may spill on to neighborhood
streets without adequate on-site facilities. The
parking needs will vary with the use of the facility.
Each facility should provide adequate on-site or
reasonable off-site shared parking based on the use
of the facility.
3. Traffic. Institutional uses should be oriented to
designated collector or arterial streets.
4. Lighting and signage. Site lighting and signage
needs may resemble commercial uses. These site
factors should be managed to fit the character of
the surrounding residential development.
Urban Reserve
The Urban Reserve contains all property in the Orderly
Annexation Area that it not shown for development
in the near term in this Plan. The objective is to
encourage rural and agricultural uses, preventing
barriers to future development opportunities. It is
anticipated that the City will grow into portions of the
Urban Reserve as planned land use areas become fully
developed and capacity for future growth in needed.
The Urban Reserve is not simply a holding area for
future development. Parts of the Urban Reserve are
likely to be preserved as natural resource areas or for
agricultural purposes. Future planning will consider
the locations in the Urban Reserve best suited for
development.
Interchange Planning Area
The Interchange Planning Area encompasses
undeveloped land in the northwest part of Monticello
around the site of a potential west interchange with
Interstate 94. The purpose of this land use is to
preserve the area for future development and prevent
the creation of development barriers.
If built, the area should be planned to support a mixture
of commercial, employment and residential land uses.
The interchange location and the routes of future
connecting roads are solely for illustration. Future land
use issues in this area are discussed in the Focus Area
for Northwest Monticello.
Private Infrastructure
This category applies to Xcel Energy’s power plant and
railroad right-of-way. This category recognizes the
unique role of the power plant in Monticello.
Greenway
The Land Use Plan Map shows a “potential greenway”
ringing the western and southern edges of Monticello.
The Greenway is intended to provide an environmental
corridor that connects large community parks and open
spaces to neighborhoods, schools, shopping areas and
places to work. They serve to protect environmentally
sensitive areas such as natural habitat, wetlands,
tree canopy, and drainage ways. Land within this
corridor could be comprised of a combination of
public and private open space. Development would
not be prohibited within the greenway but would be
reasonably restricted to ensure that development is
carefully integrated with the natural environment.
The Greenway is intended to shape development
patterns in a manner that is sensitive to the existing
environment and harmonious with the landscape. The
Greenway creates opportunities for a continuous trail
corridor connecting neighborhoods with large parks
and open spaces. A trail within this corridor is intended
to be fully accessible to the general public.
The following are the City’s goals for the Greenway:
1. To provide (where possible) a continuous green
corridor connecting large community parks and
open spaces to neighborhoods, shopping areas,
schools and places to work.
2. To connect people to significant places.
3. To protect the community’s natural resources
(trees, ponds, wetlands, slopes, etc).
4. To create environmentally sensitive development
and design.
Land Use | 3-172008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
5. To provide opportunities for corridors for wildlife
movement and ecological connections between
natural areas.
Focus Areas
For certain parts of Monticello, the intentions of the
Comprehensive Plan cannot be adequately described
solely with the land use map and the related category
descriptions. The following Focus Areas provide a more
detailed examination of the plans and issues in key
locations that will shape the future of Monticello.
Northwest Monticello
This focus area includes the entire northwest corner
of the community. The land use objectives in this area
include:
1. Encourage development in this part of the
community to utilize infrastructure investments
and to provide the capacity to develop in high
amenity areas.
2. Provide for a variety of housing alternatives based
on the natural features and the surrounding
land uses. Areas with high natural amenities or
proximity to the planned regional park should be
reserved for move up housing.
3. Expansion of existing Places to Work in a manner
that creates more “head of household” jobs.
4. Preserve and promote public use of natural
areas, including the establishment of greenway
corridors.
5. Identify and preserve key street corridors.
6. Preserve areas for future Places to Shop and Places
to Work around a future highway interchange, if
such an interchange proves viable.
The Comprehensive Plan envisions that growth will
extend westward from existing development. The
initial high amenity residential development is expected
to occur along the eastern perimeter of the new regional
park (YMCA Camp Manitou). No Places to Live are
planned with the boundaries of this park. Future
development will be influenced by the capacity of the
street system, including plans for the construction of
a highway interchange.
The remainder of this section describes the land use
issues and objectives for northwest Monticello in
greater detail.
West Interchange
A new interchange with Interstate 94 is a critical
variable in the future development of this area. While
the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the potential for
a future interchange, in 2008 it is only a concept. It
is not part of the State’s plans for future highway
improvements for this district.
This interchange could be a valuable part of the long-
term transportation plan for Monticello if it is part of
a new river crossing that removes traffic from Highway
25. Without the bridge, the primary benefit is to
provide access to this area and expand the development
opportunities.
The Land Use Plan assumes that the interchange is a
future possibility. For this reason, property adjacent
to the interstate has been placed into a combination
of Places to Live, Work and Shop. The Plan seeks
to prevent development from limiting the location
£¤10 £¤10
Æÿ25
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5!(81
§¨¦
9
4
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37!(1 3 1
0 0.5 10.25
Miles-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates. Land Use Plan
Legend
Places to Live
Places to Shop
Places to Work
Places to Recreate
Places for Community
Downtown
Mixed Use
Interchange Planning Area
Urban Reserve
Infrastructure
Rivers and Streams
Public Waters Inventory
Wetlands (National & Public Waters Inventories)
Potential Greenway
Potential Interchange
Future Bridge
Existing Arterial or Collector Road
Proposed Arterial or Collector Road
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
Figure 3-10: Land Use Plan - Northwest Monticello
3-18 | Land Use City of Monticello
of the interchange (or block it) and to preserve the
area around the interchange for future commercial,
industrial and residential development. Without
the access provided by the interchange, commercial,
industrial and residential development should not be
anticipated in this area.
Ideally, the City will pursue additional investigations
following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
These investigations should be designed to resolve some
of the unanswered questions related to the interchange.
These questions include:
f Where should the interchange be located?
f What is the potential for a new river bridge
connection?
f How would the interchange be funded and what
are the financial and land use implications for the
City?
f What time frame should be used in planning for
the improvements?
The answers to these questions provide invaluable
guidance to future land use and transportation in
Monticello. The area included in future planning
should not be limited to the property in the Interchange
Planning Area land use category. An interchange
and the supporting street system has future land use
implications for a broader area.
Regional Park
Another critical factor in the future of the Northwest
Area is the future of the YMCA camp. The City and
Wright County are in negotiations with the Minneapolis
YMCA to acquire the 1,200-acre Camp Manitou. The
Comprehensive Plan anticipates that the Camp will be
converted into a regional park.
The area around this park is guided for future Places to
Live. No residential development should be allowed
within the park. The amenity of this land and the
regional park provide an excellent setting (around
the perimeter of the park) for some of the “upscale”
neighborhoods and housing desired by the City.
In planning for this park, it is important to look
beyond the boundaries of the park and to its context
in the broader community. The illustration in Figure
3-11 highlights several key community development
opportunities:
f The City must create connections between the park
and other sections of Monticello.
f Building streets in a “parkway” design emphasizes
the desired qualities of a regional park and of the
surrounding Places to Live and Work.
f The park is a critical piece in creating a “greenway”
system that links to the Mississippi River and may,
over time, ring the community.
Industrial Growth
The Northwest area is a critical location for current and
future industrial development. The Monticello Business
Center, located south of Chelsea Road and west of 90th
Street, has already started to be developed as a high
amenity environment with protective covenants that
address building materials, loading docks, outdoor
storage, and landscaping. In order to provide sufficient
land for Business Campus uses over the next 25 years,
the Comprehensive Plan extends this land use south to
the planned expansion of School Boulevard.
It is important to recognize that activity generated
by business development can create conflicts with
residential development. The Comprehensive Plan
seeks to create both high quality business parks and
residential neighborhoods in this area. Careful site
planning and development management will be needed
to meet these objectives.
School Boulevard Extension
The Northwest Area serves as a good example of the
need to coordination land use and transportation
planning. An extension of School Boulevard is
needed to provide access to the area and to connect
development to the rest of the community. The route
of this roadway should be identified and preserved as
development occurs.
School Boulevard has several other Comprehensive
Plan implications:
f This major collector street will influence the nature
of adjacent land use.
f Streetscape improvements would help to define
the high quality character desired by the City
Land Use | 3-192008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
as a gateway to the regional park and to new
neighborhoods.
f The street is a means for bringing trail connections
to the park.
Golf Course
In 2006, the Silver Springs Golf Course was part of a
development proposal (Jefferson at Monticello) that
would have redeveloped this property mixing golf and
housing. The development did not proceed beyond the
environmental review.
The Comprehensive Plan shows the area as Places to
Recreate based on the continued use as a golf course.
This designation does not preclude a future proposal
and Comprehensive Plan amendment for residential
development. It is likely, however, that this scale of new
development will require the access provided by a new
highway interchange. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to
fill in other development areas and make effective use
of other infrastructure investments before extending
utilities for redevelopment of the golf course.
Downtown Focus Area
The Embracing Downtown Plan was adopted by City
Council resolution 2012-011 on January 9, 2012
and is herein incorporated as an appendix of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Downtown Monticello needs special attention
in the Comprehensive Plan. Following the 2008
Comprehensive Plan update, the community undertook
YMCA
Regional
Park
Existing
Natural
Land
Existing
Natural
Land
Potential Parkways
Potential
Greenway
Corridor
Potential
Greenway
Corridor
Existing
Green
Corridor
To Mississippi River
To Mississippi River
25
39
Z35W
Z394
Z94
Figure 3-11: Community Connections to Regional Park
3-20 | Land Use City of Monticello
a separate downtown planning process. This process
resulted in the Embracing Downtown Plan. This Plan
emphasizes the importance that the community places
on Downtown. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
relies on the Embracing Downtown Plan as a guide for
public and private actions in the Downtown area.
Revitalizing and sustaining Downtown Monticello
requires a collaborative effort of the City, businesses,
property owners and other stakeholders. Planning
for the future of the Downtown must recognize the
practical realities facing commercial development in
Downtown:
f The configuration and traffic volumes of Highway
25 significantly reduce opportunities for direct
access from the Highway to adjacent properties.
f Traffic volumes on Highway 25 will continue to
increase. Greater volumes and congestion act as an
impediment for people living south of I-94 coming
to Downtown.
f There is no controlled intersection on Highway
25 between Broadway and 7th Street. The lack
of a controlled intersection combined with traffic
volumes make pedestrian connections between
Downtown and residential areas to the east very
difficult.
f “Big box” and retail development continue to occur
in other parts of Monticello. These businesses
directly compete with the Downtown and attract
smaller businesses (that might otherwise consider
a Downtown location) to adjacent parcels.
Downtown Goals
Given current plans and conditions, the Embracing
Downtown Plan and the Comprehensive Plan
recommends the following goals for Downtown.
Concepts for Downtown redevelopment should
provide solutions to problems and issues identified
in the research and analysis of Downtown conditions
that are directed by the stated goals for Land Use,
Transportation and Design and Image. The preferred
solutions should be those that best meet these goals.
Land Use
f Diversify land use in the Downtown; supplement
retail and service uses with other activities that
generate traffic.
f Encourage redevelopment of old and obsolete
structures; encourage consolidation of small
parcels with multiple ownerships.
f Balance parking and land use to ensure availability
of adequate parking at all times.
f Encourage mixed use but do not make it a
requirement or prerequisite for development or
redevelopment.
f Discourage residential as a free-standing land use
within the core downtown area.
f Establish physical connections between the core
Downtown area and the riverfront and park.
f Encourage land uses that serve as evening and
weekend attractions to the Downtown area.
f Expand facilities and parking adjacent to Westbridge
Park to help create an anchor attraction at the north
end of Walnut Street.
Transportation
f Acknowledge that Highway 25 will be limited in
terms of providing direct property access.
f Develop circulation patterns that utilize local
streets for individual site access.
f Recognize Highway 25 as a barrier between the
east and west parts of the historic Downtown core
areas extending to either side of the Highway 25
corridor.
f Consider developing in districts to reduce the need
or desire to cross Highway 25 between 7th street
and the river crossing.
f Strengthen pedestrian ties throughout Downtown
including connections to other parts of the City to
the south, west, and east. Downplay Highway 25
as a corridor for pedestrian movement.
f Improve pedestrian connections between Broadway
Street and the riverfront Park area to allow the park
to serve as an attraction that brings people into the
downtown area.
f Improve access to the Mississippi River to expand
on recreational opportunities.
f Explore creation of a fourth signalized intersection
on Highway 25 between 7th Street and Broadway
Street to improve access to areas with development
and redevelopment potential on either side of the
Highway 25 corridor.
Land Use | 3-212008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
51
Chapter 3 - Downtown Framework Plan and Design Guidelines Framework for Downtown Development
The alternative downtown redevelopment concepts, including the preferred alternative illustrated in
Refined Scheme A (Figure 20) represent and illustrate possibilities for ways that market demand that
exists in the Monticello Trade Area can fit within the northern half of the CD where the greatest
potential for redevelopment exists. The
plans show specific uses and parking
relationships that may, or may not
accurately depict how opportunities are
captured over time within the CCD.
However, what is specific about the
preferred alternative is the general
organization of uses, and the location
of types of uses within the CCD. Figure
21, the Redevelopment Framework
Plan, illustrates the recommended use
districts consistent with the
preferences illustrated in Refined
Scheme A.
Proposed use areas, or districts, in the
Framework Plan are based on access,
location within the CCD, and
surrounding land use relationships. The
Framework Plan represents the
flexibility needed to capture all
potential development and
redevelopment opportunities for the
CCD. As opportunities present
themselves and are evaluated,
locations for uses should fit the
purpose and capabilities of the districts
illustrated in the Framework Plan. The
use districts are defined in greater
detail as part of the proposed Design
Guidelines for the CCD.
Structure for Design Guidelines
The Design Guidelines are intended to correspond to the limits of the CCD Zoning District, and to
establish development controls within the CCD. With the recent modifications to the Monticello Zoning
Code, the development standards for the CCD District were revised to refer to the CCD Design
Guidelines as the controlling legislation for land use, site development standards, and building design
Figure 21 – Framework Plan
Figure 3-12: Framework Plan from the Embracing Downtown Plan
3-22 | Land Use City of Monticello
Downtown Design and Image
f Encourage design standards that elevate the quality
of Downtown development without creating undue
hardships for property and building owners.
f Acknowledge that the historic “Main Street”
buildings and developments along Broadway
Street are functionally obsolete for many tenants
and users in today’s automobile and convenience-
driven marketplace.
f The public realm of streets, boulevards and
sidewalks represents the best opportunity to create
an interim image for downtown as it redevelops.
f The Highway 25 and Broadway corridors should be
softened with streetscape and landscape features to
offset the effects of high traffic volumes, and to help
establish an identity for the Central Community
District (CCD).
f Development should orient toward the intersection
of Highway 25 with Broadway to take advantage of
high traffic volumes in the Highway 25 corridor.
f New development in the Highway 25 corridor
should be scaled to allow visibility to development
up to a block or more away from Highway 25.
f New buildings in the Highway 25 and Broadway
corridors should be located to allow for eventual
widening of the corridor right-of-way and
roadway.
f To the extent possible, buildings should occupy
street frontages and should front on public
sidewalks with connections to a continuous
“Downtown” sidewalk pedestrian system.
f Proposed uses should have adequate parking
(private or public) within easy and convenient
walking distance.
f The Downtown plan should provide strategically
located public gathering spaces to bring people
together to experience a sense of community that
is associated with downtown.
South Central Focus Area
Continued residential growth to the south is an
important element of the Comprehensive Plan. This
growth achieves several objectives:
f It helps to facilitate the expansion of the sanitary
sewer system in conjunction with the reconstruction
of Fallon Avenue. This sanitary sewer capacity is
needed to support future industrial growth area
along Highway 25.
f These areas encourage growth in areas that could
use the new eastern interchange with I-94 rather
than Highway 25.
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to enhance the existing commercial core along Broadway by building
strong connections with the riverfront and the civic/retail district on the south end of Walnut Street.
The current end of Walnut Street is a barrier to improving connections between Downtown and the
riverfront.
Land Use | 3-232008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
f These areas provide appropriate locations for
continued growth in entry-level single family homes
and medium density housing types. These Places
to Live are important elements of maintaining an
adequately diverse housing stock.
f Orderly expansion to the south moves development
towards area of higher natural amenity. Areas along
the southern edge of the Orderly Annexation Area
provide another location for potential “move up”
housing.
A key to development in this focus area is the
construction of the Fallon Avenue bridge. The bridge
leads to the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue and the
related expansion of municipal sanitary sewer and
water systems. Future development will be limited
without additional utility capacity.
East Focus Area
The Comprehensive Plan places greater priority on
growth to the west and south. Development should
be directed to areas that most effectively achieve the
objectives of this Plan.
Several factors could cause the City to encourage future
residential development in the East Focus Area:
f Increased overall housing demand that exceeds the
capacity to support growth in other areas.
f Traffic congestion on Highway 25 that increases the
need to channel use to the east interchange.
Figure 3-14: Land Use Plan - East Focus Area
£¤10 £¤10
Æÿ25
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5!(81
§¨¦
9
4
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37!(1 3 1
0 0.5 10.25
Miles-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates. Land Use Plan
Legend
Places to Live
Places to Shop
Places to Work
Places to Recreate
Places for Community
Downtown
Mixed Use
Interchange Planning Area
Urban Reserve
Infrastructure
Rivers and Streams
Public Waters Inventory
Wetlands (National & Public Waters Inventories)
Potential Greenway
Potential Interchange
Future Bridge
Existing Arterial or Collector Road
Proposed Arterial or Collector Road
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
£¤10 £¤10
Æÿ25
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5!(81
§¨¦
9
4
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37!(1 3 1
00.510.25
Miles-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates. Land Use Plan
Legend
Places to Live
Places to Shop
Places to Work
Places to Recreate
Places for Community
Downtown
Mixed Use
Interchange Planning Area
Urban Reserve
Infrastructure
Rivers and Streams
Public Waters Inventory
Wetlands (National & Public Waters Inventories)
Potential Greenway
Potential Interchange
Future Bridge
Existing Arterial or Collector Road
Proposed Arterial or Collector Road
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
Figure 3-13: Land Use Plan - South Central
f The need to solve stormwater and drainage
management issues (Ditch 33) in this area. Solving
drainage issues allows eastward expansion along
County Road 18.
Future growth in the east should continue to fill in the
development area within the Orderly Annexation Area
on the east side of Monticello. The natural features in
these areas allow for higher amenity neighborhoods.
This growth can occur with new collector/arterial
street corridors.
Community Context | 2-12008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Figure 2-1: Regional Setting
Monticello
2Community Context
Chapter Contents
Physical Characteristics .............2-1
Location .....................................2-1
Planning Context .....................2-2
Existing Land Use ....................2-2
Street System ............................2-4
Orderly Annexation ................2-4
Growth ..........................................2-9
Housing ........................................2-9
Housing Type ............................2-9
Age of Housing ......................2-10
Age of Householder ..............2-11
Households .............................2-12
Mobility ...................................2-14
Demographics ...........................2-15
Age ...........................................2-15
Race ..........................................2-16
Income.....................................2-18
Educational Attainment .......2-19
Occupation .............................2-20
Commuting ............................2-21
Employment ...........................2-22
St. Cloud
Big Lake
St. PaulMinneapolis
Twin Cities Region
Planning for the future does not start on a clean slate. The future will be
built on the foundation of Monticello as it exists today. The Monticello of
today has evolved over time, shaped by a variety of forces. These forces
will continue to shape the community into the future.
The Community Context section of the Comprehensive Plan examines
a variety of forces and factors affecting development of Monticello. A
clear understanding of these influences provides the context for planning
decisions.
This Community Context chapter was updated in the first quarter of 2013
to incorporate updated data since the 2008 plan was prepared. This includes
references to the findings from the 2008 Natural Resource Inventory &
Assessment, 2011 Transportation Plan, the 2010 Census and the 2007-
2011 American Community Survey.
Community indicator analysis now includes both the U.S. Census and
the American Community Survey as the U.S. Census eliminated its
historical long-form in the late 2000s. The long-form was replaced by the
American Community Survey, an ongoing survey that is sent to a sample
of the population each year. Data collected is analyzed and provided to
communities on an annual basis as five-year averages. ACS is now the
source for most socio-economic, income, household, and workforce data.
As is commonly the case, some data previously analyzed in this chapter
are no longer historically comparable. This is usually due to changes in the
wording of questions and responses, as well as challenges in comparing
monetary values across years. Historical comparisons have been provided
where ever possible.
Physical Characteristics
Location
Monticello’s location is a critical factor for the future. Monticello is centrally
located between the Minneapolis/St. Paul and St. Cloud metropolitan areas
on the Interstate 94 corridor (see Figure 2-1). State Highway 25 is a key
north/south corridor on the west edge of the Twin Cities metropolitan
2-2 | Community Context City of Monticello
area. This highway (with the Mississippi River bridge)
connects Sherburne County and other exurban areas
with jobs and services in the Twin Cities. STH 25 is
an important route to recreational areas in northern
Minnesota. In the future, this highway will serve as
the connection with commuter rail transit service in
Big Lake.
This location presents both opportunities and
challenges to Monticello’s future:
f The highway system provides convenient access to
employment, goods and services in the Twin Cities
region. This location allows people to enjoy the
small town environment and lower housing costs
of Monticello while drawing upon employment and
amenities of the Twin Cities.
f This location makes Monticello vulnerable to
increased fuel costs, traffic congestion and travel
time to work.
f Location and accessibility allow Monticello to
become an important center for employment,
services and shopping between St. Cloud and
Minneapolis.
f Thousands of cars travel through Monticello every
day. These vehicles increase the potential market
for local business. On the downside, these trips
add to traffic congestion in Monticello.
The Comprehensive Plan seeks ways to seize the
opportunities and to mitigate the threats created by
Monticello’s location.
Planning Context
The map in Figure 2-2 is a composite of key physical
factors influencing future growth and development:
f Existing land use.
f Potential future street corridors, highway
interchanges and highway bridges.
f Planned expansion of the sanitary sewer system.
f Existing powerline corridors.
f Watershed breaklines.
f Public waters and wetlands.
This map illustrates the location and type of physical
factors that will shape future development of Monticello.
This map was used to form and evaluate land use
alternatives during the planning process.
The section that follows explains these physical factors
in greater detail.
Existing Land Use
The planning process began with the investigation and
analysis of existing land use. Monticello is constantly
changing. Development converts vacant land to built
uses. Redevelopment changes the character and,
at times, the use of land. The map in Figure 2-2 is
a snapshot of Monticello in 2007. This information
forms the foundation of the Comprehensive Plan by
describing:
f The nature and diversity of land uses in Monticello.
f The relationships between built and natural
features of the community.
f Areas with potential capacity to accommodate
future growth.
The map of existing land uses divides Monticello into
a series of residential, commercial, industrial and
public use types. A brief description of each category
of existing land use follows.
Single Family Residential - Traditional single family
neighborhoods where housing units are “unattached”
to one another.
2 to 8 Units - Forms of housing with two to eight units
attached to one another or in a common structure, most
commonly duplexes, twin homes and townhouses.
8+ Units - Higher density residential land uses with
structures containing multiple housing units including
apartments and condominiums.
Manufactured Home Park – Areas that are exclusively
designed for manufactured housing units.
Commercial – Primarily retail and service businesses.
The map shows properties that are currently planned
for commercial use, but have not yet developed.
Industrial - All forms of businesses with manufacturing,
distribution, warehousing or other industrial use. The
Community Context | 2-32008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Figure 2-2: Planning Context
2-4 | Community Context City of Monticello
map shows properties that are currently planned for
industrial use, but have not yet developed.
K-12 School – Elementary, middle and high schools.
Institutional – Churches, cemeteries, hospitals and
other quasi-public land uses.
Public – Property owned by local (not school), state
and federal governments.
Park - Property in the public park system.
Private Recreation Facility – Golf courses and the
YMCA camp.
Railroad – Rail right-of-way.
Utility – Power plant.
Agricultural - Land outside of the city limits and not
occupied by some other land use.
Natural Features
The natural environment has shaped Monticello’s past
and will influence its future. The original community
grew along the Mississippi River. As Monticello grew
away from the River, flat land and reasonable soils
facilitated suburban growth. Looking to the future,
natural features will continue to influence development:
f Much of the prime farm land (as classified by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and
Wright County) is located in the southeastern
sections of the community.
f Abundant aggregate resources create the potential
for mining in future growth areas.
f Lakes, wetlands and wooded areas offer amenities
to attract development and also to be protected.
In 2008, the City of Monticello adopted a Natural
Resource Inventory and Assessment (NRI/A). The
NRI/A is a set of maps and analysis information on
land, water and air resources. Monticello’s NRI/A
also prioritized these resources based on their quality,
character and community value.
The map in Figure 2-4 shows natural features in
and around Monticello, including sites of Ecological
Significance/Community Importance and High Quality
Natural Areas from the NRI/A.
Street System
The street system continues to play a key role in the
form and function of the community. Streets provide
access to property and the ability for land to develop.
Commercial and industrial land uses rely on this
access to conduct business. Streets allow people
to move throughout the community. The physical
design of streets influences the character of residential
neighborhoods and commercial districts.
The best way to describe the street system is in terms
of its functional classification (see Figure 2-5). Each
street serves a specific function. The pieces of the
street system must fit together to achieve the desired
functional outcomes. Monticello’s street system
consists of five functional classifications: Major
Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector, and Local Streets.
f Major Arterial streets represent regional
transportation corridors that connect Monticello
with other cities. Only I-94 is in this classification.
f Minor Arterials are roadways connect Monticello
with the surrounding region. Within Monticello,
Minor Arterials connect districts and other
destinations. The safe and efficient movement of
vehicles is the most important function of these
streets. State Highway 25 and Broadway/County
75 east of Highway 25 are minor arterials.
f Collector streets form the link between arterials and
local streets. As the name suggests, these streets
are intended to “collect” traffic from an area and
channel it into the arterial system. Collector streets
are typically limited in distance to discourage use
for longer trips. Their design typically places equal
emphasis on mobility and access.
f All other streets in Monticello are local streets.
These streets emphasize access to property. They
are typically designed for shorter distances and
lower speeds.
Orderly Annexation
In 2005, the City of Monticello and Monticello Township
entered into an orderly annexation agreement covering
the property surrounding the City (see Figure 2-6).
Community Context | 2-52008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Figure 2-3: Existing Land Use (2007)
39
2-6 | Community Context City of Monticello
Figure 2-4: Natural Resources
£¤10
£¤10
Æÿ2
5
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5
!(81
§¨¦9 4
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37
!(
1
3
1
Orderly
Annexation
Area
0
0.5
1
0.25
Miles
-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates.
Land Use Plan
Legend
Sites of Ecological Significance
High Quality Natural Area
MnDNR FEMA Floodplain
Prime Farmland
Aggregate Resources
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
£¤10
£¤10
Æÿ2
5
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5
!(81
§¨¦94
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37
!(
1
3
1
Orderly
Annexation
Area
0
0.5
1
0.25
Miles
-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates.
Land Use Plan
Legend
Sites of Ecological Significance
High Quality Natural Area
MnDNR FEMA Floodplain
Prime Farmland
Aggregate Resources
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
Community Context | 2-72008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Figure 2-5: Street System
£¤10
£¤10
Æÿ2
5
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5
!(81
§¨¦9 4
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37
!(
1
3
1
Orderly
Annexation
Area
0
0.5
1
0.25
Miles
-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates.
Land Use Plan
Legend
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
£¤10
£¤10
Æÿ2
5
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5
!(81
§¨¦9 4
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37
!(
1
3
1
Orderly
Annexation
Area
0
0.5
1
0.25
Miles
-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates.
Land Use Plan
Legend
Principal Arterial
Minor Arterial
Major Collector
Minor Collector
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
2-8 | Community Context City of Monticello
Figure 2-6: Orderly Annexation Area
Community Context | 2-92008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
This agreement provides a means for the orderly
development of the community without contentious
annexations. It also protects rural portions of the
Township from urbanization. All of the development
shown in the Comprehensive Plan occurs within the
orderly annexation area.
Growth
Monticello celebrated its 150th birthday in 2006. For
most of this time, Monticello was a small town on
the banks of the Mississippi River. Over the past 30
years, the suburban expansion of the Twin Cities has
brought new growth in Monticello. In 1970, the City’s
population totalled 1,636. By 2010, the population had
grown to 12,759 (see Figure 2-7). Between 2000 and
2010, the community grew by 62%.
As shown in Figure 2-8, most of the community’s
growth came in the first half of the decade. From 2000
to 2005, the City issued an average of 219 new housing
permits per year. In 2006, the overall slowdown in
the housing market dropped new growth to just 77
new units. This growth trend continued with only 47
permits issued in 2007 and 18 in 2008. After dropping to
only 2 permits each in 2010 and 2011, housing growth
started to rebound in 2012 with 22 permits.
Prior to the housing slowdown Monticello was seeing
a shift from traditional single-family detached housing
to single-family attached housing. In 2004 and 2005,
there were more single-family attached homes built.
However, attached housing development seems to have
stopped with the slowdown and not yet recovered as the
City has not seen any new attached housing since 2008.
Housing
Housing is a critical part of the context of planning for
the future of Monticello. It is the single largest form of
built land use. Housing shapes the form and character
of the community. It influences who lives in Monticello
today and in the future.
Housing Type
Figure 2-9 shows the growth in Monticello’s housing
stock. Between the 2000 Census and the 2007-2011
ACS, Monticello added 1,933 new units, a 64% increase
in the total number of units. Single-family detached
housing remains the most prevalent housing type at
55% of all units.
Figure 2-7: Population Trends 1970-2010
Figure 2-8: Building Permits for New Housing
Figure 2-9: Housing Type
145
224
184
156
82
126
67
12 9 2 2
222218
31
48
147
130
10 6 0 0 0 00
50
100
150
200
250
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Single-family detached Single-family attached
1,636 1,830
4,941
7,868
12,759
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
90
3
13
1
12
6
92
44
7
20
9
1,
7
7
1
34
7
14
5
53
47
9
21
0
2,
7
1
3
77
5
15
6
10
9
79
0
39
5
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
1-unit detached 1-unit attached 2 to 4 units 5 to 9 units 10 or more units Mobile home, trailer,
or other
Al
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
1990 2000 2007-2011
2-10 | Community Context City of Monticello
Figure 2-10: Regional Housing Type Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)Also seen in Figure 2-8, the fastest
growing housing type between
2000 and the 2007-2011 ACS was
1-unit attached housing units.
The proportion of these units of
all units rose from 7% in 1990 to
16% in the 2007-2011 ACS. Single-
family attached units are defined
as 1-unit structure that has one or
more walls extending from ground
to roof separating it from adjoining
structures. Common forms are
twinhomes, townhomes, or row
houses.
A comparison of Monticello to
Wright County and the Twin Cities
SMSA in Figure 2-10 shows that the
community has generally the same
mix of housing units as the Twin
Cities SMSA. The mix is different
than Wright County, which is to be
expected given its rural nature.
The 2007-2011 ACS identifies
20% of the population as living in
rental housing units. Over half of
all renters live in structures with
more than 5 units, while one-third
live in single-family structures. The
distribution of renters in Monticello
is similar to the Twin Cities SMSA.
Age of Housing
Given the growth of Monticello,
it is not surprising to find that the
housing stock is relatively new,
especially when compared to the
Twin Cities SMSA. One-third of
the housing stock in the 2007-2011
ACS was built in 2000 or later (see
Figure 2-12). Only 24% of all units
were built before 1970. Rental
units tend to be older with 40% of
all rental units being built before
1970 as compared to only 18% of
owned units.
55
%
16
%
1%2%2%
5%
11
%
8%
78
%
9%
0%1%1%2%4%5%
61
%
11
%
3%
2%2%4%
15
%
2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1-unit,
detached
1-unit,
attached
2 units 3 or 4 units 5 to 9 units 10 to 19 units 20 or more
units
Mobile home
Al
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Monticello Wright Twin Cities SMSA
Figure 2-11: Regional Housing Type and Tenure Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)
73
%
7%
1%2%
0%
12
%
85
%
7%
0%1%
0%
4%
72
%
8%
1%
3%
2%
13
%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Owner SF Renter SF Owner 2 to 4 Renter 2 to 4 Owner 5 or more Renter 5 or more
Al
l
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
-
20
0
7
-20
1
1
Monticello Wright Twin Cities SMSA
Community Context | 2-112008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Figure 2-12: Regional Year Built Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)
Figure 2-13: Year Built/Tenure/Age of Householder (2007-2011 ACS)
Age of Householder
Figure 2-13 connects the age of
the housing with the age of the
householder and status as renter
or owner across all households in
Monticello. Analysis of this data
shows:
f 25% of all households are
headed by owners aged 35-64
who are living in homes built
between 1980 and 1999.
f Of households headed by
individuals aged 15 to 34, 40%
are owners who live in a home
built since 2000, while 21% were
renters who live in a home built
before 1980.
f 57% of all households are
headed by those aged 35 to 64,
82% of those in that age bracket
are homeowners.
f 61% of senior households
(householder age 65 and older)
lived in owned housing. Of
renters, 59% live in units built
between 1980 and 1999.
f 41% of rental units are occupied
by households headed by
persons age 34 or younger,
while 21% are occupied by
seniors.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Built 2005
or later
Built 2000
to 2004
Built 1990
to 1999
Built 1980
to 1989
Built 1970
to 1979
Built 1960
to 1969
Built 1950
to 1959
Built 1940
to 1949
Built 1939
or earlier
Year Built
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
15-34
35-64
65+
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Own
2000 or
later Own
1980 to
1999 Own
Before
1980 Rent
2000 or
later Rent
1980 to
1999 Rent
Before
1980
2-12 | Community Context City of Monticello
Households
A household includes all the people
who occupy a housing unit as
their usual place of residence.
Household characteristics offer
another perspective on the people
living in Monticello:
f 67% of Monticello households
are family households (see
Figure 2-14). This compares
with 74% for the entire County
and 64% for the region.
f 49% of all Monticello family
households include a married
couple. This is down from 53%
in 2000 and 56% in 1990.
f 43% of all households included
children under the age of 18.
Only 33% of all households in
the region contained children.
f Of the 1,749 households added
from 2000 to 2010, 63% were
family households. Of these
new family households, 69%
were married couple families.
Monticello has a smaller proportion
of nonfamily households than the
region as a whole (33% to 36%), but
more than Wright County (26%).
Monticello’s nonfamily households
consist largely of the householder
living alone (78% of nonfamily
households).
Marital status provides another view
of the general family orientation of
Monticello. The 2007-2011 ACS
indicates that 55% of the population
(age 15 and older) is currently
married. This is a lower level than
reported for the County, but above
the regional average (see Figure
2-16).
Figure 2-15: Household Type (1990 and 2000)
Figure 2-14: Regional Comparison of Household Type
28
%
21
%
12
%
6%
33
%
31
%
30
%
8%
5%
26
%
23
%
27
%
8%
6%
35
%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Married - children <18 Married - other Other family - children
<18
Other family - other Nonfamily
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
1,777
1,285
987
492 394
2,944
2,066
1,550
878 698
4,693
3,164
2,311
1,529
1,197
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
Total households Family households
(families)
Married-couple family Nonfamily households Householder living alone
1990 2000 2010
A Family Household includes a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are related
to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. A family household may contain people not related to the
householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder’s family in census tabulations. This
means that the population living in family household may exceed the population of families.
Nonfamiliy Households contain a group of unrelated people or one person living alone.
The Householder is the person in whose name the home is owned or rented.
Community Context | 2-132008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
The Census shows several trends
about the size of each household:
f The economy has slightly
reversed the historical trend
of households getting smaller.
While the average size of a
household dropped from 2.73
in 1990 to 2.64 in 2000, it
increased to 2.68 in 2010. (see
Figure 2-17).
f The rebound of household size
is due to renters where the
household size rose from 1.97
in 2000 to 2.25 in 2010. The size
of owner households continued
to drop between 2000 and 2010.
f The average household living in
owned housing is larger (2.85
people per household) than
the typical household in rental
housing (2.25 people).
f For each household and family
type in Figure 2-18, Monticello
has fewer people per household/
family than for Wright County
as a whole. However, it is larger
than the Twin Cities SMSA.
Figure 2-17: Household Size (1990 to 2010)
Figure 2-18: Regional Household Size Comparison (2010)
2.73
3.04
2.26
2.64
2.90
1.97
2.68 2.85
2.25
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
All households Owned housing Rental housing
1990 2000 2010
2.64
3.13
2.90
1.97
2.83
3.26
2.98
2.04
2.56
3.15
2.75
2.04
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Average household size Average family size Average household size - own Average household size - rent
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
27
%
55
%
1%
5%
11
%
24
%
63
%
1%
4%
8%
32
%
52
%
1%
4%
10
%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Never married Now married, except
separated
Separated Widowed Divorced
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
1
5
y
e
a
r
s
a
n
d
o
l
d
e
r
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
Figure 2-16: Regional Marital Status Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)
2-14 | Community Context City of Monticello
Mobility
Mobility is an important
characteristic of Monticello’s
population. Unfortunately, between
the 2000 Census and the 2007-2011
ACS the question changed from
residence in previous five years to
residence previous year. While this
change helps with understanding
mobility moving forward, it does
prevent historical comparisons at
this time.
In the 2007-2011 ACS, 83% of the
population lived in the same house
the previous year. This compares
to 90% for Wright County and
85% for the region. The Census
does not report movement within
Monticello (the population that
moved to a different house in
Monticello) during this period.
However, it does note that 7% of the
population came from elsewhere
in Wright County. Monticello had
a higher percentage than both the
county or region of people who had
moved from a different Minnesota
county (7%) or a different state (3%)
Another measure of mobility is
the year moved into their current
residence. In the 2007-2011 ACS,
74% of Monticello’s population had
moved into their current house
2000 or later. This compares to 62%
in Wright County and 60% in the
region.
These mobility statistics suggest
that Monticello’s population is
relatively new to the community.
These residents have had limited
time to form connections to
the community. The sense of
community history has a short time
horizon.
Figure 2-19: Regional Comparison of Residence Previous Year
Figure 2-20: Year Moved Into House (2000)
83
%
17
%
7%
10
%
7%
3%
90
%
10
%
5%6%
4%
1%
85
%
14
%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Same house Different house in
the U.S.
Same county Different county Same state Different state
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
46%
28%
18%
5%
2%1%
35%
28%
21%
9%
5%3%
38%
21%21%
10%
5%4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
2005 or later 2000 to 2004 1990 to 1999 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1969 or earlier
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
Community Context | 2-152008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Demographics
A comprehensive plan focuses
most closely on the physical aspects
of community - land use, parks,
streets, and utilities. Planning
must recognize that the physical
and social aspects of community
are intertwined. It is impossible to
plan for the future without a careful
examination of the demographic,
social and economic characteristics
of the community.
Age
Monticello’s population increased
from 4,941 in 1990 to 12,759 in
2010, a 158% increase. As shown in
Figure 2-21, the population grew in
all age brackets.
An issue raised at community
meetings was that Monticello is
a “starter” community. Young
families buy their first home in
Monticello, but move away later
in life. A comparison with Wright
County and the Twin Cities SMSA
does show that Monticello has a
larger percentage of families with
children (72%) than the Twin Cities
SMSA (63%).
Monticello has a smaller population
of older residents. Only 9% of the
2010 population was age 65 or
older. The senior population is
slightly smaller than for Wright
County (10%) or the Twin Cities
region (11%).
Monticello is a relatively young
community. The 2000 median age
of Monticello’s population was 32.4
years. This compares with 35 years
for the county and 37 years for the
region.
Figure 2-21: Age of Population
Figure 2-22: Age Distribution City/County/Region (2000)
507
1,303
1,915
697 519799
1,846
3,333
1,192
698
1,292
2,893
4,977
2,390
1,207
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
Under 5 years 5 to 19/20 years 19/20 years to 44 45 to 64 Over 65 years
1990 2000 2010
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
65 and older 35 to 64 20 to 34 5 to 19 Under 5
2-16 | Community Context City of Monticello
Race
It is important to understand how
the Census addresses racial issues.
The Census allows people to select
the race or races with which they
most closely identify. The standards
for collecting and presenting data
on race and ethnicity were revised
for the 2000 Census. The new
guidelines are intended to reflect
“the increasing diversity of our
Nation’s population, stemming from
growth in interracial marriages and
immigration.” As a result, race data
from prior to 2000 is not directly
comparable.
An examination of Census data
shows diversity in Monticello did
increase from 3% in 2000 to 7%
in 2010. The racial diversity of
Monticello’s population is similar
to Wright County, but less than the
region as a whole (see Figure 2-24).
Another factor in understanding
race data is the reporting of the
Hispanic population. People who
identify their origin as Spanish,
Hispanic, or Latino are not classified
as a separate racial category. They
may be of any race. The number
of people reported as Hispanic or
Latino (of any race) rose from 160 in
2000 to 686 in 2010. Monticello’s 5%
proportion is notably greater than
Wright County’s 2% and the same
as the region.
School enrollment data collected
and reported by the Minnesota
Department of Education provides
a more current look at the racial
composition of Monticello’s
population. For the 2012/2013
school year, the four schools in
Figure 2-23: Race (1990 to 2010)
Figure 2-24: Regional Comparison of Race (2010)
Figure 2-25: Race of Elementary School Population (2006/07)
93%
2%1%1%2%2%
95%
1%0%1%1%2%
81%
7%
1%6%2%3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
White Black or African
American
American Indian and
Alaska Native
Asian Some other race Two or more races
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
LITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY
PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY
MONTICELLO MIDDLE
MONTICELLO SENIOR HIGH
American Indian Asian Hispanic Black White
7,
6
2
9
26 16 44 50 10
3
11
,
8
1
2
19
5
64 13
0
29
5
26
3
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
White Black or African
American
American Indian or
Native Alaskan
Asian Some other race Two or more races
2000 2010
Community Context | 2-172008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Monticello School District reported
that 9% of total enrollment was a
race other than white. (In this data,
Hispanic is classified as a category
of race) This is up from 7% in the
2006/2007 school year. The chart
in Figure 2-25 shows the racial
composition for each school. Little
Mountain Elementary has the most
diverse student population.
Another way of looking at the ethnic
characteristics of the population
is place of birth. Only 1.7% of
Monticello’s population was foreign
born in the 2007-2011 ACS. As
with race, the ratio of foreign born
residents is similar to county and
well below regional levels (see
Figure 2-26). Of note, the percent of
foreign born dropped slightly from
the 2000 Census.
The chart in Figure 2-27 compares
the place of birth for the foreign born
population. Latin America was the
most common place of birth for all
jurisdictions. 55% of Monticello’s
foreign born population was born
in Latin America.
Figure 2-27: Regional Place of Birth Foreign Born Population -Comparison
(2007-2011 ACS)
Figure 2-26: Regional Place of Birth Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)
79
%
19
%
0%1%1%
81
%
16
%
0%1%1%
64
%
26
%
1%
4%5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Native - born in MN Native - born in other
State
Native - born outside US Foreign born - naturalized
citizen
Foreign born - not a citizen
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
3%
9%
0%0%
55
%
33
%
17
%
24
%
11
%
1%
37
%
11
%
12
%
39
%
21
%
0%
26
%
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Europe Asia Africa Oceania Latin America Northern America
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
2-18 | Community Context City of Monticello
Income
Income influences many aspects of
community. Income provides the
capacity to acquire housing (own
or rent) and to purchase goods
and services from local businesses.
Income influences the demand for
and the capacity to support public
services.
Census data shows that Monticello
has more households earning less
than $35,000 than the county. In
addition, the community has a
lower percentage of high income
households than either the county
or region. (see Figure 2-28).
Figure 2-29 compares Monticello
with other cities in the northwest
sector of the Twin Cities region.
For both measures of income,
Monticello falls below all
communities except Big Lake,
Becker, and Buffalo.
Data about the characteristics of
children enrolled in the public
school system provide some
insights about current economic
conditions. In the 20012/13 school
year, Monticello elementary schools
reported that 26% of the student
population was eligible for free
and reduced price lunches. This is
an increase from the 21% eligible
in 2006/2007 school year. For
individual schools, this segment of
the student population ranges from
less than 22% to 29% (see Figure
2-30).
Figure 2-28: Regional Income Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)
25%
32%
37%
6%
21%
34%
37%
8%
25%
32%32%
12%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Less than $35,000 $34,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $149,999 $150,000 and above
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
Figure 2-29: City Comparison Incomes (2007-2011 ACS)
66
,
7
4
8
77
,
0
3
8
84
,
6
6
1
83
,
8
9
0
64
,
1
4
8
67
,
7
5
0
66
,
2
0
0
74
,
2
0
8
63
,
5
3
3
76
,
0
3
4
70
,
2
2
4
83
,
9
5
2
73
,
7
1
1
77
,
7
5
7
94
,
7
6
9
99
,
9
4
0
86
,
1
6
3
89
,
2
2
0
69
,
6
7
4
78
,
5
4
3
66
,
1
5
7
82
,
4
4
8
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Median household Median family
Monticello Albertville Becker Big Lake
Buffalo Elk River Otsego Rogers
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
LITTLE MOUNTAIN
ELEMENTARY
PINEWOOD
ELEMENTARY
MONTICELLO MIDDLE MONTICELLO SENIOR
HIGH
En
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
S
c
h
o
o
l
Y
e
a
r
Enrollment Free Lunch
Figure 2-30: Socio-Economic Indicators Monticello Schools (20012/13)
Community Context | 2-192008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Educational Attainment
The Census shows an increase
in college education among
Monticello residents. From 1990 to
the 2007-2011 ACS, the percentage
of the population age 25 and older
who was a college graduate of
some type (associate, bachelor, or
graduate) rose from 21% to 38%. In
the 2007-2011 ACS, only 5% of the
population did not graduate from
high school.
The chart in Figure 2-32 compares
educational attainment in
Monticello with Wright County
and the region. Monticello has a
noticeably lower level of residents
with bachelors or graduate degrees
than the region.
Employment
Employment touches many aspects
of community life. Jobs provide
the income to pay for housing and
to purchase goods and services.
The location of jobs influences
the amount of time Monticello
residents are in the community each
day. Commuting decisions impact
transportation systems.
Labor Force
The Census looks at the potential
working population as persons
age 16 and older. The Labor Force
includes all people classified in the
civilian labor force, plus members
of the U.S. Armed Forces. The
Civilian Labor Force consists of
people classified as employed or
unemployed.
Monticello’s labor force grew with
the population from 1990 to the
2007-2011 ACS (see Figure 2-33).
Figure 2-31: Educational Attainment
Figure 2-32: Regional Educational Attainment Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Less than 9th
grade
9th to 12th
grade, no
diploma
High school
graduate
(includes
equivalency)
Some college, no
degree
Associate degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or
professional
degree
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
2
5
y
e
a
r
s
a
n
d
o
l
d
e
r
1990 2000 2007-2011
7%
32
%
24
%
13
%
18
%
6%7%
33
%
24
%
11
%
19
%
6%7%
24
%
22
%
9%
25
%
12
%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
No H.S. diploma High school graduate Some college, no
degree
Associate degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or
professional degree
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
2
5
y
e
a
r
s
a
n
d
o
l
d
e
r
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
2-20 | Community Context City of Monticello
The share of the working age
population employed in the labor
force grew from 67% to 75%. It is
important to note, however, that
unemployment during the same
period also rose from 3.8% to 5.3%.
The increase in the employed
population primarily came from the
transition of folks not in the labor
force. This would include students,
stay at home parents, or seniors,
into the labor force. The percentage
of those classifying themselves as
not in the labor force dropped from
29% in 1990 to 20% in the 2007-
2011 ACS.
Occupation
Figure 2-34 compares the occupation
of Monticello’s population with the
county and region. Monticello
stands out with a lower percentage
of the working population employed
in managerial and professional
occupations. Unfortunately due
to changes in occupation coding,
historical comparisons of this data
is unavailable.
An examination of Quarterly
Census of Employment and Wages
shows that between the 1st quarter
of 2002 to the 1st quarter of 2012,
Monticello did have an increase in
the number of establishments and
employees. Monticello’s 24% growth
in the number of employees was
greater than either Wright County
(18%) or the state (2%). Note that
given a change in data collection
methods, not all industries are
represented in the table. This data
shows a better overall growth than
was found in Table 2-5 of the 2010
Business Retention and Expansion
Research Report. That report looked
Figure 2-33: Population in the Labor Force
67%
4%
29%
76%
2%
21%
75%
5%
20%
75%
5%
20%
72%
5%
24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Employed Unemployed Not in labor force
%
o
f
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
A
g
e
1
6
a
n
d
O
v
e
r
1990 Monticello 2000 Monticello 2007-2011 Monticello 2007-2011 Wright County 2007-2011 Twin Cities SMSA
31
%
16
%
31
%
10
%
12
%
34
%
16
%
25
%
11
%
14
%
42
%
15
%
25
%
7%
11
%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Management, business,
science, and arts
occupations
Service occupations Sales and office
occupations
Natural resources,
construction, and
maintenance
occupations
Production,
transportation, and
material moving
occupations
Ci
v
i
l
i
a
n
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
A
g
e
1
6
a
n
d
O
v
e
r
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
Figure 2-34: Regional Occupation Comparison
20022012% Change20022012% Change
Total, All Industries 338 374 11%5,992 7,427 24%
Manufacturing 26 23 ‐12%780 1,041 33%
Retail Trade 57 60 5%1,058 1,273 20%
Information 7 8 14%83 87 5%
Finance and Insurance 28 22 ‐21%149 129 ‐13%
Real Estate and Rental
and Leasing 14 18 29%36 32 ‐11%
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation 6 4 ‐33%88 93 6%
Accommodation and
Food Services 25 38 52%562 720 28%
Other Services (except
Public Administration)17 34 100%152 166 9%
Public Administration 2 4 100%113 155 37%
Number of EstablishmentsNumber of Employees
Figure 2-35: Monticello Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
Community Context | 2-212008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
specifically at the change from 2008
to 2010 where there were losses
in retail trade, manufacturing,
accommodation and food service,
public administration, finance and
insurance, and arts, entertainment
and recreation.
Commuting
Travel to work data shows a very
automobile dependent pattern
(see Figures 2-36 and 2-37). The
percent of Monticello workers
driving alone to work increased
from 1990 (78%) to 2007-2011
ACS (86%). Less than 1 percent
of the labor force in Monticello
uses public transportation. More
people walked or worked at home
than used public transportation.
The share of workers that walked or
worked at home remained the same
at 5%. These commuting patterns
are reflective of other exurban
settings in the Twin Cities regions.
The employment and commuting
patterns contribute to the necessity
of owning an automobile in
Monticello. Only 7% of occupied
housing units did not have a vehicle
(see Figure 2-37). The percentage
of housing units with two or more
vehicles rose from 58% in 1990 to
65% in the 2007-2011 ACS.
The Census also collects data on
the average travel time to work.
The 2000 Census reported a mean
commute time of 24 minutes. In the
2007-2011 ACS, the mean travel
times to work were 28.5 minutes
for Monticello, 29.7 minutes for
Wright County, and 24.5 minutes
for the region.
78%
15%
1%1%5%
83%
12%
0%1%4%
86%
6%0%1%5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Drove alone Carpool Public transportation Other means Walked or worked at
home
Wo
r
k
e
r
s
A
g
e
1
6
a
n
d
O
v
e
r
1990 2000 2007-2011
Figure 2-36: Means of Travel to Work
Figure 2-37: Regional Means of Travel to Work Comparison (2007-2011 ACS)
86
%
6%
0%1%3%3%
84
%
8%
1%1%1%
5%
78
%
9%
5%
2%
2%5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Drove alone Carpool Public transportation Walk Other Work at home
%
W
o
r
k
e
r
s
A
g
e
1
6
a
n
d
O
v
e
r
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
7%
28%
43%
22%
3%
22%
46%
29%
8%
31%
41%
20%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
None 1 2 3 or more
%
o
f
O
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
Figure 2-38: Regional Comparison of Number of Vehicles (2007-2011 ACS)
2-22 | Community Context City of Monticello
Employment
The U.S. Census Center for
Economic Studies now provides
local employment dynamic data
on its OntheMap website. 2010
data from that website shows that
Monticello provided employment
for 4,684 workers and had 5,432
residents in the workforce (see
Figure 2-39). Of those employed in
Monticello, only 17% also lived in
the community. Similarly, of those
who reside in Monticello, only 15%
work in the community. This means
that only 835 people both live and
work in the community. Figure 2-40
provides a snapshot of the inflow/
outflow for 2002 to 2010.
Figure 2-41 shows that Monticello
how well Monticello is able to
keep workers residing in the
community and residents working
in the community. While Monticello
has noticeably higher retention
rates than Becker, Big Lake and
Monticello, it has a lower rate than
Buffalo.
Figure 2-40 shows the place of
residence for people traveling to
Monticello for work. The bulk
of the work force continues to
comes from the area surrounding
Monticello. 30% of people working
in the community live elsewhere in
Wright County, including Buffalo
and St. Michael. Another 26% of
the workforce lives in Sherburne
County, including Becker and Big
Lake.
Nearly 40% of Monticello residents
work in Hennepin County, with the
largest percentages in Minneapolis,
Plymouth, and Maple Grove.
Another 15% work elsewhere in
Figure 2-39: OntheMap 2010 Inflow/Outflow Job Counts
Inflow/Outflow Report
Inflow/Outflow Job Counts(Primary Jobs)
2010
Count Share
Employed in the Selection
Area 4,684 100.0%
Employed in the Selection
Area but Living Outside 3,849 82.2%
Employed and Living in the
Selection Area 835 17.8%
Living in the Selection Area 5,432 100.0%
Living in the Selection Area
but Employed Outside 4,597 84.6%
Living and Employed in the
Selection Area 835 15.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment
Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2010).
Notes:
1. Race, Ethnicity, Educational Attainment, and Sex statistics are beta release results and only
available for 2009 and 2010 data.
2. Educational Attainment is only produced for workers aged 30 and over.
Inflow/Outflow Report
Inflow/Outflow Job Counts(Primary Jobs)
2010
Count Share
Employed in the Selection
Area 4,684 100.0%
Employed in the Selection
Area but Living Outside 3,849 82.2%
Employed and Living in the
Selection Area 835 17.8%
Living in the Selection Area 5,432 100.0%
Living in the Selection Area
but Employed Outside 4,597 84.6%
Living and Employed in the
Selection Area 835 15.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application and LEHD Origin-Destination Employment
Statistics (Beginning of Quarter Employment, 2nd Quarter of 2002-2010).
Notes:
1. Race, Ethnicity, Educational Attainment, and Sex statistics are beta release results and only
available for 2009 and 2010 data.
2. Educational Attainment is only produced for workers aged 30 and over.
Figure 2-41: OntheMap 2010 Inflow/Outflow Regional Comparison
Figure 2-40: OntheMap 2002-2010 Inflow/Outflow Job Counts
2002 2006 2010
Employees 3,906 4,239 4,684
% Workers Living in Monticello 20.5%20%17.8%
Residents Employed 4,400 4,835 5,432
% Residents Employed in Monticello 18.5%17.5%15.4%
15%
18%
22%22%
7%
10%
6%
12%
6%
16%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Resident Employed in City Employee Living in City
Monticello Buffalo Becker Big Lake St. Michael
Community Context | 2-232008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
Wright County, including Buffalo
and St. Michael.
OntheMap provides an ability
compare the wages earned by
residents and workers (see Figure
2-44). The 2010 data shows that
a larger percentage of residents
are able to earn a higher wage
working outside the community
than within the community. It also
shows that the spread of incomes
for jobs within the community held
by non-residents has a generally
equal spread amongst all income
brackets.
Figure 2-45 compares the reported
educational attainment of
Monticello workers when provided.
This figure indicates that workers in
Big Lake (64%) and Becker (66%)
are slightly more educated than in
Monticello (63%). Buffalo has the
same mix as Monticello. At 60% St.
Michael has slightly lower higher
education levels than in Monticello.
Monticello,
15.4%
Minneapolis,
7.8%
Plymouth, 4.6%
Buffalo, 4.5%
Maple Grove,
4.3%
St. Cloud, 3.9%
Other Hennepin
County, 23.0%
Other Wright
County, 9.8%
Other
Sherburne
County, 7.7%
Ramsey County,
5.0%
Anoka County,
5.0%
Other Place,
9.0%Monticello,
17.8%
Big Lake, 5.9%
Buffalo, 4.0%
St. Michael,
3.5%
Becker, 3.0%
Other Wright
County, 22.2%
Other
Sherburne
County, 17.7%
Hennepin
County, 5.3%
Stearns County,
5.0%
Anoka County,
3.2%
Other Place,
12.4%
Figure 2-42: OntheMap 2010 Where Employees Live Figure 2-43: OntheMap 2010 Where Residents Work
Figure 2-44: OntheMap 2010 Income Comparison
Figure 2-45: OntheMap 2010 Education Attainment by Worker
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Bachelor's degree or
advanced degree
Some college or Associate
degree
High school or equivalent,
no college
Less than high school
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
More than $3,333 per
month
$1,251 to $3,333 per
month
$1,250 per month or less
2-24 | Community Context City of Monticello
OntheMap also enables a comparison of jobs by NAICS Industry Sector across communities for 2010. As shown
in Figure 2-43, the highest percentage of Monticello’s jobs are in the Retail Trade, Educational Services, and Health
Care and Social Assistance sectors. Monticello’s 11.6% of manufacturing jobs is less than Becker and Big Lake
but larger than St. Michael and Buffalo. When analyzing this table it is important to remember that Monticello
has 4,684 jobs while Buffalo has 5,625, Becker has 1,429, Big Lake has 2,155, and St. Michael has 2,797. This is
particularly important when comparing the communities as some communities may have a higher percentage
of workers in an industry, but yet the total number of employees in that sector may be less as they have a smaller
total workforce in that community. For example, while Big Lake has 26% of its workers in manufacturing compared
to Monticello’s 12%, Big Lake only has about 20 more workers in manufacturing than Monticello.
Figure 2-46: OntheMap 2010 Jobs by NAICS Industry Sector1
Industry Sector CountShareCountShareCountShareCountShareCountShare
Retail Trade 86818.5%88915.1%35725.0%29613.7%31711.3%
Educational Services 80717.2%5108.7%43730.6%34115.8%1836.5%
Health Care and Social
Assistance
80417.2%1,94333.0%1117.8%2009.3%1605.7%
Manufacturing 54511.6%3085.2%22415.7%56826.4%27910.0%
Accommodation and Food
Services
3277.0%4908.3%634.4%1627.5%49417.7%
Wholesale Trade 2645.6%811.4%795.5%602.8%45716.3%
Construction 2224.7%2354.0%151.0%261.2%42615.2%
Transportation and Warehousing1613.4%340.6%684.8%562.6%361.3%
Public Administration 1393.0%60610.3%00.0%653.0%281.0%
Other Services (excluding Public
Administration)
1202.6%1953.3%90.6%602.8%712.5%
Finance and Insurance 962.0%1101.9%312.2%281.3%602.1%
Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services
831.8%1582.7%181.3%371.7%672.4%
Administration & Support, Waste
Management and Remediation
691.5%891.5%40.3%170.8%702.5%
Management of Companies and
Enterprises
701.5%200.3%00.0%20.1%682.4%
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing
320.7%430.7%40.3%120.6%301.1%
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation
300.6%540.9%40.3%321.5%321.1%
Information 280.6%791.3%50.3%572.6%60.2%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and
Hunting
190.4%510.9%00.0%60.3%130.5%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and
Gas Extraction
00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%00.0%
Utilities 00.0%00.0%00.0%1306.0%00.0%
Total 4,684100%5,625100%1,429100%2,155100%2,797100%
BuffaloBeckerBig LakeSt. MichaelMonticello
Worker Area Profile
3-10 | Land Use City of Monticello
cities and developments can guide future planning and
decision making in Monticello.
Attractive Places
Attractive physical appearance is one of the most
common attributes of Places to Live in Monticello.
Attractiveness is a combination of design, construction
and maintenance. These characteristics apply to
buildings and sites. Attractiveness is relevant for both
private and public property. Attractiveness reflects
individual pride in property as well as an overall sense
of community quality.
The City may use a variety of regulatory tools to
influence the potential for attractive neighborhoods:
f Building codes and additional regulations to
promote quality construction.
f Subdivision regulations control the initial
configuration of lots.
f Zoning regulations establish limitations on the size
of lots, placement of the house on a lot, relationship
of structure size to lot area, and building height.
f Nuisance ordinances enable the City to prevent and
correct undesirable uses of property.
f Other City regulations control other ancillary uses
of residential property.
Maintenance of property is a factor in sustaining
quality neighborhoods. The tenure (form of ownership)
influences the responsibility for housing maintenance.
The owner-occupant of a single family detached home
is solely responsible for the maintenance of building
and grounds. If this same home is rented, maintenance
responsibilities are often shared between tenant and
owner. This relationship may include a third party
property manager retained by the owner to perform
maintenance duties. Owners of attached housing may
act collectively through a homeowner’s association.
In multiple family rental housing, the tenants have no
direct responsibility for property maintenance. This
discussion does not imply a preference, but is intended
solely to highlight the differences. This understanding
becomes relevant when public action is needed to
address a failure of the private maintenance approach.
Nuisance ordinances are one tool used by the City
to address failures in private maintenance and use of
property.
Economics also influences property maintenance. The
greater the portion of income devoted to basic housing
costs (mortgage/rent, taxes, utilities), the less money
available for maintenance activities. Maintenance
can be deferred, but not avoided. If left unchecked,
this cycle of avoided maintenance produces negative
effects.
Safe Places
Safety is frequently identified as the most desired
characteristic of Places to Live. Several aspects of the
Comprehensive Plan and city government influence
safe neighborhoods.
1. The City will encourage existing neighborhoods
and develop new neighborhoods where people
are involved in the community, interact with their
neighbors and support each other.
2. The City will design, build and maintain a system
of streets that collects traffic from neighborhoods,
allows movement within Monticello to jobs,
shopping and other destinations and minimizes
traffic that “cuts through” neighborhoods on local
streets seeking other destinations.
3. The City will provide, directly or by contract,
services needed to protect people and property.
4. The City will support the Land Use Plan with a
water supply that provides clean water at pressures
needed to support fire suppression.
5. The City will protect the natural environment
by requiring new development to connect to the
sanitary sewer system and by adequately treating
all municipal wastewater.
6. The City will provide water that is safe to drink by
protecting water supply sources.
Places to Work
This land use is primarily intended for industrial
development. Places to Work seeks to provide
locations for the retention, expansion and creation of
businesses that provide jobs for Monticello residents
and expansion and diversification of the property tax
base. In order to be a center of employment with a wide
Land Use | 3-112008 Comprehensive Plan ~ Updated 2013
range of job opportunities, it is critical that Monticello
preserve sufficient land for Places to Work over the
next twenty-five years. These land uses can be one of
the most challenging to locate because of its need for
convenient transportation access and influence on
surrounding land uses. In planning for future Places to
Work, the Comprehensive Plan considers the goals of
the community; what type of industrial development
is sought; and what factors should be considered when
locating an industrial land use.
In planning for sustaining existing businesses and
attracting new development, it is necessary to
understand why Places to Work are important to
Monticello. The objectives for this land use include:
f Expanding and diversifying the property tax base.
f Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for
people to work and live in Monticello.
f Promoting wage levels that provide incomes
needed to purchase decent housing, support
local businesses and support local government
services.
f Take advantage of opportunities to attract
companies that have a synergy with existing
companies in the community, including suppliers,
customers and collaborative partners.
f Encouraging the retention and expansion of
existing businesses in Monticello.
Figure 3-8: Land Use Plan - Places to Work
£¤10 £¤10
Æÿ25
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5!(81
§¨¦
9
4
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37!(1 3 1
0 0.5 10.25
Miles-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates. Land Use Plan
Legend
Public Waters Inventory
Rivers and Streams
Potential Interchange
Potential Bridge
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Jobs
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
3-12 | Land Use City of Monticello
Policies – Places to Work
1. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to
designate and preserve a supply of land for Places
to Work that meets current and future needs.
2. Consistent with the vision for the future of
Monticello, the Land Use Plan promotes the
establishment of business campus settings that
provide a high level of amenities, including
architectural controls, landscaping, preservation of
natural features, storage enclosed within buildings,
and other features. The zoning ordinance,
subdivision regulations and other land use controls
will also be used to create and maintain the desired
business campus settings.
3. Places to Work supports the City’s desire to attract
businesses that complement existing businesses
or benefit from the community’s infrastructure,
including power and telecommunications.
4. The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that
Places to Work should provide locations for
other general industrial development in the areas
of manufacturing, processing, warehousing,
distribution and related businesses.
5. Places to Work may include non-industrial
businesses that provide necessary support to the
underlying development objectives of this land use.
Examples of supporting land uses include lodging,
office supplies and repair services.
Additional public objectives and strategies for Places
to Work can be found in the Economic Development
chapter.
Figure 3-9: Land Use Plan - Places to Shop
£¤10 £¤10
Æÿ25
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5!(81
§¨¦
94
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(39
!(106
!(37!(1 3 1
0 0.5 10.25
Miles-
November 1, 2011
Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB & Associates. Land Use Plan
Legend
Public Waters Inventory
Rivers and Streams
Potential Interchange
Potential Bridge
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Commerce
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
£¤10 £¤10
Æÿ25
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5!(81
§¨¦
94
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(3 9
!(106
!(37!(1 3 1
0 0.5 10.25
Miles-
November 1, 2011Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright County, and WSB & Associates. Land Use Plan
Legend
Places to Live
Places to Shop
Places to Work
Places to Recreate
Places for Community
Downtown
Mixed Use
Interchange Planning Area
Urban Reserve
Infrastructure
Rivers and Streams
Public Waters Inventory
Wetlands (National & Public Waters Inventories)
Potential Greenway
Potential Interchange
Future Bridge
Existing Arterial or Collector Road
Proposed Arterial or Collector Road
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
IEDC Agenda: 03/05/13
6. Consideration to review Building Materials Requirements (Monticello Zoning
Ordinance) for Industrially Zoned Properties (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
Staff is providing for the IEDC’s review and recommendation a section of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Building Materials requirements.
In the recent re-drafting process for the zoning ordinance, a small group of IEDC
members was involved in reviewing code changes as they related to industrially
zoned properties. Part of their review included building materials standards.
However, it is staff’s belief that a clerical error was made in the final drafting of
the text of building materials regulations. As such, the regulations may not reflect
the small group’s direction as related to required materials for industrial districts.
The code currently reads:
(1) In the Industrial and Business Campus District (IBC), the Light Industrial District
(I-1) and the Heavy Industrial District (I-2), the following building materials and
standards shall apply:
(a) Any exposed metal or fiberglass finish on all buildings shall be limited to no
more than fifty (50) percent of any one wall if it is coordinated into the
architectural design. Any metal finish utilized in the building shall be
aluminum of twenty-six (26) gauge steel, the roof slope shall be limited to a
maximum of one (1) in twelve (12) slope.
(b) All buildings constructed of curtain wall panels of finished steel, aluminum,
or fiberglass shall be required to be faced with brick, wood, stone,
architectural concrete cast in place or pre-cast panels on all wall surfaces.
(2) In the Light Industrial (I-1) and Heavy Industrial (I-2) districts, the following
building materials and standards shall apply:
RESERVED
Staff believes, based on recollection of the small group’s discussion, that section
(1) above was intended to apply only to the IBC district. Further, Section (2) for
Light and Heavy Industrial Districts was intended to remain “Reserved” until new
standards could be developed at a later date by the small group.
In summary, the ordinance should have read as follows:
1. In the Industrial and Business Campus District (IBC), the Light Industrial District
(I-1) and the Heavy Industrial District (I-2), the following building materials and
standards shall apply.
(a) Any exposed metal or fiberglass finish on all buildings shall be limited to no
more than fifty (50) percent of any one wall if it is coordinated into the
2
architectural design. Any metal finish utilized in the building shall be
aluminum of twenty-six (26) gauge steel, the roof slope shall be limited to a
maximum of one (1) in twelve (12) slope.
(b) All buildings constructed of curtain wall panels of finished steel, aluminum,
or fiberglass shall be required to be faced with brick, wood, stone,
architectural concrete cast in place or pre-cast panels on all wall surfaces.
2. In the Light Industrial (I-1) and Heavy Industrial (I-2) districts, the following
building materials and standards shall apply:
RESERVED
For reference, the previous zoning ordinance included no regulation on materials
types for industrial districts.
Although the Planning Commission could take action in May on a limited scope
amendment as noted above, staff is instead seeking to complete a more extensive
code review to eliminate the “Reserved” component all together. To do so, staff
would ask for the assistance of two to three IEDC members in developing draft
standards for each of the three industrial districts. The goal would be to prepare
the draft regulations for the IEDC’s review in May.
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to recommend that staff prepare draft amendments to the whole of
Monticello Zoning Ordinance Section 4.11(E) – Building Materials, Industrial
Requirements and to appoint IEDC Commissioners ___________ and
__________________ to assist in drafting said standards.
2. Motion of other.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends alterative 1. In the interest of providing clear and definitive
guidance to industrial users and prospects, staff believes that the City, with
assistance from the IEDC, should amend the code to address building materials
standards for each of its industrial districts.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
A. Monticello Zoning Ordinance, 4.11(E)
CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS
Section 4.12 Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS)
Subsection (A) Purpose
Page 286 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance
(4) Metal exterior finishes shall be permitted only where coordinated into the overall
architectural design of the structure, such as in window and door frames, mansard
roofs or parapets, and other similar features, and in no case shall constitute more
than 15% of the total exterior finish of the building.
(5) Building Materials and Design for the CCD District: All buildings within the
CCD shall meet the materials and design standards of the Comprehensive Plan as
defined by the report “Embracing Downtown Monticello,” Appendix B, Design
Guidelines, as well as the standards in Section 4.11 of this ordinance.
(E) Industrial Requirements
(1) In the Industrial and Business Campus District (IBC), the Light Industrial District
(I-1) and the Heavy Industrial District (I-2), the following building materials and
standards shall apply:
(a) Any exposed metal or fiberglass finish on all buildings shall be limited to no
more than fifty (50) percent of any one wall if it is coordinated into the
architectural design. Any metal finish utilized in the building shall be
aluminum of twenty-six (26) gauge steel, the roof slope shall be limited to a
maximum of one (1) in twelve (12) slope.
(b) All buildings constructed of curtain wall panels of finished steel, aluminum,
or fiberglass shall be required to be faced with brick, wood, stone,
architectural concrete cast in place or pre-cast panels on all wall surfaces.
(2) In the Light Industrial (I-1) and Heavy Industrial (I-2) districts, the following
building materials and standards shall apply:
RESERVED
(F) Institutional Requirements
All institutional uses shall adhere to the building materials requirements spelled out for
commercial districts in Section 4.11(D) above.