The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning Commission Agenda 06-04-2013REGULAR MEETING MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 4th, 2013 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: Chairman William Spartz, Sam Burvee, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Grant Sala Council Liaison: Lloyd Hilgart Staff: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller 1. Call to order 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes. a. Regular Meeting of May 7th, 2013 b. Special Meeting of May 21St, 2013 3. Citizen Comments 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Variance from the rear yard building setback requirement for an Accessory Trash Enclosure. Applicant: Monticello Development Group, LLC 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of an ordinance amending Monticello Zoning Ordinance Section 4.3 (D) — Requirements for Fences & Walls by District Type Applicant: City of Monticello, Planning Commission 7. Public Hearing — Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2 — Community Context, Chapter 3 — Land Use and Chapter 4 — Economic Development Applicant: City of Monticello 8. Consideration to appoint a Planning Commission representative to the Transportation Advisory Committee. 9. Community Development Director's Report 10. Adjourn. MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 7, 2012 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: William Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Sam Burvee, Grant Sala Council Liaison Present: Lloyd Hilgart Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman-NAC 1. Call to order Bill Spartz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes of April 2, 2013 CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 2, 2013. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 3. Citizen Comments Front yard fencing zoning amendment — Bill Spartz, of 1450 Oak Ridge Circle, asked Brad Fyle to step in as acting Planning Commission Chair so that he could provide citizen comment as a resident of Monticello. Spartz asked the Commission to call for a public hearing to consider a zoning amendment to allow four foot high front yard fencing utilizing material which provides 50% transparency to address traffic and line of sight issues in residential districts. He suggested that this change could potentially eliminate the graduated fence height requirements in place and result in easier ordinance enforcement. SAM BURVEE MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE JUNE 4TH, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO FRONT YARD FENCING REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. (Bill Spartz did not vote.) 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Variance to front setback for Lot 8 and Part of Lot 9, Original Plat of Monticello; PID: 155-010-009080. Applicants: Rogosheske, John and Dawn Planning Case Number: 2013 - 008 The applicants requested a variance to construct a covered porch and accessible ramp addition on the front (north) side of the building to accommodate wheelchair bound Planning Commission Minutes — 5/07/13 residents of the adult foster care home located at 612 5th Street West. Section 2.4(C)(4)(a) of the Zoning Ordinance states that approval of a variance may only be made upon a determination that practical difficulties will result based on all of a certain set of criteria. Staff provided responses to each of the criteria as noted below: (i) The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if the provisions of the Ordinance are strictly applied. Staff Response The existing wheelchair ramp is only accessible from the garage. Construction of covered, exterior wheelchair ramp to protect foster home residents from adverse weather would be a reasonable use. Ramp construction on the east side of the property would negatively impact off- street parking. The circumstances rendering the property unusable are unique to the property. Staff Response The property is unique in that it is occupied by an adult foster care facility serving handicapped residents. This population has a routine need for common -carrier transportation such as scheduled vans or drop off/pick up traffic. Existing site conditions impose a significant burden and practical difficulty upon facility staff and residents in regard to transporting wheelchair bound residents. The circumstances rendering the property unusable were not created by the owner thereof. Staff Response The property is not considered "unusable" as the foster care use has been in existence for many years. The existing means by which handicapped residents are transported has however, been a significant burden. (iv) A variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff Response The proposed building expansion would not alter the character of the area. (v) Economic considerations alone shall not constitute a sufficient basis for a Variance if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the regulation. Staff Response It does not appear that the request relates to economic considerations. 2 Planning Commission Minutes — 5/07/13 While the current 24 foot front yard setback at the property does not meet the 30 foot setback requirement for the R-3 Medium Density Residential District, it holds legal grandfather rights. The proposed porch addition would extend 8 feet into the existing front yard and result in a structure setback of 16 feet. Sam Burvee asked which street would be involved. Staff recommended minimizing the use of 5th Street. Charlotte Gabler asked if off-street parking should be included as a condition. Steve Grittman recommended that site plan changes instead be encouraged. Bill Spartz opened the public hearing. John Rogosheske, the owner and operator of an adult foster care home at 612 5th Street, summarized that the proposed property improvements would make bus access safer and easier for wheelchair bound clients. He noted that adding an handicapped ramp would provide visual appeal to the property as well. As there were no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Spartz also asked the applicant if he had a project timeline in mind. Rogosheske said that he'd like to begin the project in June to coincide with a scheduled roof replacement. He indicated that upgrading the property would likely take a couple of weeks. He also noted that it would the improvement would provide additional accessible fire exits. Decision 1: Adopting Resolution No. 2013-033 approving a variance from the minimum 30 foot front yard setback requirement in the R-3, Medium Density Residential District as requested at 612 5th Street West BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2013 - 033 APPROVING THE VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM 30 FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT AS PROPOSED IN THE APPLICATION OF MARCH 29, 2013, CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Exhibit Z — Conditions of Approval 6125 th Street West Variance from 30 foot front Yard Setback Requirement 1. Wheelchair van pick-up and drop-off activities shall take place within the subject site's driveway and discouraged within 5th Street West. 2. The porch addition shall match the color and finish materials of the principal building. 3 Planning Commission Minutes — 5/07/13 3. A building permit shall be received and all requirements imposed by it be satisfied. This item does not require City Council approval as the Plamling Commission is the Board of Adjustment and Appeal for variances. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat and final Plat for the Great River Addition, a commercial subdivision in a B-3 (Hiyhway Business) District and R-3 (Medium -Density) Residential Imo- r—et. Applicant: City of Monticello and RiverWood Bank Staff asked that the Planning Commission table action on this item to allow for proper mailed and published notice for a public hearing. The public hearing will be conducted at a special meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for May 21, 2013. GRANT SALA MOVED TO TABLE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO TUESDAY, MAY 21 IT AT 6:00 PM. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 7. Public Dearing - Consideration of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 11 – )wilding Materials and Chapter 5, Section 1 Use 'fable and Section 2 – Use Standards for Convenience Services and Specialty Eating Establishments The Plamzing Commission considered amending two sections of the zoning ordinance. The first proposed amendment, Chapter 4, Section I 1 - Building Materials Standards, required revision due to a clerical error made in the final drafting of the text of code changes recommended for industrially zoned properties by the Industrial and Economic Development Committee (IEDC). The ordinance should have been amended to read as follows: 1. In the Industrial and Business Campus District (IBC), she rig&*dust- pial nim iii (1 1) Hd the eai„ , r aHs ried Diez) 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 f fty (50) percent of any one wall if it is coordinated into the architectural design. Any metalfnish 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 F Planning Commission Minutes — 5/07/13 building materials and standards shall apply: RESER VED Staff had invited IEDC members Mary Barger and Wayne Elam to participate in a more extensive code review to eliminate the "Reserved" component and provide clear and definitive guidance to industrial users and prospects. They suggested standards which would not be overly restrictive for existing businesses. The language proposed for materials graduates from less restrictive to more restrictive as the districts progress from the I-2 to the Industrial & Business Campus (IBC) District. The IBC District mirrors the materials requirements for business district buildings which allows for no exterior metal finishes, with the exception of architectural or design detail metal. The I-1 and I-2 Districts allow for primarily metal buildings, but require some finish detail for facades along public rights of way. Any exterior wall adjacent to a public street must include a wall plane articulation or building materials differentiation across of 25% of the fagade in the I-1 and 15% in the I-2. Bill Spartz opened the public hearing for Chapter 4, Section 11. As there were no comments, the public hearing was closed. There was some discussion as to the need to create additional regulations as well as some clarification about the limits involved in changing non -conforming buildings. Staff indicated that developing clear standards for the I-1 and I-2 Districts demonstrates compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Charlotte Gabler said that she trusted the IEDC to know what industrial building standards would be appropriate. Decision 1: Resolution 2013-031 recommending approval of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 11— Building Materials CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2013-031, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #578, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 4.11(E) — BUILDING MATERIALS, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 WITH GRANT SALA VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Staff also proposed code amendments for Section 5.1 (Use Standards) and 5.2 (Use - Specific Standards) Convenience Services and Specialty Eating Establishments. In Section 5.1 — Use Standards, "Convenience Service: Retail, Vehicle Fuel, Specialty Food and Drive -Through, " staff recommended that uses be listed separately within the Central Community District (CCD) Use Table 5-1A as they are in general principal use table (Table 5-1) for consistency, as follows: • Convenience Retail • Vehicle Fuel Sales 5 Planning Commission Minutes — 5/07/13 • Specialty Eating Establishments < 10,000 SF Other proposed use amendments include: • "Specialty Eating Establishments < 10,000 SF" would be considered a permitted use in the F - I, F-2 and L sub -districts of the CCD, with a CUP required in the F-3 and in all districts for any drive-through use. • "Convenience Retail" would be considered a permitted use in the F-2 sub -district, and a conditional use in all other sub -districts. • "Vehicle Fuel Sales" would require a conditional use permit for the L-8 and F-1 and F-2 sub -districts and be prohibited in all other sub -districts Under Section 5.2 — Use -Specific Standards, staff recommended several amendments to existing code for "Convenience Services: Retail, Vehicle Fuel, Specialty Food and Drive -Through Facilities. " • Uses would be separated and standards added to requirements for the pre-existing "Convenience Retail" and "Specialty Eating Establishments" uses. The "Vehicle Fuel Sales" use includes existing requirements related to the CCD. • Section 5.2(F)(10) would be deleted entirely and the sub -section numbers re- ordered. • In the CCD, drive-through facilities shall be approved by conditional use permit and shall be located to minimize their exposure to the street. Bill Spartz opened the public hearing related to Chapter 5.1 & 5.2. As there was no comment, the public hearing was closed. Decision 2: Resolution 2013-034 recommending approval of an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 1— Use Table and Section 2 — Use Standards for Convenience Services and Specialty Eating Establishments CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2013-034, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE #579, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 10 OF MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTER 5, SECTION 1 — USE TABLE AND SECTION 2 — USE STANDARDS FOR CONVENIENCE SERVICES AND SPECIALTY EATING ESTABLISHMENTS, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Each of these resolutions will move forward for City Council consideration on May 281H 0 Planning Commission Minutes — 5/07/13 8. Consideration to caii fo L Lq He hearing for amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive Ilan, Chaoter 2 —Community Context, Chapter 3 - Land Use and Chapter 4 — Econcnvie Development The Planning Commission typically reviews the Land Use chapter of Monticello's Comprehensive Plan on an annual basis to ensure that it remains a relevant document. Staff recommended that the Community Context chapter (Chapter 2) and the Economic Development chapter (Chapter 4) also be updated to include more recent data. Representatives from the IEDC, EDA, and Planning Commissioners Brad Fyle and Charlotte Gabler updated the three chapters. The IEDC and EDA recommended approval of the draft amendments. Staff asked the Planning Commission call for a public hearing to consider the draft amendments as well. Staff agreed to provide the information in advance so that the Commission might more thoroughly review the document. BRAD FYLE MOVED TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE JUNE 4TH 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE MONTICELLO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CHAPTER 2 - COMMUNITY CONTEXT, CHAPTER 3 - LAND USE, AND CHAPTER 4 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. 9. Consideration to approve Resolution 2012-107, recommending action as related to a request for Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 3 — Accessory Uses to allow Machinery/Truck repair & Sales, Auto Repair — Minor, Auto Repair - Major as Accessory Conditional Uses in the D-3 (Highway Business) District, a Conditional Use Permit for Vehicie Sales/Rentaig a Conditional Use Permit for Machinery/Truck Repair & Sales, Auto Repair — Minor and Auto Repair - Minor; Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section Off Street Parking Requirements; Variance to Monticeilo Zoning Orrdinance, Variance to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 1 - Landscaping & Screening Requirements, anel a preliminary and final plat for the Maas Addition The Planning Commission had previously taken action on this item, recommending denial of all requests, with the exception of a recommendation to approve vehicle sales and vehicle repair by conditional use permit. The resolution, which had been included with the staff report, had not been formally adopted because it included language for approval of all requests. Staff asked that the Commission formally adopt the revised Resolution 2012-007 in support of the motions made by the Planning Commission in December of 2012. There was some discussion as to why it was necessary to now adopt a resolution for a recommendation that had already been reflected in the minutes. Staff explained that the City Attorney had recommended that Planning Commission findings be accurately 7 Planning Commission Minutes — 5/07/13 summarized in a resolution and noted that the revised resolution would serve as a record of fon-nal action in support of the minutes. BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2012-107. SAM BURVEE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0. (Charlotte Gabler did not vote.) 10. Community Development Director's Report Building/Development Activity Dollar Tree — Staff confirmed that the Dollar Tree would be required to comply with the City's erosion control ordinance. The Planning Commission will consider the recently submitted application for variance on an accessory trash enclosure in June. Ryan Companies Site - Ryan Companies installed erosion control fencing on the lot south of PetSmart at the Union Crossings development because they don't want to plant alternative turf. Development plans are not yet in place. Economic Development Services - There will be likely be one Planning Commissioner present at the May 8th workshop. Monte Club Follow -Up - Council had asked that the Parks Commission's May agenda include an item on the public and private use integration for the Monte Club property. Although IRET is currently looking at other Monticello site alternatives for the development of a multi -family project, representatives had agreed to share what they had learned about the development potential of the site at that meeting. 11. Adjourn BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:14 P.M. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Recorder: Kerry Burri Approved: June 4, 2013 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director H MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 21, 2013 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: William Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Grant Sala Commissioners Absent: Sam Burvee Council Liaison Absent: Lloyd Hilgart Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman -NAC 1. Call to Order Bill Spartz called the special meeting to order at 6 p.m. 2. Citizen Comments None 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None 4. Purpose The purpose of the special meeting is to conduct a public hearing related to the request for preliminary and final plat for the Great River Addition so that the issue would be included on the May 28th City Council agenda. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for the Great River Addition, a commercial subdivision in a B -3 (Highway Business) District and R -3 (Medium - Density) Residential District. Applicant: City of Monticello and RiverWood Bank. Planning Case Number: 2013 -010 Planning Consultant Steve Grittman summarized that the request for preliminary and final plat would consolidate various parcels into a commercial development parcel with related outlots, a regional pond, and extension of the 7th Street right of way. The design of the right of way had been shifted to maximize the developable area adjacent to Interstate 94 and to retain adequate slopes and land area for ponding. The property is approximately 27.4 acres between Minnesota and Elm Streets and is abutted by the north boundary of the interstate. The land is vacant except for a portion of the right of way to be acquired from the Monticello Village Apartments. It is bisected by the proposed extension of 7th Street between Minnesota and Elm in the B -3 (Highway Business) District and the R -3 (Medium Density Residential) District. The City's Capital Improvement Plan and Transportation Plan both include extension of 7th Street in an effort to improve traffic. No immediate development is pending. Planning Commission Minutes 5/21/13 The Preliminary Plat meets the requirements and conditions of the zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan. The requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance will become applicable when parcels are replatted into developable lots and blocks. The Final Plat is consistent with the terms of approval of the Preliminary Plat. MnDOT responded to the proposed action as is required for plats adjacent to state right of way. The letter served as a reminder of requirements rather than specific instruction. Brad Fyle confirmed that there was no property purchase involved and that assessments would be addressed at the time of development. He said that it seemed premature to move forward with the plat request without a substantial developer to use the street. Charlotte Gabler noted that the request supports the Comprehensive Plan. She also confirmed that current zoning would be maintained, that ponding issues had been considered by MnDOT, that park dedication would be considered at replat, and that the resolution date be changed to reflect the May 21, 2013 meeting date. Bill Spartz asked if the preliminary and final plat could be approved within the same motion. Steve Grittman said that it would be appropriate to do so because both decisions relate to subdivision actions. Bill Spartz opened the public hearing. As there was no comment, the public hearing was closed. Decision 1: Resolution of Recommendation for Preliminary and Final Plat Approval CHARLOTTE GABLER MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2013 -032 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR GREAT RIVER ADDITION AS SUBMITTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTION. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. 6. Adiournment BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL MEETING AT 6:11 PM. GRANT SALA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4 -0. Recorder: Kerry Burri Approved: June 4, 2013 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Zd t a 42 I rH 03 v C�3 7� 4-4 N tb U U bA C;4 O U UDr4 cnU a3 bQ C13 U) 7� 7bcn O U p 4--4U Q O O U N O s•� N A, O cn bQ C3O CA 3 7� u�� C x 4 _M o O 0 ct 0 p3 O U O bUA U O Q' N N N --i M ON U U • U U v] v1 � 01 E-' (� � 4� ti � (� � � � N � � � Pa U W U Q .ci Z WD bA cn OD cd W b10 W rH 00 N � U U C�j 4. O N C/) .� U cd bb C3 cd v' >00 N N O co C V) cdcz v O O 'U `pct 'x p O 0 cn bA U U �' 03 4-4 cd U cn Ct Ln 64 03 cn cn cn bb 5 > pt4-1 ,� U •.v v.� N N �, U O Qp o, o Na)ct cn C'3 Cl t ,-, N N U O a" V1 Q, ctU 4- 7d O 1U. OQ octi U N �' O O cn c ct4-1 N ltn U p •vi U rC13cn in 63 v U o `''cn � " d O cam, G ul cn En un cn Cn Cd O '" O U ,S p '� O ''� ^O cz$ Y U. ;., O O Qn • ti U p vcQ U O;3 En con 4-0 -�..m on V1 c� � � W O r., V1 �..., • ,� U 1 � I 34-4 N O t-° �' MA Ici �, 4-4 O 4-4 cd -c! cl Ct N 03 .� C,3cn cn u as ct Qn p ct . � CJ bA O c ch Ct Q ti)'U U3 ct bA ¢, cn C3 cn 4-4 m N UD ct ct cn ulcn >C cn CIO U qn � bA � O N Qn O � '—' C� O O ,� cn \p 0QOD Ln • 0Qn a, � I MA Ici �, 4-4 O 4-4 -c! Ct 03 u as un O p ct N c Ct Q ti)'U U3 ct ¢, cn C3 cn m N ulcn >C U qn � bA � O N Qn O � '—' C� O Ln C41 m 4-j 03 Imc C N ti).� � v ¢ C,3 U V1 7� cm ¢ r�i c� O U [� �l 7O (� M Q-4 1-1 �= U Q W 41 d � � N Ln i m 0 N C/) N ctCA 3 ° UD C3 ct 03 ct ct ® C� O U U c�5 � U U 0 r � UD ri O C75 O v� N ct O U U ct cz crS N o3 O U C:3 O Q" l — U S� 0 w r- N © � '2 03 g '- � Cd Cd 03 Cd 4--) — � .q � % 4-4Q ct 4-4 cn 03 / Q C�j d � 2 c Q � cn '\ O i � O� O 0 .tb O O d \ 7� m � . � N � r- CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013 —044 Date: June 4, 2013 Resolution No. 2013 -44 Motion By: Commissioner Seconded By: Commissioner A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 6 FOOT REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENT UPON A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WHEREAS, on February 5, 2013, the Monticello Planning Commission recommended approval of conditional use permits to allow cross parking and access for property legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Monticello Business Center 4th Addition, and WHEREAS, since the Planning Commission's consideration, a site plan modification has been proposed which has prompted an application for variance; and WHEREAS, Monticello Development Group, LLC., applicant, in conjunction with Walmart Real Estate Business Trust, property owner, has requested a variance from the minimum 6 foot rear yard setback requirement imposed in the B -4, Regional Business Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application for Variance pursuant to the regulations of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 4, 2013 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The application is consistent with the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan for Places to Work; and 2. The proposed trash enclosure will meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and 3. The proposed addition trash enclosure enlargement/relocation will improve the function of the site use by providing more convenient service vehicle; and 4. The location of the principal building upon the site and proximity to the utility easement creates practical difficulties in complying with building setback requirements; and 5. Such conditions creating the practical difficulties are unique to the property in question and not created by the applicant; and 6. The use is not expected to be detrimental to the health, safety, morals or welfare of persons residing near the use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: 1. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. §462.357, the application for Variance is hereby approved by the Planning Commission, sitting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals. 2. The color of the split -faced block to be utilized on the trash enclosure shall match the color of the block used at the base of the principal building. 3. Landscaping proposed on the north side of the trash enclosure shall meet minimum size requirements of the Ordinance. 4. A building permit shall be received and all requirements imposed by it be satisfied. ADOPTED this 4t' day of June 2013, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION William Spartz, Chair ATTEST: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Request for Variance to Rear Yard Setback for Accessory Trash Enclosure Lot 2, Block 1, Monticello Business Center 4th Addition, 9350 Cedar Street, PID # 155207001020 Monticello Geographic Information S-•-stem I ir& = 1c-;e.1�3 3 " test 'Ot" i. qr P4 At to J. 41 OL lilt tP Ilk 11%, 0 it Al -6.7h a f BASE ZO N Residentia I I \ I \ \ I \ I -- Low Residential Densities � A -0 RA R -1 -- Medium Residential Densities J T -N R -2 R -PUD -- High Residential Densities C R -3 M -H OVERLAY DISTRICTS I � L — — — — _I - -- - IN IN IN - IN - - IN IN - B-1 B-2 U B'3 B -4 CCD City■ onti I Offici I Zonin Ma 9 P I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I � I I � I � I L............. I , I , I I , N I I "e I W E V ` I \ I \ S Kam ` \ 1 \ h \ c � \ "441 \ INI INI 4V AWAMI- FA h , ',. ....� F \ \ "441 \ ' • z ,, `. y, El El EIDIED Industrial Districts IBC Performance Based Overlay District Special Use Overlay District 1 =1 1 =2 Mississippi Wild, Scenic & Rec Overlay District Shoreland District Freeway Bonus Sign District OTHER u Water 27iIL mm MEMO MEMO :: :: NINE oily MEMO.... MEMO nmm mmn •. ■ • NIM == :: MEN H ET El Q LL MEMO,_ ,I 85th St NE luMEMO.. .. :: ,I IN milli I I a 03 =01 =13 Variance Request Narrative The project (the "Project ") is the development of an 5,000 SF retail building on the approximately 0.76 acre outlot located at the southeast corner of Cedar Street and School Boulevard in the City of Monticello. The site sits adjacent to northernmost Cedar Street entrance to Walmart. The Project will be leased to and occupied by Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. ( "Dollar Tree ") for the operation of a single price point variety store consistent with Dollar Tree's other retail locations in Minnesota and across North America. It is anticipated that the Project will require 4 -6 full time equivalent employees. The Project was originally approved by the Plan Commission at the February 5, 2013 Plan Commission meeting. The owner of the Project respectfully requests that the Plan Commission consider a variance relating to the size and location of the trash enclosure for the Project. As shown on Exhibit A attached to this narrative, the trash enclosure originally approved by the Plan Commission was 10' x 20' and located along the east elevation (rear) of the building and roughly 20' north of the south elevation. During its final review of the plans for the Project, Dollar Tree has requested that location and size of the trash enclosure be modified as shown on Exhibit B attached hereto. The modifications include: • increasing the width of the enclosure so that it will accommodate a trash dumpster and a cardboard recycling dumpster in a side by side configuration; • moving the enclosure to the south edge of the building to ease truck access and movement on the site; and • change the exterior of enclosure to split face masonry block for better endurance. These minor changes would mandate that the enclosure encroach approximately 2 ft onto the City's 6' utility easement around the perimeter of the site. As such, the proposed modifications require Plan Commission approval. We believe that the proposed variance will be beneficial to the Project, the surrounding properties and the community for the following reasons: • a side -by -side dumpster configuration will greatly reduce the time waste hauling vehicles will be on site thereby minimizing traffic congestion; • moving the dumpster to the south allows for additional green space (and less impervious surface) on the back side of the Project; • the heavier duty construction proposed will require less maintenance and generally have a more pleasing appearance; • to our knowledge, there are no city utilities in or under the easement areas upon which the revised trash enclosure would encroach. Exhibit A (See Attached) I 1 f' _> 1 ��x ono �A� Emin �i f1N ! m t 73 sf r� J 1} .. L II I z � I III °ia >° nP �m m ^ f f� f a � r f Af 7 f+F � a� z �9gngi�i�o^z � "� rg ^m�N�yry i OA r % 22 m v D z l 1 q � d UNITED DEVELOPMENT GROUP T* nLS`u OR �'a fF RF�if NdBRiEDA�BY�4MiN'OERx. /+ /� /� /� DOLLAR TREE patcfsuPUfnsvnarom "-ixw "aur cedar- •,:e•`�-�+%*" u�sLnmalssuuLE.+a:f�u�xme 9320CEDARSTREET xsarnendRGfuIWSOi" coioo o ion f� N$IO MONTICELLO. MN 55362 h. cwoESC x" eoo -"en �v/c pm n ^ n � Qi O ®my Y' NA~o UNITED DEVELOPMENT GROUP T* nLS`u OR �'a fF RF�if NdBRiEDA�BY�4MiN'OERx. /+ /� /� /� DOLLAR TREE patcfsuPUfnsvnarom "-ixw "aur cedar- •,:e•`�-�+%*" u�sLnmalssuuLE.+a:f�u�xme 9320CEDARSTREET xsarnendRGfuIWSOi" coioo o ion f� N$IO MONTICELLO. MN 55362 h. cwoESC x" eoo -"en �v/c Exhibit B (See Attached) aa a "z F I� �� v ry `�la.•,� . �� 4 eta ?�� _ moo= a zr y - o o f z pic } I 1 L ➢� f � I zip yea p "n3zm aoo syn a�pk �aa f• 'zccn ° m�z �wmn � / o Kati os A �z�F pom ^s ^mm�• zv�� z _gin �� oho", rmxzn zzz AZT &',r a mo�a�z�nAnAnon Pnm per,' isA n -nao pC / xo O r, OS x0 pO N�N m� k kmN Sp NA w uHCE9]�3BEY�fAf10A]lFlFFSVI4H]p aNmA 1LHAnIMafEEA �HUGNEDAOTXW DOLLAR TREE ana�� A CQ Qr UNITMDEVELOPMENTGROUP Ionawa m °•••,•""•.': }••::' _ d _ < - >rs0-TK 3-a Ql. mm o,Paiario� 9350 CEDAR STREET hm" MONTICELLO, MN 55362 c«wnA °,ss 9o0-472-7372 n. *euo* — AeesmancnrAa rswa ceoo�cvo,com ,.. L54wntskL14707 Wad Develogrenc (3lwpW22 "cello Doll TreeWwgtAl -l.dv& 98912013 4:51:57 PM, DWG To PDF.p[3, 1:2 N r�� I T' C 0 • ►LIdL � t I r I I Ala y y a I 3 I •� I d1 1 � It I! } 11 I I! II dY Z b D n cn r z in D UNITED DEVELOPMENT GROUP DOLLAR TREE cedar �L 9350 CEDAR STREET I o a I o o n rrkoa�IC sr�asar••. cerex es, MONTICELLO, MN 55362 FLOOR PLAN I� . L e' t From: Sent: ri ay, ay To: Angela Schumann Subject: RE: ocello-walmart So our preference would be the one where it is along the back side on the corner and as long as it is enclosed we have no issue. From: Angela Schumann fmajltomAOpla SchumannOcl.monticello.mn.usl Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 7:58 AM To: Kim LaBelle Subject: RE: ocello-walmart The variance request is to move the trash enclosure to within 6' of the rear property line. The rear yard is toward the Walmart side, so the trash enclosure would back up to the lot line on the Walmart side. I've attached the site plan for you to look at. The enclosure materials have to match the building. Angela Schumann, AICP Community Development Director City of Monticello www,ci.monticellp.mn.us 763-271-3224 This email sent by Monticello Fiberft internet, at 100 mbps speed! To: Angela Schumann Subject. ocello-walmart We received a notice for Ocello for a variance on the walmart piece that they sold. What is exactly the back of the building and what kind of enclosure are they proposing? 6. A. Planning Commission Agenda — 6/4/13 Public Hearing - Consideration of a an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance relating to the height and construction standards for fences in residential front _yards. Applicant: City of Monticello. NAC REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Property: NA Planning Case Number: 2013-016 Request(s): Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for fence height in residential districts for any fence in the front yard, and within 15 feet of the street right of way (the front property line Deadline for Decision: Land Use Designation: Zoning Designation: Surrounding Land Uses: Amendment Description: July 6th, 2013 All designations Residential districts NA The amendment request would change the requirements for fence height in residential districts for any fence in the front yard, and within 15 feet of the street right of way (the front property line. The current ordinance creates a stepped requirement for front -yards fences. Beginning at the property line, a fence may be no more than 3 feet in height for the first 15 feet of length, then may be 4 feet in height up to the front building of the house. Behind the front building line, the fence may in height again up to 6 feet. The ordinance currently reads as follows: Ordinance Requirements: Section 4.3 (D)(1) (a) Front Yards (i) Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet in front yards and that part of side yards from the front lot line to the front building line. Planning Commission Agenda — 6/4/13 (ii) If a fence or wall in a front yard exceeds three (3) feet in height, it must be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the front property line. b) Side or Rear Yards (i) Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet in side and rear yards. (ii) In side or rear yards which abut a public street, fences or walls which exceed thirty-six (36) inches in height must be set back at least six (6) feet from the property line, and the setback area shall be landscaped in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.30(4), Appearance. The proposed amendment removes the first "step" requirement, and permits front -yard fences to be 4 feet in height from the front property line to the building line of the house, then continues to permit the increase to 6 feet behind the building line. The ordinance language would be changed to eliminate Subp. (a)(2), and would read as follows: (a) Front Yards (i) Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet in front yards and that part of side yards from the front lot line to the front building line. i,aek . minimum of fifteen ( 5) foot fr,,,Y, the front property line No change would be made to Subp. (b). The code currently requires that any front yard fence be at least 50% "transparent ", such that a picket -style fence would have an equal amount of pickets and openings. Other fence styles may also comply, and no change is proposed to this requirement. The code also continues the requirement that the visibility triangle area at intersections be retained — this amendment would not impact that regulation. The consideration of an amendment of this type is a policy question for the City. The appropriate height for fences, and the related setback, is a question of neighborhood character and aesthetics. In this case, the change will permit a small amount of additional higher fencing adjacent to the street setback area, but would remove the stepped appearance required by the code. Approval of the amendment would be supported by a finding that the change results in a more uniform condition for front -yard fences, and would be both easier to comply with and to enforce by reducing complexity. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Decision 1: Adopting Resolution No. 2013 -045 recommending approval of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance providing for a change to the City's fence regulations in Section 4.3 (D)(1). 1. Motion to adopt Resolution 2013 - 045 recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment changing fence height standards in residential front yards. 2 Planning Commission Agenda — 6/4/13 2. Motion denying Resolution 2013 - 045 recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment changing fence height standards in residential front yards 3. Motion to table action on the request, pending additional information as identified by the Planning Commission and staff report. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the amendment as proposed. The step requirement does not appear to serve any public safety purpose, and makes the fence standards both difficult to construct or comply with, and unnecessarily complicates the requirements. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution 2013 -045 B. Monticello Zoning Ordinance excerpt, 4.3 — Fences & Walls 3 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013 —045 Date: June 4, 2013 Resolution No. 2013 -045 Motion By: Commissioner Seconded By: Commissioner A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCE HEIGHT IN RESIDENTIAL FRONT YARDS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the zoning ordinance language for relating to fence height pursuant to the regulations of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 4, 2013 on the application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The amendment is consistent with the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan for Places to Live; and 2. The amendment will have a beneficial effect on the construction of fencing and residential aesthetics in the front yard areas of residential property; and 3. The amendment removes an unnecessary complication from the language of the zoning ordinance, making it easier to interpret and enforce. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota: 1. Pursuant to Minn. Star. §462.357, the zoning ordinance amendment is hereby recommended for adoption by the City Council. ADOPTED this 4"' day of June 2013, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION William Spartz, Chair ATTEST: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.3 Fences & Walls Subsection (D) Requirements for Fences and Walls by District Type (b) Fences which do not require a building permit under the provisions of Section 4.3(1))(4)(a) above may be constructed without a permit, but shall adhere to all fencing requirements in this ordinance. (D) Requirements for Fences and Walls by District Type All fences and walls shall conform to the following standards. In all cases, heights are measured from finished grade on the highest side of the fence or wall. (1) Residential Districts In residential districts (see Table 3 -1: Base Zoning Districts), fences and walls shall conform to the following: (a) Front Yards (i) Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of four (4) feet in front yards and that part of side yards from the front lot line to the front building line. (ii) If a fence or wall in a front yard exceeds three (3) feet in height, it must be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the front property line. (b) Side or Rear Yards (i) Fences and walls shall not exceed a height of six (6) feet in side and rear yards. (ii) In side or rear yards which abut a public street, fences or walls which exceed thirty -six (36) inches in height must be set back at least six (6) feet from the property line, and the setback area shall be landscaped in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.3(J)(4), Appearance. (c) Transparency Fences or walls located within a front yard or side yard adjacent to a street shall maintain a minimum of 50 percent transparency. (d) Access Where any fence or wall connects to a building used as a dwelling, at least one gate not less than 2 feet 6 inches in width shall be required to allow access around the building. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 229 Planning Commission Agenda: 06/4/13 7. Public Hearing — Consideration of amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 2 — Community Context, Chapter 3 — Land Use and Chapter 4 — Economic Development (AS /HKGi) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing for comment on draft amendments to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, and to make a recommendation on the same to the City Council. On May 7th, 2013, the Planning Commission called for the public hearing to be held on June 4th, 2013. 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 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 previously completed these annual reviews, focusing on Chapter 3, the Land Use Plan. For 2013, staff recommended to the Commission 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 requested a more focused review of the Economic Development Chapter since the City is reaching the 5 -year mark for the plan. For a more inclusive review process of these two chapters, two members of the Planning Commission were joined by two members of the IEDC and one member of the EDA. The City Council was also been invited to participate. Planning Commissioners Gabler and Fyle were the Planning Commission's designated representatives to the small group established for this review and recommendation. The City also engaged HKGi consultants to assist in the amendment process, as HKGi was the lead consultant for the preparation of the original 2008 document. Summary of Small Group Review The first meeting of the small group of EDA, IEDC and Planning Commission members occurred in November of 2012. The group provided specific recommendations for updating the baseline data and reference information in Chapter 2 — Community Context. Additions /revisions to Chapter 2 were to include 2010 Census data, applicable Business Retention & Expansion information and references to data from the new Embracing Downtown plan. The group then spent some time reviewing the new data prepared by HKGi for inclusion in Chapter 2 — Community Context. Data from the 2010 Census, 5 -year American Community Survey and other sources was included as part of the update to Community Planning Commission Agenda: 06/4/13 Context, which previously relied on 2000 Census data. The group provided feedback on clarifications which would help make the data more usable and relevant to decision - making and policy development. . Overall, the data indicates that Monticello is a young community, with a large number of growing families with young children. Many of these households have only recently been established in the community. The majority of the workforce does not both live and work in the community: employees are instead commuting into or out of Monticello. A more detailed review of the Chapter 2 data will also be provided to the Planning Commission as part of the verbal presentation of this report. After having established a firm understanding of the most recent data available for the community, the small group turned their attention to economic development. The group began their analysis with a general review of Chapter 3 — Land Use. Chapter 3 identifies 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: 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 reviewed the location and acreage amount of land areas guided as "Places to Work ", as well as an inventory of currently available industrial land. In small group discussions, it was determined that, based on this inventory, the City had an adequate existing and planned inventory of land guided for "Places to Work ". As such, no modification to the boundaries or land areas designated as "Places to Work" was recommended. However, the group did note that development constraints are in existence for these areas and recommended that discussion on these constraints be undertaken as part of the review of the Economic Development Chapter. With the land use goals and areas for "Places to Work" re- confirmed in Chapter 3, the small group then focused their work on Chapter 4. As part of their recommendations, 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 2 Planning Commission Agenda: 06/4/13 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 accomplishment of the goals above. The group was able to utilize the updated information in Chapter 2- Community Context in evaluating these strategies. The proposed amendments to the eight strategy statements reflect 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. The small group also recommended a change in the Land Use chapter in the "Places to Work" section which corresponds to the revisions to the strategies in Chapter 4. It should be noted that there are also minor text amendments in Chapter 3 which are reflective of the development of the Northstar Line and progress on the Bertram project. With the proposed amendments as stated above, the small group concluded their work on the documents in March, referring them to the Industrial & Economic Development Committee (IEDC) and Economic Development Authority (EDA) for review and recommendation. IEDC Recommendation The IEDC reviewed this material during their March and April regular meetings and unanimously recommends adoption of the amendments. The IEDC's only request was that the Comprehensive Plan also include modification for the inclusion of the new City logo. As such, a new document cover is included for reference. EDA Recommendation The EDA reviewed the proposed amendments during its regular meeting on April 10th, 2013. The EDA recommended a number of small changes, which have been incorporated into the drafts received by the Planning Commission, and which are as follows: Planning Commission Agenda: 06/4/13 • In Chapter 2, include a definition/decoding of the acronym SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area), first mention is maybe 2 -10? • Page 2 -2, top paragraph, last line. "ice, Tthis highway serves as the connection with commuter rail transit service in Big Lake." • Page 2 -4 in the Orderly Annexation section – the original agreement signed in 2004, amended in 2005. • Page 2- 22, The paragraph beginning "Figure 2-41" needs to state: "While Monticello has noticeably higher retention rates than Becker, Big Lake and St. Michael"'�or.lo, it has a lower rate than Buffalo." • Page 2 -23, should say "lower" or "higher ", not both? • 3 -18 and 3 -19 should refer to regional park as the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park. The EDA voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendments with the changes noted above. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to approve Resolution 2013 -023, recommending the adoption of the proposed amendments to Chapter 2 – Community Context, Chapter 3 – Land Use, and Chapter 4 – Economic Development of the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan, based on findings as stated in said resolution. 2. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments to Chapter 2 - Community Context provide a needed update to the baseline community information the City uses to make policy and land use decisions. As the Chapter 2 introduction states, "Planning for the future does not start on a clean slate." It is therefore important for the City to have a clear, current picture of what exists today as a foundation from which to build. The updates to the Community Context chapter are based on the most recently available data and provide the needed foundation for planning and policy decisions for the City. In respect to the proposed amendments for Chapter 4- Economic Development, staff believes that proposed amendments support a vigorous and multi- faceted approach to economic development. While the majority of the City's overall economic development goals remain the same, over the last five years, minor shifts in policy have been identified by both the IEDC and EDA. The amendments reflect these shifts and provide a roadmap for directing the City's economic development activities. 2 Planning Commission Agenda: 06/4/13 A SUPPORTING DATA: A. Planning Commission Resolution 2013 -023 B. Monticello Comprehensive Plan — Community Context (As proposed) C. Monticello Comprehensive Plan — Community Context (Existing) D. Monticello Comprehensive Plan — Land Use (As proposed) E. Monticello Comprehensive Plan — Economic Development (As proposed) F. Monticello Comprehensive Plan — Economic Development (Existing) 5 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2013-023 Date: June 4th, 2013 Resolution No. 2013 -023 Motion By Seconded By A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 2, COMMUNITY CONTEXT, CHAPTER 3, LAND USE AND CHAPTER 4, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT IN SUPPORT OF SAID AMENDMENT. WHEREAS, the City of Monticello adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 2008 to guide the growth, development, land use, and infrastructure planning for the City; and WHEREAS, said Comprehensive Plan provides for the economic development of the City as a part of such guidance; and WHEREAS, changes to the size, demographics, and economic data for the City have occurred since the research and development of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has conducted an inventory and analysis of data made available through the 2010 United States Census and 2007 -2011 American Community Survey and summarized the findings in an update to Chapter 2, Community Context; and WHEREAS, the City has completed an analysis of the Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan for promoting and encouraging economic development; and WHEREAS, in its review of the Economic Development chapter it was determined that the Places to Work section of Chapter 3, Land Use should be revised in support of the community's economic development efforts; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello recommends to the City Council the adoption of the amendments to Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2, Community Context, Chapter 3, Land Use and Chapter 4, Economic Development as found in Exhibit A attached hereto; based on the following Findings of Fact: Information on the size, demographics, and economic data influencing the community is critical to the decision making and planning efforts of the City of Monticello. 2. The use of 2010 Census information and 2007 -2011 American Community Survey information in a revised Chapter 2, Community Context provides a more current, usable and relevant data source for decision - making consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan The proposed amendments to Chapter 3, Land Use and Chapter 4, Economic Development will support the City's efforts to attract and retain jobs, expand the tax base, enhance the economic vitality of Downtown, and facilitate redevelopment. Approved by the City of Monticello Planning Commission this 4th day of June, 2013. William Spartz, Chair ATTEST: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director EXHIBIT A Proposed Amendments to 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan Cover: Inclusion of new logo Chapter 2: Amendment to replace full chapter with proposed text and figures Chapter 3: Page 3 -11 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: • Expanding and diversifying the property tax base. • Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for people to work and live in Monticello. • Promoting wage levels that provide incomes needed to purchase decent housing, support local businesses and support local government services. businesses that speeialize in biese; es and teehnelegy. Take advantage of opportunities to attract companies that have a synergy with existing companies in the community, including suppliers, customers and collaborative partners. • Encouraging the retention and expansion of existing businesses in Monticello. Page 3 -18 Another critical factor in the future of the Northwest Area is the fwufe of the YCAeamp. City and W-fight County are in negotia4iens with the Minneapolis YMCA to aequir-e the 1 regional p former YMCA camp that is being converted into the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park. The City and Wright County formed a partnership in 2005 to start purchasing portions of the 1,200 acre YMCA property. As of 2013, 495 acres have been purchased through state grants with another 300 planned for acquisition. The YMCA will lease land at the regional park to run their Camp Manitou Summer Camp. Chapter 4: Amendment to replace full chapter with proposed text and figures Z w G Z 5w N� 0 H 0 w U) 0 a- 0 Ir - cc 1 N i ri Ch iz Q) zn tn by m v) E C14 cn 4.4 a� �, v, d 3 ° a� V cd 4-J 4-J-� s-i^--� O V O V o bA >..[ o V ... 1_14•. bn Q .O �cd ' �+ + U te+ N t O p cd a� v� �, 5 • 4 y 4-J+' (n 4a Ek, V 4C O N d O rn 'd rA +' V Ln V +' O O p p o C �; (� a, ¢+ x bb a4-+ y 4 O 'b O G}� _ W O �, a� ,� � 'b z cz w O 4� '-' +-, O v O O p O O pi jb�y p $-4 s cid �d °' > y p 4' p -x i a I ° 3 cl u es ° w d No U d 4 d o °v ° d 3 3 �° a� ci .-4 M 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 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. The highway serves as the connection with commuter rail transit service in Big Lake. This location presents both opportunities and challenges to Monticello's future: ► The highway system provides convenient access to employment, goods, and services in the Twin Cities region. This location allows people to enjoy the small town environment and lower housing costs of Monticello while drawing upon employment and amenities of the Twin Cities. ► This location makes Monticello vulnerable to increased fuel costs, traffic congestion, and travel time to work. ► Location and accessibility allow Monticello to become an important center for employment, services, and shopping between St. Cloud and Minneapolis. ► 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: ► Existing land use. ► Potential future street corridors, highway interchanges and highway bridges. ► Planned expansion of the sanitary sewer system. ► Existing powerline corridors. ► Watershed breaklines. ► 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: ► The nature and diversity of land uses in Monticello. ► The relationships between built and natural features of the community. ► Areas with potential capacity to accommodate future growth. The map of existing land uses divides Monticello into a series of residential, commercial, industrial, and public 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. 2 -2 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2 -2: Planning Context 11 i 1 - S — I i r —J� _ - W f� +R dP * LL jy *1 *Y VI 16 ob 9 i 1 4 R 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Community Context 1 2 -3 Manufactured Horne 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 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: ► 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. ► Abundant aggregate resources create the potential for mining in future growth areas. ► Lakes, wetlands, and wooded areas offer amenities to attract development and also to be protected. 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. ► Major Arterial streets represent regional transportation corridors that connect Monticello with other cities. Only 1 -94 is in this classification. ► 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. ► 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. 2 -4 1 Community Context City of Monticello • .. Figure 2 -3: Existing Land Use (2007) IN L � _ I I r- S 1 ' I _ 1 •1 1.�F rip rti - 1 ti f f. 1 , L •1 ' � I . C • 1 i r - - - -�— — e MEN- • I I I I I I •' ' ''' 1 ^ • I I _ 1- I , 1 I- I 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Community Context 1 2 -5 Figure 2-4: Natural Resources ell yv L-A t M j- Q) 0 CU ID o. co —j I IM, WOMM", <L- I �; O z o 2-6 1 Community Context City of Monticello '0 ILL z 0 • 0 LLJ 0 = LU LL = Of LL 0 z Q (L M 0 0 5 2 '2 0 ell yv L-A t M j- Q) 0 CU ID o. co —j I IM, WOMM", <L- I �; O z o 2-6 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2-5: Street System t-I | N� 2OO8 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Community Context 1 2'7 ► 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 The City of Monticello and Monticello Township entered into an orderly annexation agreement in 2004 and amended it in 2005. The agreement covers the property surrounding the City (see Figure 2 -6). 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 Figure 2 -7: Population Trends 1970 -2010 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. Also seen in Figure 2 -8, the fastest growing housing type between 2000 and the 2007 -2011 ACS was Figure 2 -8: Building Permits for New Housing 250 224 200 184 156 150 145 47 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 201 ■Single - family detached ■Single -family attached 2 -8 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2 -6: Orderly Annexation Area 015, r rr. r — � f I I •r i• _ ti fir. - .. _ a�.'I• 1' 1 1 1 il' r + m Lid 1 1 j:1 � 11 • r. r f C �i e� � �X k 1 r k rr la••i r r� i '1 I a'1 ti r k • Y I f .•r Itl7 .T r,r• =�, it <` ,y Ir' • 1 } L Le� f � r r `r• tir I yl � ;. 1 —i I_ II �1 — •., .. ... J� rr�' �I� 'r 11 _ _ I •{ Iu r. % % r r' � • T • �r� �I � ' � rL � r I 1 r• i� •rr — � 1 x— I •I ' �•L _ r — J I I — •' — T r '- _ 1 I_ r 1 I I I I• ti T I 1 I � t.— - I .•I�` � I I rr 1 r A 1 i ■ J w7 J ti• 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Community Context 1 2 -9 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 the ground to the 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. 2 -10 1 Community Context Figure 2 -9: Housing Type Figure 2 -10: Regional Housing Type Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS) 90% 80% 70% 60% v^ 7 c 50% = 40% 30% o 20% N ~ 10% m °r�i N N N m N° a e o o% ,�. — 1 -unit, 1 -unit, 2 units 3 or 4 units 5 to 9 units 10 to 19 units 20 or more Mobile home detached attached units ■Monticello ■Wright WTwin Cities SMSA Figure 2 -11: Regional Housing Type and Tenure Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS) 90% ro 80% a e 70% 0 60% °o 50% 40% m 30% 'o 2 a 20% o 10% 0 0 0 0% Owner SF Renter SF Owner 2 to 4 Renter 2 to 4 Owner 5 or more Renter 5 or more ■Monticello ■Wright IdTwin Cities SMSA City of Monticello 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Figure 2 -12: Regional Year Built Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS) N Monticello ■ Wright County fi Twin Cities SMSA Built 2005 Built 2000 Built 1990 Built 1980 Built 1970 Built 1960 Built 1950 Built 1940 Built 1939 or later to 2004 to 1999 to 1989 to 1979 to 1969 to 1959 to 1949 or earlier Year Built Figure 2 -13: Year Built/Tenure /Age of Householder (2007 -2011 ACS) 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 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: ► 25% of all households are headed by owners aged 35 -64 who are living in homes built between 1980 and 1999. ► 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. ► 57% of all households are headed by those aged 35 to 64, 82% of those in that age bracket are homeowners. ► 61% of senior households (householder age 65 and older) lived in owned housing. Of renters, 59% live in units built between 1980 and 1999. ► 41% of rental units are occupied by households headed by persons age 34 or younger, while 21% are occupied by seniors. Community Context 1 2 -11 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: ► 67% of Monticello households are family households (see Figure 2 -14). This compares with 74% for the entire County and 64% for the region. ► 49% of all Monticello family households include a married couple. This is down from 53% in 2000 and 56% in 1990. ► 43% of all households included children under the age of 18. Only 33% of all households in the region contained children. ► 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 -14: Regional Comparison of Household Type 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Figure 2 -15: Household Type (1990 to 20 10) Total households Family households Married - couple family Nonfamily households Householder living alone (families) 01990 ■ 2000 (12010 A Family Household includes a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. A family household may contain people not related to the householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder's family in census tabulations. This means that the population living in family household may exceed the population of families. Nonfamiliy Households contain a group of unrelated people or one person living alone. The Householder is the person in whose name the home is owned or rented. 2 -12 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2 -16: Regional Marital Status Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS) 70% e 60% o 0 50% 40% 9 0 30% - v c 20% o 0 � o lo% 0% Never married Now married, except Separated Widowed Divorced separated ■ Monticello o Wright County 6A Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2 -17: Household Size (1990 to 20 10) 3.50 3.04 3.00 2.90 2.85 2.73 2.64 2.68 2.50 2.26 2.25 1.97 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 All households Owned housing Rental housing ■ 1990 ■ 2000 W2010 Figure 2 -18: Regional Household Size Comparison (20 10) 3.50 3.26 3.13 3.15 2.90 2.98 3.00 2.83 2.75 2.64 2.56 2.50 1.97 2.04 2.04 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Average household size Average family size Average household size -own Average household size - rent ■ Monticello ■ Wright County UTwin Cities SMSA 2008 Comprehensive Plan - Updated 2013 The Census shows several trends about the size of each household: ► 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). ► 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. ► The average household living in owned housing is larger (2.85 people per household) than the typical household in rental housing (2.25 people). ► 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. Community Context 1 2 -13 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 (2007 -2011 ACS) 50% 46% 45% 40% 3S% 35% 35% 30% 28% 28% 25% 21% 21% 21% 20% 18% 15% 1% 10% 10% 5% 5% 5% 3% 4% 5% 2yo l0 0% 2005 or later 2000 to 2004 1990 to 1999 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1969 or earlier ■ Monticello ■ Wright County V Twin Cities SMSA 2 -14 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2 -21: Age of Population (1990 to 20 10) 6,000 4,977 5,000 4,000 3,333 3,000 2,893 2,390 2,000 1,846 1,915 1,292 1,303' 1,192 1,207 1,000 507 799 697 519 698 0 Under 5 years 5 to 19/20 years 19/20 years to 44 45 to 64 Over 65 years ■ 1990 ■ 2000 X12010 Figure 2 -22: Age Distribution City /County /Region (20 10) 100% 90 80% 70% 60 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA r 65 and older ■ 35 to 64 ■ 20 to 34 0 5 to 19 u Under 5 2008 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. Community Context 1 2 -15 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 2 -16 1 Community Context Figure 2 -23: Race (1990 to 20 10) 14,000 12,000 I 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 m 0 White Black or African American Indian or Asian Some other race Two or more races American Native Alaskan 0 2000 , 2010 Figure 2 -24: Regional Comparison of Race (20 10) Figure 2 -25: Race of Elementary School Population (2006107) MONTICELLO SENIOR HIGH MONTICELLO MIDDLE PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY LITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 00oh O American Indian ■Asian 0Hispanic ■Black OWhite City of Monticello 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Figure 2 -26: Regional Place of Birth Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS) e a o 0 o � Native - born in MN Native - born in other Native - born outside US Foreign born - naturalized Foreign born - not a citizen State citizen ■Monticello ■Wright County W Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2 -27: Regional Place of Birth Foreign Born Population - Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS) 80% 0 60% o ;\ 40% o e m ry 20% ry m 0% Europe Asia Africa Oceania Latin America Northern America ■ Monticello ■ Wright County WTwin Cities SMSA 2008 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. Community Context 1 2 -17 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). 2 -18 1 Community Context Figure 2 -28: Regional Income Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS) Figure 2 -29: City Comparison Incomes (2007 -2011 ACS) 120,000 m m o 100,000 " rn v o 0 o m n 80,000 ° o^ _ n n e m 60,000 40,000 20,000 Median household Median family ■Monticello ■Albertville MBecker ■Big Lake • Buffalo ■ Elk River W Otsego o Rogers Figure 2 -30: Socio- Economic Indicators Monticello Schools (20012113) City of Monticello 3,000 d 2,500 9 O 2,000 r 1,500 a 1,000 500 0 Figure 2 -31: Educational Attainment Less than 9th 9th to 12th High school Some college, no Associate degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or grade grade, no graduate degree professional diploma (includes degree equivalency) .1990 u 2000 _ 2007 -2011 Figure 2 -32: Regional Educational Attainment Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS) 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). The share of the working age 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Community Context 1 2 -19 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 specifically at the change from 2008 2 -20 1 Community Context Figure 2 -33: Population in the Labor Force Figure 2 -34: Regional Occupation Comparison Figure 2 -35: Monticello Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages 45% NWmb Lr of Em pkil 2002 M12 X Unl 2MIZ 40% % Gwil Til AM bil 338 374 11% M2 7,427 e NbVL anmrft 21G 23 m z 35% _ RwinliITral N m 60 06 IJMH 30% 2M rdmnafim a N 8 14% c 25% 5% Frr iwid lnsuranoe 28 27 c 20% o N 14 is 29% 36 15% Arm Eil Fi , and Ramplefftiur 6 o u 10% MA Aml)nEldblfill Wild Food3il 25 o 5Z% 562 5% 2SM fldrer serums i Fill AdrinkWA ill 17 34 lam i52 0% sm Prl Ad irstradur 2 # imm 113 155 37% Management, business, Service occupations Sales and office Natural resources, Production, science, and arts occupations construction, and transportation, and occupations maintenance material moving occupations occupations ■ Monticello ■ Wright County UTwin Cities SMSA Figure 2 -35: Monticello Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages City of Monticello Number of ESLI11111whumarlm NWmb Lr of Em pkil 2002 M12 X Unl 2MIZ M12 % Gwil Til AM bil 338 374 11% M2 7,427 24% NbVL anmrft 21G 23 7W 1)#1 33% RwinliITral 57 60 06 IJMH V73 2M rdmnafim 7 8 14% 23 87 5% Frr iwid lnsuranoe 28 27 149 129 R"d Estill and FtEl l MW Lil 14 is 29% 36 3Z Arm Eil Fi , and Ramplefftiur 6 # W 931 MA Aml)nEldblfill Wild Food3il 25 38 5Z% 562 720 2SM fldrer serums i Fill AdrinkWA ill 17 34 lam i52 1W sm Prl Ad irstradur 2 # imm 113 155 37% City of Monticello Figure 2 -36: Means of Travel to Work Figure 2 -37. Regional Means of Travel to Work Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS) 100% a° 90% °m 0' 80% 70% 60% a 50% 1_ 40% 0 3 30% 20% 100% L Drove alone Carpool Public transportation Walk Other Work at home ■ Monticello ■ Wright County W Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2 -38: Regional Comparison of Number of Vehicles (2007 -2011 ACS) 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 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. Community Context 1 2 -21 100% 90% 83% 86% 78% p 80% c 70% 60% a 50% 40% `0 30% '? 20% 15% 12% 10.1 6% 5% 4% 5% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% Drove alone Carpool Public transportation Other means Walked or worked at home ■ 1990 ■ 2000 W 2007 -2011 Figure 2 -37. Regional Means of Travel to Work Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS) 100% a° 90% °m 0' 80% 70% 60% a 50% 1_ 40% 0 3 30% 20% 100% L Drove alone Carpool Public transportation Walk Other Work at home ■ Monticello ■ Wright County W Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2 -38: Regional Comparison of Number of Vehicles (2007 -2011 ACS) 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 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. Community Context 1 2 -21 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 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 St. Michael, it has a lower rate than Buffalo. Figure 2 -42 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 20101nflow /0utflow Job Counts rr In S*W-s" Any Ed%% ",d I iMkti ah Anhh, LI4m Own kk r-�! LI%% Ili ftakt� a4rtr, E .d f it 'ta 97, ti l 0 Figure 2 -40: OntheMap 2002- 20701nflow /0utflow Job Counts Figure 2 -41: OntheMap 20101nflow /0utflow Regional Comparison 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 1 5,432 Residents Employed in Monticello 18.5% 17.5% 1 15.4% Figure 2 -41: OntheMap 20101nflow /0utflow Regional Comparison 2 -22 1 Community Context City of Monticello 25% 22% 22% 20% 18% 16% 15% 15% 12% 10% 10% 7% 6% 6% 5% 0% Resident Employed in City Employee Living in City Id Monticello o Buffalo a Becker a Big Lake 4 St. Michael 2 -22 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2 -42: OntheMap 2010 Where Employees Live Other Place, Monticello, 12.4% Monticello, Anoka County,l 17.8% 3.2% \ Stearns County, e��o Minneapolis, 5.0% Big Lake, 5.9 Hennepin County, 5.3 %� Plymouth, 4.6% Other Wright Buffalo, 4.0 County, 9.8% St. Michael 3.5% Other Becker, 3.0% Sherburne County, 17.7% Other Wright County, 22.2% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Figure 2 -43: OntheMap 2010 Where Residents Work Other Place, Monticello, Anoka County, 9.0% 15.4% 5.0% Ramsey County, 5.0% e��o Minneapolis, Other 7.8% Sherburne- :aunty, 7.7% Plymouth, 4.6% Other Wright Buffalo, 4.5% County, 9.8% Maple Grove, 4.3% St. Cloud, 3.9% Other Hennepin r•n nr% -):z no/ Figure 2 -44: OntheMap 2010Income Comparison 0% ._. No �e e��o ago sec a \• ae� 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% W More than $3,333 per month 51 $1,251 to $3,333 per month o $1,250 per month or less Figure 2 -45: OntheMap 2010 Education Attainment by Worker 0% ._. �e e��o ago sec a \• ae� 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 o Bachelor's degree or advanced degree u Some college or Associate degree o High school or equivalent, no college W Less than high school 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 post high school education levels than in Monticello. Community Context 1 2 -23 Figure 2 -46: OntheMap 2010 Jobs by NAICS Industry Sector 75cational 7=vd M 18�i $B9 15.1% 357 25.991 2W 137'Yi 317 11 r3% s 5C7 17.2 "' 2_? 8.7% X437 30.6% 311 1.5.8 183 t Qal Bii4 172'Yi 1,94: 1 33A9i 111 7-8% 20a 109 5L79i M, -'r,ufacturing .545 11.6% 303 52% 224 15_71b 568 26.4% 229 1C,.0 rrrodr>bon and Food 5onric es 327 711% 490 8.391 a3 4.4% 152 716% 494 17.7% Wholesale Trade ZG11 s . ; `• s 81 1. e ", 79 60 2.249 457 163'.15 cbashuclnn 722 4.791 235 4.0% 15 1 D% 25 12% 429 152% Transportation and Warehausinig Ltyl 3. .1 51 = _ . Fj 35 _ PLiAc dniristmUon 139 3`89% MG 19.3% 0 UM% 95 3D% 28 I D% Other SerwVcies (excluding PuUzz Adrninish-atiW) 1.210 ='.5:5 1J 13' 9 Fin■+rom m-od Insurarrm 95 2_(]% 11fl 1.991 31 22% 28 1.3% (ID 2.194 PrafeeAbna 1, Scientif c. e rid Technital SEFVir?es S3 1. , 15E 2.7.•,'- 15 1.? . 27 1.7::. G7 1...1 - AcImini 1 1- &Supperk Wade NariogErnart and RATuW ra ion no 1591 89 1-91 4 9 17 a 7a 2-9% laragem en- of " onpar i 2s and nterprise_ 7C 1.S`!,., 213 C1. 5' C1.L..o C•5 fwd ESIIFIE� mid FbwW rnd LEmiFM 32 a -791 43 0-7% 4 9 -3% 12 aJ5% 3a 1 -191 ErrtertairmEnt, and Ilecireadnn 0. P:1 5.1 0. DX. C.'-•: , 22 1. ` . 32 1.L` °, Irdorniaivr 23 a_59i 79 1.391 5 9.391 57 2.5'31 a a2% Agri'-LItUFE, Forestry, Fishing; and Hurt ro, 19 0.4% 51 0;9% C 1.0- :•', r• 0.39i6 13 L' "• a irr8. Chm rying. andiDi and Gas EKheG1k;r 0 a -elf. a G-M O 9A9i a aJD% 0 aJD% JtiI Jes 0.0% C G.0-Y. 130 6.0 a I CI.O:•., TOMI ALGH4 I 199'11 MJ5 1 iaQ'li I 1 10%'X. 155 1 1W% 737 1DQ'li OntheMap also enables a comparison of jobs by NAICS Industry Sector across communities for 2010. As shown in Figure 2 -46, 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. 2 -24 1 Community Context City of Monticello Z w G Z 5w N� 0 H 0 w U) 0 a- 0 Ir - cc 1 N i ri Ch iz Q) zn tn by m v) E C14 cn 4.4 a� �, v, d 3 ° a� V cd 4-J 4-J-� s-i^--� O V O V o bA >..[ o V ... 1_14•. bn Q .O �cd ' �+ + U te+ N t O p cd a� v� �, 5 • 4 y 4-J+' (n 4a Ek, V 4C O N d O rn 'd rA +' V Ln V +' O O p p o C �; (� a, ¢+ x bb a4-+ y 4 O 'b O G}� _ W O �, a� ,� � 'b z cz w O 4� '-' +-, O v O O p O O pi jb�y p $-4 s cid �d °' > y p 4' p -x i a I ° 3 cl u es ° w d No U d 4 d o °v ° d 3 3 �° a� ci .-4 M ► Thousands of cars travel through Monticello every day. These vehicles increase the potential market for local business. On the downside, these trips add to traffic congestion in Monticello. The Comprehensive Plan seeks ways to seize the op- portunities and to mitigate the threats created by Monticello's location. Planning Context The map in Figure 2 -2 is a composite of key physical factors influencing future growth and development: ► Existing land use. ► Potential future street corridors, highway inter- changes and highway bridges. ► Planned expansion of the sanitary sewer system. ► Existing powerline corridors. ► Watershed breaklines. ► Public waters and wetlands. This map illustrates the location and type of physical factors that will shape future development of Monti- cello. 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 snap- shot of Monticello in 2007. This information forms the foundation of the Comprehensive Plan by describing: ► The nature and diversity of land uses in Monti- cello. ► The relationships between built and natural fea- tures of the community. ► Areas with potential capacity to accommodate future growth. The map of existing land uses divides Monticello into a series of residential, commercial, industrial and public use types. A brief description of each category of exist- ing land use follows. Single Family Residential - Traditional single family neighborhoods where housing units are "unattached" to one another. 2 to 8 Units - Forms of housing with two to eight units attached to one another or in a common structure, most commonly duplexes, twin homes and townhouses. 8+ Units - Higher density residential land uses with structures containing multiple housing units including apartments and condominiums. Manufactured Home Park — Areas that are exclusively designed for manufactured housing units. Commercial — Primarily retail and service businesses. The map shows properties that are currently planned for commercial use, but have not yet developed. Industrial - All forms of businesses with manufacturing, distribution, warehousing or other industrial use. The 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. 2 -2 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2 -2: Planning Context 3 I 1 Ge o / 0 i6 v a ^4 m m y N E2 _ c Lo 2 2` > N ° } T `° ° L L �O o a o? m E `r' « a m 3 0 E u'� a ' a)� a a' z iA N m g> U> i 2008 Comprehensive Plan Community Context 2 -3 d p lff I v 1 d7 • r �� 4 gc, k ► 5 • 7s� tr $ J N 0 i6 v a ^4 m m y N E2 _ c Lo 2 2` > N ° } T `° ° L L �O o a o? m E `r' « a m 3 0 E u'� a ' a)� a a' z iA N m g> U> i 2008 Comprehensive Plan Community Context 2 -3 Natural Features The natural environment has shaped Monticello's past and will influence its future. The original community grew along the Mississippi River. As Monticello grew away from the River, flat land and reasonable soils facili- tated suburban growth. Looking to the future, natural features will continue to influence development: ► Much of the prime farm land (as classified by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Wright County) is located in the southeastern sec- tions of the community. ► Abundant aggregate resources create the potential for mining in future growth areas. ► Lakes, wetlands and wooded areas offer amenities to attract development and also to be protected. The map in Figure 2 -4 shows these natural features in and around Monticello. Street System The street system continues to play a key role in the form and function of the community. Streets provide access to property and the ability for land to develop. Commercial and industrial land uses rely on this ac- cess to conduct business. Streets allow people to move throughout the community. The physical design of streets influences the character of residential neighbor- hoods and commercial districts. The best way to describe the street system is in terms of its functional classification (see Figure 2 -5). Each street serves a specific function. The pieces of the street system must fit together to achieve the desired functional outcomes. Monticello's street system con- sists of five functional classifications: Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector, and Local Streets. ► Major Arterial streets represent regional transpor- tation corridors that connect Monticello with other cities. Only I -94 is in this classification. ► Minor Arterials are roadways connect Monticello with the surrounding region. Within Monticello, Minor Arterials connect districts and other des- tinations. The safe and efficient movement of vehicles is the most important function of these streets. State Highway 25 and Broadway /County 75 east of Highway 25 are minor arterials. ► Collector streets form the link between arterials and local streets. As the name suggests, these streets are intended to "collect" traffic from an area and channel it into the arterial system. Collector streets are typically limited in distance to discour- age use for longer trips. Their design typically places equal emphasis on mobility and access. ► All other streets in Monticello are local streets. These streets emphasize access to property. They are typically designed for shorter distances and lower speeds. Orderly Annexation In 2005, the City of Monticello and Monticello Town- ship entered into an orderly annexation agreement covering the property surrounding the City. This agreement provides a means for the orderly develop- ment of the community without contentious annexa- tions. It also protects rural portions of the Township from urbanization. All of the development shown in the Comprehensive Plan occurs within the orderly an- nexation area. The boundaries of this area are shown in Figure 2 -6. 2 -4 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2 -3: Existing Land Use (2007) l � Y m ` oc rf C _ r I C8 . - f N �4 r r � r. /10 I I o - if � .� � � •� ..� o ,,, o d< m 3 � 2008 Comprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2 -5 Figure 2-4: Natural Resources M, U_ o 7E� M z (L 6 Ip ..K 05 AWD u 2 L kz 7N 2-6 1 Community Context I I g2 I _czr om City of Monticello Figure 2 -5: Street System m d � co' o ii - � � • i m + c o c a a *411 M ri e � I Id �--- 2008 Comprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2 -7 Figure 2 -6: Orderly Annexation Area i � r + c� wl w, M I 8 3 N s o z¢ o `6 m e � � D U 2 -8 1 Community Context City of Monticello E + -p I-,1 i 2 O a% P �` 111111 J1 + c� wl w, M I 8 3 N s o z¢ o `6 m e � � D U 2 -8 1 Community Context City of Monticello Growth Monticello celebrated its 150th birthday in 2006. For most of this time, Monticello was a small town on the banks of the Mississippi River. Over the past 30 years, the suburban expansion of the Twin Cities has brought new growth in Monticello. In 1970, the City's population totalled 1,636. By 2000, the population had grown to 7,868 (see Figure 2 -7). The combination of new housing development and annexation has pushed the current population over 10,000. Figure 2 -7. Population Trends 1970 -2000 These growth trends continued into the first half of this decade. From 2000 to 2005, the City issued an average of 219 new housing permits per year (see Figure 2 -8). In 2006, the overall slowdown in the housing market dropped new growth to just 77 new units. This growth trend continued into 2007 with 47 permits issued. Recent growth trends have seen an important shift in the type of new housing development. In 2000 -2004, 86% of all new housing was the traditional single - family detached home. In 2005 and 2006, more single - family attached housing was built. The Land Use chapter of the Plan discusses projections for future growth and housing development. Housing Housing is a critical part of the context of planning for the future of Monticello. It is the single largest form of built land use. Housing shapes the form and character Figure 2 -8: Building Permits for New Housing of the community. It influences who lives in Monticello today and in the future. Housing Type Figure 2 -9 shows the growth in Monticello's housing stock from 1990 to 2000. The Census reported 1,097 new housing units in Monticello over this decade, a 57.5% increase in the total number of units. Single family detached housing (1 -unit detached) accounted for 79% of this growth. This type of housing is occupied by a single family and is not physically connected to any other housing unit. It is the typical home found in Monticello. An additional 20% of the growth came in the form of single family attached housing (1 -unit attached). This housing type is a structure containing a single housing unit that is physically connected to one more compa- rable housing units. Twinhomes and townhomes are Figure 2 -9: Housing Type (1990 and 2000) 2008 Comprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2 -9 common examples single family attached housing. In 2000, single family housing (de- tached and attached) made up 70% of Monticello's housing stock. 27% of the 2000 housing supply was classified as rental (see Figure 2 -10). The vast majority of rental housing was a type other than single family detached. Only 81 units (4.6 %) of all 1 -unit detached housing were rental. There were very few options for owned housing with a density above one unit per building. Only 21 units (3.1% of all units with 2 or more units in a structure) were classified as owner occupied. Monticello's housing stock is more diverse than the rest of Wright County. 86% all housing in Wright County was single family detached and attached (see Figure 2 -11). Monticello has more multiple unit housing than the County, but in proportion to the overall regional housing supply. The distribution of the housing stock is indicative of where Monti- cello residents live. 66% of the 2000 population lived in single family detached housing (see Figure 2 -11). 12% of the population lived in rental housing with five or more units in the building. Age of Housing Given the growth of Monticello, it is not surprising to find that the housing stock is relatively new. Forty -two percent (42 %) of the 2000 housing supply was built in 1990 or later (see Figure 2 -12) and only 18% 2 -10 1 Community Context Figure 2 -10: Housing Type and Tenure (2000) Figure 2 -11: Housing Type and Tenure - City /County /Region (2000) 90% o 80% 0 0 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% o �a �a \ o N�� o ° n8 0% SF detached SF detached SF attached SF attached 2 to 4 5 to 19 20 or more Other - own - rent - own - rent ■ Monticello ■ Wright County ■ Twin Cities SMSA 700 600 500 z) 400 300 200 100 0 Figure 2 -12: Year Buiit/Tenure (2000) 1999 to 1995 to 1990 to 1980 to 1970 to 1960 to 1940 to 1939 or March 1998 1994 1989 1979 1969 1959 earlier 2000 Year Built City of Monticello Figure 2 -13: Year Built/Tenure /Age of Householder (2000) Figure 2 -14: Housing Type/Tenure /Age of Householder (2000) 600 -- 45 401 35( 400 30( 25( - - -- 300 20C 15C 200 100 50 1990 or later - Own - 19]0 to 1989 -Own - O ` Before 1970 -Own Nd 1990 or later -Rent O e4_r 75+ ^ Ln 1970 to 1989 -Rent P' Before 1970 -Rent - 55- 6465 -74 45_54, Y lP 35 44 0 25-34 15 24 \der QJ Ln r4 � ° E L o o P9e of HoUSehO ° Figure 2 -14: Housing Type/Tenure /Age of Householder (2000) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 IL 3 3 O ^ Ln Y N tf 0 QJ Ln r4 � ° E L o o v ° N n der e\ \O 0 f 0 N° E P9e Units i n Structure/7-enure `V o No of all units were built before 1970. Sixteen percent (16 %) of all rental units were built in 1990 or later. Age of Householder Figure 2 -13 connects the age of the housing with the age of the house- holder. ► A householder age 44 or young- er occupied 75% of all owned housing built in 1990 or later. ► 62% of senior households (householder age 65 and older) lived in owned housing. ► The majority of rental units (63 %) are occupied by house- holds headed by persons age 44 or younger. This data provides insights on both the housing supply and the age of the population attracted to Mon- ticello. The chart in Figure 2 -14 offers an- other perspective on the relation- ship between housing and the age of the householder. This chart shows the distribution of housing type and tenure by age of householder. With the exception of the youngest (15 -24) and oldest (75 +) age groups, the vast majority of Monticello's population lives in single fam- ily owned housing. The 15 -24 age group is most likely to live in rental housing. The oldest residents live in either single family housing or in larger rental structures. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2 -11 Demographics A comprehensive plan focuses most closely on the physical aspects of community - land use, parks, streets, and utilities. Planning must recognize that the physical and social aspects of community are intertwined. It is impossible to plan for the future without a careful examination of the demographic, social and economic characteristics of the community. Age Monticello's population increased from 4,941 in 1990 to 7,868 in 2000, a 59% increase. The population grew in all age brackets (see Figure 2 -15). An issue raised at community meetings was that Monticello is a "starter" community. Young families buy their first home in Monticello, but move away later in life. Much of the Census data, beginning with the age of popula- tion, supports this characterization of Monticello. The most population growth occurred in the age brackets representing families with school age (or younger) children. Monticello has a smaller population of older residents. Only 6% of the 2000 population was age 65 or older. The elderly population is smaller than for Wright County (8 %) or the Twin Cities region (10 %) - see Figure 2 -16. Monticello is a relatively young community. The 2000 median age of Monticello's population was 29.8 years. This compares with 33.1 years Figure 2 -15: Age of Population 1990 and 2000 Figure 2 -16: Age Distribution City /County /Region (2000) Figure 2 -17: Age and Gender Distribution (2000) 2 -12 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2 -18: Residence in 1995 - City /County /Region Figure 2 -19: Residence Five Years Aqo Figure 2 -20: Year Moved Into House (2000) for the County and 34.2 years for the region. Figure 2 -17 shows the age distri- bution of the 2000 population. In 2000, women made up 52% of Monticello's population. Women outnumbered men in all age groups except 20 -34 years old. Mobility Mobility is an important character- istic of Monticello's population. In the 2000 Census, only 41% of the population (age 5 and older) lived in the same house in 1995 (see Figure 2 -18). This compares with 58% for all of Wright County and 54% for the region. The Census does not report movement within Monti- cello (the population that moved to a different house in Monticello) during this period. People moving to Monticello from a different house in all of Wright County made up 23% of the 2000 population. The greatest shift from 1990 to 2000 came in the share of the population that moved to Monticello from out- side of Wright County. In 1990,23% of Monticello's population reported living in another Minnesota county. This group made up 32% of the 2000 population. These statistics suggest that Monticello was successful in attracting people Minnesotans relocating to and within the Twin Cities region. Monticello was less attractive to people moving from other states. Less than 5% of the 2000 population lived in another state in 1995. Another measure of mobility is the year moved into the 2000 residence. 82% of Monticello's 2000 population 2008 Comprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2 -13 moved into their current house in 1990 or later. The Census does not distinguish among people moving to Monticello and people moving into a new house within Monticello. Given the other Census data, it is reasonable to conclude that many of these households were new to Monticello. This degree of move- ment is significantly higher than County and regional levels (see Figure 2 -20). These mobility statistics suggest that Monticello's population is relatively new to the community. These resi- dents have had limited time to form connections to the community The sense of community history has a short time horizon. These trends are also important for the future. If people move in and stay, the com- munity will grow proportionately older. If the population continues to move up and out, then the future Monticello may show many of the same characteristics as in 2000. Households A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence. House- hold characteristics offer another perspective on the characteristics of people living in Monticello: Figure 2 -21: Household Type - City /County /Region (2000) Figure 2 -22: Household Type (1990 and 2000) ► 70% of Monticello households are family households (see Fig- A Family Household includes a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are ure 2 -21). This compares with related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. A family household may contain people not related 76% for the entire County and to the householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder's family in census tabulations. 65% for the region. This means that the population living in family household may exceed the population of families. ► 53% of all Monticello family households include a married Nonfamiliy Households contain a group of unrelated people or one person living alone. couple. ► 44% of all households included The Householder is the person in whose name the home is owned or rented. children under the age of 18. 2 -14 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2 -23: Household Size (1990 and 2000) 3.50 3.04 2.90 3.00 2?3 2.64 2.50 2.26 1.97 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 All households Owned housing Rental housing 111990 ■ 2000 Figure 2 -24: Household Size - City /County /Region (2000) Figure 2 -25: Population Per Housing Type and Tenure (2000) Only 34% of all households in the region contained children. ► Of the 1,167 households added from 1990 to 2000, two- thirds were family households (see Figure 2 -22). Of these new fam- ily households, only 72% were married couple families. Monticello has a smaller proportion of nonfamily households than the region as a whole (30% to 35 %), but more than Wright County (24 %). Monticello's nonfamily households consist largely of the householder living alone (79% of nonfamily households). The Census shows several trends about the size of each household: ► The average size of a household is getting smaller. From 1990 to 2000, the average size of all Monticello households dropped slightly from 2.73 people to 2.64 people (see Figure 2 -23). ► The average household living in owned housing is larger (2.90 people per household) than the typical household in rental housing (1.97 people). ► For each household and family type in Figure 2 -24, Monticello has fewer people per house- hold /family than for Wright County as a whole. These statistics come from specific household size data. The Census also reports the population living in various types of housing. This data can be used to calculate the average number of people living in different housing types. The chart in Figure 2 -25 compares average population by housing type and tenure (own or rent). This data provides some 2008 Comprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2 -15 interesting observations about the use of housing in Monticello: ► More people tend to live in a single - family home (1 detached and 1 attached) when the unit is rented instead of owned. ► Owner - occupied townhouses (1 detached) do not appear to be producing family housing with an average size of 2.17 people /unit. ► Structures with 2 to 49 units are primarily occupied by one and two person households. The average population of owner oc- cupied single family is equal to the average family size in Monticello. This data suggests that other hous- ing types (except mobile homes) are typically occupied by one and two person households. The population per housing unit shows little varia- tion between structures with two or more units. Race It is important to understand how the Census addresses racial issues. The Census allows people to select the race or races with which they most closely identify. The standards for collecting and presenting data on race and ethnicity were revised for the 2000 Census. The new guidelines are intended to reflect "the increasing diversity of our Na- tion's population, stemming from growth in interracial marriages and immigration.' As a result, race data from the 2000 Census is not directly comparable with any prior census. Despite the data differences, it is useful to compare the racial compo- sition of the population in 1990 and 2 -16 1 Community Context Figure 2 -26: Race (1990 and 2000) Figure 2 -27: Race - City /County /Region (2000) Figure 2 -28: Race of Elementary School Population (2006107) City of Monticello 1,400 } 1,200 0 r 1,000 ■White ^ 0 800 ❑ Black o El Hispanic 0 600 13Asian 400 IN American Indian ° w 200 PINEWOOD MONTICELLO MONTICELLO LITTLE ELEMENTARY SENIOR HIGH MIDDLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY City of Monticello Figure 2 -29: Place of Birth - City /County /Region (2000) Figure 2 -30: Place of Birth Foreign Born Population - City /County /Region (2000) 80 % o 60% 0 N � o 40%a o m N m c a o p O N o N o 20% o 0 o% 0 Born in Europe Born in Asia Born in Africa Born in Latin Born other place America ■ Monticello ® Wright County ■ Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2 -31: Income - City /County /Region (2000) 2000 (see Figure 2 -26). This chart shows little change in the diversity of Monticello's population. In 1990, 98.7% of the population was white. The 2000 Census reported that 97.0% of Monticello's population identified itself as white. The racial diversity of Monticello's population is similar to Wright County, but less than the region as a whole (see Figure 2 -27). Another factor in understanding race data is the reporting of the Hispanic population. People who identify their origin as Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino are not classi- fied as a separate racial category. They may be of any race. In the 2000 Census, 160 people were reported as Hispanic or Latino (of any race). This represents 2% of the total population. School enrollment data collected and reported by the Minnesota De- partment of Education provides a more current look at the racial com- position of Monticello's population. For the 2006/2007 school year, the six elementary schools located in Monticello reported that 7.1% of total enrollment was a race other than white. (In this data, Hispanic is classified as a category of race) The chart in Figure 2 -28 shows the racial composition for each school. The non -white portion of the stu- dent population ranges from 4.5% to 10.2 %. Another way of looking at the eth- nic characteristics of the popula- tion is place of birth. Only 1.9% of Monticello's 2000 population was foreign born. As with race, the ratio of foreign born residents is similar 2008 Comprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2 -17 to County and well below regional levels (see Figure 2 -29). The chart in Figure 2 -30 compares the place of birth for the foreign born population. Latin America was the most common place of birth for all jurisdictions. 69% of Monti - cello's foreign born population was born in Latin America. A smaller share of Monticello's population (compared with the Twin Cities region) was born in Asia or Africa. Income Income influences many aspects of community. Income provides the capacity to acquire housing (own or rent) and to purchase goods and services from local businesses. Income influences the demand for and the capacity to support public services. The Census data on income adds to the profile of Monticello as an entry level community. All measures of income are below county and re- gional levels (see Figure 2 -32). Figure 2 -32 compares Monticello with other cities in the northwest sector of the Twin Cities region. For all measures of income (household, family and per capita), income in Monticello falls below each of these neighboring cities. Data about the characteristics of children enrolled in the public school system provide some in- sights about current economic conditions. In the 2006/07 school year, Monticello elementary schools reported that 21% of the student population was eligible for free and Figure 2 -32: Income - Monticello and Selected Other Cities (2000) 1 00,000 v m O1 ry 80,000 m rn oo rn O v � N N a � N M o6 60,000 0 `^ `�^ vii m "' M 7 40,000 N 0, N N N O 20,000 N 0 Median household Median family Per capita ■ Monticello M Albertville ■ Buffalo E Elk River ■ Otsego © Rogers ■ St. Michael Figure 2 -33: Socio- Economic Indicators Monticello Schools (2006107) Figure 2 -34: Household Income by Age of Householder (2000) 2 -18 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2 -35: Educational Attainment (1990 and 2000) 1,600 1,400 v 0 1,200 1O 1,000 M T 800 N 0 600 a 400 0 a 200 0 Less than 9th 9th to 12th High school Some Associate Bachelor's Graduate or grade grade, no graduate college, no degree degree professional diploma (includes degree degree equivalency) ■ 1990 ■ 2000 Figure 2 -36: Educational Attainment - City /County /Region (2000) 40% m v 35% o 0 a 30% rn o 0 0 N 25% N o N N N o N t0 T 20% o a N �o 0 15% o o 10% 0 °' 0 o°\�o 00 0 c o 0 0 a 5% 0% No H.S. High school Some college, Associate Bachelor's Graduate or diploma graduate no degree degree degree professional degree ■ Monticello ■ Wright County ■ Twin Cities SMSA 70% 00 60% 0 c 50% M 40% T 30% 0 20% o 10% a 0% Figure 2 -37: Marital Status - City /County /Region (2000) Never married Now married, Separated Widowed Divorced except separated ■ Monticello ■ Wright County ■ Twin Cities SMSA 2008 Comprehensive Plan reduced price lunches. For indi- vidual schools, this segment of the student population ranges from less than 15% to 25% (see Figure 2 -33). Another perspective comes from the relationship between income and age. The chart in Figure 34 shows the distribution of household income by age of the householder. Less than 1% of all households have income over $200,000. All of these households are in the 55 -64 age bracket. The oldest and young- est households have the lowest incomes. Only one in five senior households has income above $35,000. Educational Attainment The Census shows a sharp increase in college education among Mon- ticello residents. In 2000, 55.2% of the population (age 25 and older) had attended college. This share of the population is up from 34.8% in the 1990 Census (see Figure 2 -35). Less than 16% of the 2000 popula- tion did not graduate from high school. The chart in Figure 2 -36 compares educational attainment in Mon- ticello with Wright County and the region. 21% of Monticello's population had earned a degree as compared with 18% for the County and 33% for the region. Marital Status Marital status provides another view of the general family orientation of the 2000 population in Monticello. 58% of the population (age 15 and older) was currently married. This is a lower level that reported for Community Context 1 2 -19 the County, but above the regional average (see Figure 2 -37). Employment Employment touches many aspects of community life. Jobs provide the income to pay for housing and to purchase goods and services. The location of jobs influences the amount of time Monticello residents are in the community each day. Commuting decisions impact transportation systems. Labor Force The Census looks at the potential working population as persons age 16 and older. The Labor Force includes all people classified in the civilian laborforce, plus members of the U.S. Armed Forces. The Civilian Labor Force consists of people clas- sified as employed or unemployed. Monticello's labor force grew with the population from 1990 to 2000 (see Figure 2 -38). The share of the working age population in the labor force grew from 66.8% to 76.1 %. The change in the labor force comes from a smaller portion of the popu- lation reporting itself as not in the labor force (29.3% in 1990 to 21.5% in 2000). Persons not in the labor force typically represent retirees, students and stay at home mothers. This change is not due to greater un- employment. The percent reported as unemployed fell from 3.9% in 1990 to 2.4% in 2000. More of Monticello's working age population is part of the labor force than the County or the region (see Figure 2 -39). This employment status is consistent with its age and demographic characteristics. Figure 2 -38: Population in the Labor Force (1990 and 2000) 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 Population In labor Females 16 Females 16+ Own All parents 16 years and force years and in labor children in family in over over force under6 labor force years ■ 1990 E 2000 Figure 2 -39: Employment Comparisons - City /County /Region (2000) Figure 2 -40: Population in Labor Force by Age (2000) 2 -20 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2 -41: Female Population in Labor Force by Age (2000) Figure 2 -42: Occupation (2000)8 45% 0 > 40% 0 35% rn rn o 30% N N N o 00 N N a 25% ° 20% 0 0 % s�% o _ CL 10% v 0% 0 Management, Service Sales, office professional Stearns County 3% Sherburne County 6% Other Hennepin County 24% Other Place 8% 0 a 0 C' C � Farming, Construction, Production, fishing, extraction, transportation forestry maintenance ■ Monticello ■ Wright County ■Twin Cities SMSA Minneapolis Plymouth 6% 7% 2008 Comprehensive Plan Monticello 31% Other Wright County 15% Figure 2 -43: Location of Employment for Workers in Monticello (2000) The Census looks at percent of working age population in the labor force for various age groups. Mon- ticello is generally above Wright County and the Twin Cities re- gion for all age groups (see Figure 2 -40). Labor force statistics break out data for the employment status of women. As with the labor force as a whole, the proportion of women (by age group) in the labor force is similar for Monticello, the County and the region (see Figure 2 -41). In general, more of the female Monti- cello population tends to be in the labor force. The large number in the 25 to 54 age group is indicative of two income households. Occupation Figure 2 -42 compares the occupa- tion of Monticello's population with the County and region. Monticello stands out with over one -half of the working population employed in managerial and professional oc- cupations. Monticello tends to be home to fewer people employed in construction and production fields. Location and Commuting The Census tracks the location of work place for the population. Only 31% of workers living in Monticello reported a place of employment in Monticello (see Figure 2 -43). Hen- nepin County is the largest employ- ment location (37% of all workers). Only a small segment of the labor force (9 %) lived in Monticello and worked in Stearns or Sherburne counties. Community Context 1 2 -21 Travel to work data shows a very automobile dependent pattern (see Figures 2 -44 and 2 -45). The per- cent of Monticello workers driving alone to work increased from 1990 (77.9 %) to 2000 (82.6 %). The labor force in Monticello makes limited use of public transportation (0.7% in 1990 and 0.3% in 2000). More people walked or worked at home than used public transportation. The share of workers that walked or worked at home decreased from 5.1% to 4.1% from 1990 to 2000. These commuting patterns are re- flective of other suburban settings in the Twin Cities regions. The employment and commuting patterns contribute to the neces- sity of owning an automobile in Monticello. Only 1.9% of occu- pied housing units did not have a vehicle (see Figure 2 -46). Almost three - quarters of all housing units reported two or more vehicles. The Census also collects data on the average travel time to work (see Figure 2 -47). The 2000 Census reported a mean commute time of 24 minutes. (This statistic was not reported in the 1990 Census.) There are no significant differ- ences in travel to work for Monti- cello worker in comparison to the County and the region. Employment in Monticello Monticello is a net importer of employment. In the 2000 Census, 4,262 Monticello residents were employed in the civilian labor force. Monticello was the place of employ- ment for 5,111 people. Figure 2 -44: Means of Travel to Work (1990 and 2000) 4,000 3,500 O 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 v Y 1,000 500 0 Drove alone Carpool Public Other means Walked or transportation worked at home E 1990 ■ 2000 Figure 2 -45: Means of Travel to Work - City /County /Region (2000) Figure 2 -46: Number of Vehicles Per Housing Unit (2000) 2 -22 1 Community Context City of Monticello 100% 90% 0 O 80% 70% 0 60% 50% 400M Y 30% 20% 0% a° 10% o o v ° o o N a o o M 0% Drove alone Carpool Public Walk Other Work at home transportation ■ Monticello M Wright County ■Twin Cities SMSA Figure 2 -46: Number of Vehicles Per Housing Unit (2000) 2 -22 1 Community Context City of Monticello Figure 2 -47: Travel Time to Work - City /County /Region (2000) 45% o, o 40% o � M 35% Mean travel time to O o o work - 26 minutes c 30% - N o 25% cu a 20% v Y 15% o 0 0 10% a o 5% 0% < 15 15 to 29 30 to 59 60 or more Minutes ■ Monticello ❑ Wright County ■ Twin Cities SMSA Other Place Stearns County 9% 5% L - - -- Monticello 26% i Hennepin County 5% Other Sherburne Co. 8% Monticello Towns Becker Township — 8% 5% Other Wright County 21% Big Lake (city +town) 13% Figure 2 -48: Residence of Persons Working in Monticello (2000) Figure 2 -49: Major Employers in Monticello (2007) Employer Products /Services Employees Monticello -Big Lake Community Hospital Hospital, nursing home and counseling center 515 I.S.D. No. 882 (Monticello) Elementary and secondary education 455 Xcel Energy Utility 422 Cargill Kitchen Solutions, Inc. Food processing 396 Wal -Mart Supercenter Discount retail store 325 City of Monticello Municipal government and services 151 Denny Hecker Monticello Automobile dealership 150 Ultra Machining Corp. Machine job shop 130 Cub foods Retail grocery store 122 Monticello Clinic Clinic 98 Bondhus Corporation Cutlery and hand -tool manufacturing 73 Source: Written /telephone survey (November 2007), 2007 Minnesota State Business Directory, 2007 Minnesota Manufacturers Register The chart in Figure 2 -48 shows the place of residence for people trav- eling to Monticello for work. The bulk of the work force comes from the area surrounding Monticello. 47% of people working in Monti- cello live in Monticello Township, other places in Wright County, Big Lake, Big Lake Township, and Beck- er Township. There is little reverse commuting. Only 5% of workers live in Hennepin County. The Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Devel- opment collects data and prepares profiles of Minnesota cities. One part of the State's community pro- file is a listing of "major employers" Figure 2 -49 contains major employ- ers reported for Monticello. These employers account for 2,885 jobs. These jobs represent 56% of the people that reported jobs in Monticello as part of the 2000 Census. While this is somewhat an apples -to- oranges comparison, it does provide a sense of the nature of employment in Monticello. The employment base is not dominated by several large employers, but spread among a large number of small and medium sized employers in different types of businesses. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2 -23 This page intentionally left blank 2 -24 1 Community Context City of Monticello • � \cq \ • \ \ \ \ • \ \ _ \ e \ .ref .� O SU. CC y •� [ Q. '� > h Ln a°n w° � o :; 3 bn -o U 3Z Ln N 3 ° a. ° O ° 04 a. a� � s. � ° bs) s� ca O V V) oci GJ s +; O p i~ s. i~ w G1. ^� O Nom, v O F v w N VO s. h G� N N O .� Cd Cl O 00 'G aOv, '��C L. W sem. w ^d ° 3 v �� N O D �-��. 'v� c ��o sN. O U O N 0 R% rte- i /. v S>°. > � � rG � N .w � tom. U N W 4 4' � ate..+ ":" IC; U � Q. � .1U. za � O. : O t� 'ro 4= r_ s.. t., - H ° :o scot. spa d N V N O �+ o -0 4� 04 14Z4+� Q. • '� �. bh � v C N co o O c� vO N N w N G. in > "O bb S~ C. � a w sem. w ..0 w v CS � spa -0 4ml 'A s� U .t ~ n �C s. S• U y-0 Ci app ¢ cC y -Z N U -0bA v > O N s.. O v� U N U N Ln ca CZU c� +'N "a U 'C3 W C% N ¢ ¢ spa -7 aZ" L]. GJ W b°A L E N z G M 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: ► Growth projections are used to plan for the capacity of municipal utility systems. ► Growth projections are used to create and manage finance plans for capital improvements. ► The school system uses growth projections to forecast enrollments and to plan for programs and facilities. ► Market studies use growth projections to analyze the potential for locating or expanding businesses in Monticello. ► The characteristics of growth influence the amount of land needed to support this development. ► Growth adds trips to the local street system. ► Assumptions about growth influence the policies and actions needed to implement the 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: ► Quality of life. ► Access to employment. ► Availability of desired housing and neighborhood options. ► Affordability. ► 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 Figure 3 -1: Growth Trends and Projections 300 242 22 223 2 208 6] 1 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 130 710 90 �� 70 50 250 p 30 200 +Actual 150 t projected 100 50 0 'LOp'L 'Ledo .LO�ro 'LO.�'L 'LD.�A 'LOyO .LO,LO LOpO LQO�` L0.�0 Lo,�O 256 242 22 223 2 208 6] 1 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 130 710 90 �� 70 50 p 30 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 Land Use City of Monticello 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: ► Organize the community in a sustainable manner. ► Make efficient use of municipal utility systems and facilitate the orderly and financially feasible expansion of these systems. ► Provide the capacity for the type of growth desired by the community. The Land Use Plan Map is only one piece of the land use plan for Monticello. The other parts of the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan work with this map to explain the intent and objectives for future land use. Further, this map lays the foundation for land use controls that are used by the City to implement the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Categories The Land Use Plan Map uses a set of specific categories to guide land use in Monticello. One element missing from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan was a description of the land use categories shown in the Land Use Plan. The ability to use the Comprehensive Plan as an 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: ► These broad categories more clearly illustrate the pattern of development and the plan for future growth. ► Although residential land uses vary by type and density, they share many public objectives. ► This approach makes a more enduring comprehensive plan. The Plan can guide an area for the appropriate land use without the need to predict future community needs and market forces. ► The Plan relies on policies, land use regulations, performance standards and public actions to 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. 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -3 Figure 3 -2: Land Use Plan Map N s �" ■ I ;i �� rv. p,. o� r■ ' 4 I *mow a � I\ ♦ � s F I —$ f ' i 4 � � �ro i ♦ - ro � J � L � I1 � om 3 -4 1 Land Use City of Monticello 0 a. 0 0 cC C U v Ib wq I ■ ED ,� - o EY o T r , 71— m Q o CO a a a a a o E o 5 a' 3 a a ii w a; O c SO❑�" `l7,� 5 N s �" ■ I ;i �� rv. p,. o� r■ ' 4 I *mow a � I\ ♦ � s F I —$ f ' i 4 � � �ro i ♦ - ro � J � L � I1 � om 3 -4 1 Land Use City of Monticello 0 a. 0 0 cC C U v Figure 3 -3: Land Use Plan - Places to Live The remainder of this section describes the categories used in the Comprehensive Plan in greater detail. Places to Live The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create and sustain quality places for people to live in Monticello (see Figure 3 -3). This category designates areas where housing is the primary use of land. The emphasis behind Places to Live is to help ensure that Monticello offers a full range of housing choices, while preserving and enhancing the quality of neighborhoods. Although a single land use category, Places to Live does not suggest housing is a homogenous commodity or that any type of housing is desirable or allowed in any location. When someone says "house" the most common image is a single family detached dwelling. This housing style is characterized by several features. There is a one -to- one relationship between house and parcel of land - the housing unit is located on a single parcel. The house is not physically attached to another housing unit. The housing is designed for occupancy by a single family unit. The typical neighborhood in Monticello is made up exclusively of single family detached homes. The primary variables become the design of the 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 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -5 2,q 0 10 ` ` ♦ \♦ o Keller Lake F - .° �-- 25 oil ♦. First ■ ■' •■� ■ - - ♦\ — Lake Mudy ■j�I�_ ♦, _ � AMss -- Lake L— I Bertram - Lake on9 \1 I - `�♦ I ''I _ — v i ■ _ I � ,.. 1 • North - Lake _106 �. ♦.... -..... .�s o osa "1 Mlles •...... ♦ ►ate• �` Dah Sown. ?hnD \R, Shabwne Camtr,Wr�ht Ctv¢t♦= ,arviR38 &.4ssaoata.. —h S, 2003 1 _ + ' ey1 � \� \ 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 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -5 pattern, characterized by curvilinear street layout with the use of cul -de -sacs. A variety of factors, including consumer preference and housing cost, have increased the construction of attached housing in recent years. Duplexes, twin homes quads and townhomes are common examples of this housing style. Although the specific form changes, there are several common characteristics. Each 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: ► Provide housing suited to the needs of an aging population. ► Facilitate redevelopment in the Downtown or in other appropriate locations of the community. ► Provide housing needed to attract the work force required to achieve economic development goals of the City. Higher density residential land uses should be located where the setting can accommodate the taller buildings and additional traffic. Policies - Places to Live The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the following objectives for residential land use in Monticello: 1. Provide a range of housing choices that fit all stages of a person's life -cycle (see below). 2. Support development in areas that best matches the overall objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Develop quality neighborhoods that create a sense of connection to the community and inspire 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 3 -6 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3 -4: Life Cycle of Housing Supply 11;l - f t._ VIII!' OEM n FE 'e r, �h 3. r ,r 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 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -7 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 Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park 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 Figure 3 -5: Relationship Between Development and Natural Features - Parkway Figure 3 -6: Relationship Between Development and Natural Features - Trail Corridor • 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 3 -8 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3 -7: Example of Conservation Design Development 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 2008 Comprehensive Plan - Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -9 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: ► Building codes and additional regulations to promote quality construction. ► Subdivision regulations control the initial configuration of lots. ► Zoning regulations establish limitations on the size of lots, placement of the house on a lot, relationship of structure size to lot area, and building height. ► Nuisance ordinances enable the City to prevent and correct undesirable uses of property. ► Other City regulations control other ancillary uses of residential property. Maintenance of property is a factor in sustaining quality neighborhoods. The tenure (form of ownership) 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 3 -10 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3 -8: Land Use Plan - Places to Work Sig Lake L,. Y � KeNer lake e® Mud. 0 Lake .z '",�� -►�� - -'� f - -I �� arch - ` Bertram tea;,_."" Lake org I 6.'. i.. s �~ e=..a•.._ aMl ake t '•I � �,� i � V w..� ' II i .�' T North 106 ` e - - - -� f J , Lake ♦r. ■�.. ■. i_� I& ... 0 ',.0.25 0.5 .a Miles .. -�'r' r ^. - art ■ -.■ ■ � Data Source: M DNR, Sherb— County, Wright M • `� County, and W SR & Associates. November I, 201 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: 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 ► Expanding and diversifying the property tax base. ► Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for people to work and live in Monticello. ► Promoting wage levels that provide incomes needed to purchase decent housing, support local businesses and support local government services. ► Take advantage of opportunities to attract companies that have a synergy with existing companies in the community, including suppliers, customers and collaborative partners. ► Encouraging the retention and expansion of existing businesses in Monticello. Land Use 1 3 -11 Figure 3 -9: Land Use Plan - Places to Shop o ` Kalfer Lake ft ■ 25 9 � First. ;�+ .• � `, �9 s ' �m.� ..�, - Lake ■ ►� All- Mu d ■ + I . - s « .,- _� � WC _ Lakes - r s Bertram Lake Ong LF ake 4 ; s +I I 1 LI— I awl _ _ o . -..', + �. ♦ r 3 1 a `� e v e — 11011h 106 J � 0 0.25 0.5 1 0 • � Miles Data S NR, NR, Sherburne County, Wrlght _ Counry,.dWS6 &Assoc . November 1, 2011 * .y^ 1 °1 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. 3 -12 1 Land Use City of Monticello 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 2. 3. 4. 5. G'll 7 The Comprehensive Plan seeks to attract and retain businesses that provide goods and services needed by Monticello residents. 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. Commercial development will be used to expand and diversify the local property tax base and as an element of a diverse supply of local jobs. Places to Shop will be located on property with access to the street capacity needed to support traffic from these businesses. Each parcel should supply an adequate supply of parking that makes it convenient to obtain the goods and services. Building materials, facades and signage should combine with public improvements to create an attractive setting. Site design must give consideration to defining 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. �r The Comprehensive Plan describes issues, plans and policies related to the Downtown in several sections of the 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 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -13 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: The Land Use chapter contains a specific focus area on Downtown. The focus area contains a more detailed discussion of the issues facing the Downtown and potential public actions needed to address these issues. The operation of the street system is a critical 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. The Parks chapter of the Comprehensive Plan provides for parks in the Downtown and the trail systems that allow people to reach Downtown on foot or bicycle. The Economic Development chapter 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 2. 3. 4. 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. 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. The City will build on core assets of greater Downtown Monticello as identified in the Embracing Downtown Plan. 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: 3 -14 1 Land Use City of Monticello ► Applicable traffic safety and access requirements limit the ability to comply with building location standards of this Plan. ► At least fifty (50) percent of either the Broadway or Pine Street frontage is occupied by a building (non - parking area). ► 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 maybe 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 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -15 desired characteristics of residential neighborhood. Criteria for locating an institutional use in a residential land use area include: 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. 3 -16 1 Land Use City of Monticello 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: 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 Bertram Chain of Lakes 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 Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park. 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. Figure 3 -10: Land Use Plan -Northwest Monticello 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 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -17 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: ► Where should the interchange be located? ► What is the potential for a new river bridge connection? ► How would the interchange be funded and what are the financial and land use implications for the City? ► What time frame should be used in planning for the improvements? The answers to these questions provide invaluable 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. Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park Another critical factor in the future of the Northwest Area is the former YMCA camp that is being converted into the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park. The City and Wright County formed a partnership in 2005 to start purchasing portions of the 1,200 acre YMCA property. As of 2013, 495 acres have been purchased through state grants with another 300 planned for acquisition. The YMCA will lease land at the regional park to run their Camp Manitou Summer Camp. 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: ► The City must create connections between the park and other sections of Monticello. ► Building streets in a "parkway" design emphasizes the desired qualities of a regional park and of the surrounding Places to Live and Work. ► The park is a critical piece in creating a "greenway" system that links to the Mississippi River and may, over time, ring the community. Industrial Growth The Northwest area is a critical location for current and future industrial development. The Monticello 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: 3 -18 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3 -11: Community Connections to Regional Park ,1 ! 4 Existing I Natural sipp •. To Mississippi River , Potential Parkways Land,/ Potential / Greenway Corridor 39 — To Mississippi River ♦I i7 YMCA Regional Park Existing — — 1 Green Corridor Potential Greenway Q _ Corridor 25 Existing Natural,' Land ► This major collector street will influence the nature of adjacent land use. ► Streetscape improvements would help to define the high quality character desired by the City as a gateway to the Bertram Chain of Lakes Regional Park and to new neighborhoods. ► 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 Zhe 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. 2008 Comprehensive Plan – Updated 2013 Land Use 13 -19 Downtown Monticello needs special attention in the Comprehensive Plan. Following the 2008 Comprehensive Plan update, the community undertook 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: ► The configuration and traffic volumes of Highway 25 significantly reduce opportunities for direct access from the Highway to adjacent properties. ► 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. ► 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. ► "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 ► Diversify land use in the Downtown; supplement retail and service uses with other activities that generate traffic. ► Encourage redevelopment of old and obsolete structures; encourage consolidation of small parcels with multiple ownerships. ► Balance parking and land use to ensure availability of adequate parking at all times. ► Encourage mixed use but do not make it a requirement or prerequisite for development or redevelopment. ► Discourage residential as a free- standing land use within the core downtown area. ► Establish physical connections between the core Downtown area and the riverfront and park. ► Encourage land uses that serve as evening and weekend attractions to the Downtown area. ► Expand facilities and parking adjacent to Westbridge Park to help create an anchor attraction at the north end of Walnut Street. Transportation ► Acknowledge that Highway 25 will be limited in terms of providing direct property access. ► Develop circulation patterns that utilize local streets for individual site access. ► 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. ► Consider developing in districts to reduce the need or desire to cross Highway 25 between 7th street and the river crossing. ► 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. ► 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. ► Improve access to the Mississippi River to expand on recreational opportunities. 3 -20 1 Land Use City of Monticello Figure 3 -12: Framework Plan from the Embracing Downtown Plan Public LU w Public Public w Parking Lid ~ X U3 g iver o Oriented Convenience _ o 0 hoppin Services J J d '` B C}ADWAY STREE i Q C .� d1 Q IL Shopping u? V3 0 _ w Public o 4TH STREET Parking Q 4 Cargill o mauy, Li _ erg o etail i f— Civic W W W W Pub cc � ac � V7 6TH STREET v W Public '4^JALhIUT STREET..��1 p 4 Ex. Retail rzxisting Detail tom — 1_94 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -21 ► 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. Downtown Design and Image ► Encourage design standards that elevate the quality of Downtown development without creating undue hardships for property and building owners. ► 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. ► The public realm of streets, boulevards and sidewalks represents the best opportunity to create an interim image for downtown as it redevelops. ► 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). ► Development should orient toward the intersection of Highway 25 with Broadway to take advantage of high traffic volumes in the Highway 25 corridor. ► 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. ► 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. ► To the extent possible, buildings should occupy street frontages and should front on public sidewalks with connections to a continuous "Downtown" sidewalk pedestrian system. ► Proposed uses should have adequate parking (private or public) within easy and convenient walking distance. ► 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. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to enhance the existing commercial core along Broadway by building strong connections with the riverfmnt 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. South Central Focus Area Continued residential growth to the south is an important element of the Comprehensive Plan. This growth achieves several objectives: ► It helps to facilitate the expansion of the sanitary sewer system in conjunction with the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue. This sanitary sewer capacity is 3 -22 1 Land Use City of Monticello needed to support future industrial growth area along Highway 25. ► These areas encourage growth in areas that could use the new eastern interchange with I -94 rather than Highway 25. ► These areas provide appropriate locations for 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. ► 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: Figure 3 -13: Land Use Plan - South Central ► Increased overall housing demand that exceeds the capacity to support growth in other areas. ► Traffic congestion on Highway 25 that increases the need to channel use to the east interchange. ► The need to solve stormwater and drainage 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. Figure 3 -14: Land Use Plan - East Focus Area .. . -.. v_: Iii 1 1 P l 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -23 r IL ► Increased overall housing demand that exceeds the capacity to support growth in other areas. ► Traffic congestion on Highway 25 that increases the need to channel use to the east interchange. ► The need to solve stormwater and drainage 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. Figure 3 -14: Land Use Plan - East Focus Area .. . -.. v_: Iii 1 1 P l 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -23 Q 0 a 0 0 0 W C:) 0 U co oU o w 3 U U o o o U o a Q o o 0 h Cd tri Ct M U� 0 'd U O o 0Uw cn � V) orn o U sp O 0U —a 4, a bb cz U 'd L'F'i Q U OU O E 4-3 U v cidcz —Cd o 0 N a U �. > ° ,U� o 61�� 4 u ° O 'O A U a0i Q. �' -- — O rn 0 b _ cz 14Z4 +� y ° -0 o a U v -C a o � .3 �' o U .4M� a +� 0cz 3 C:)++ ° o o -° '> o bon 14, 0 0° cd 3 aUi �+ o ° ° X U U ° ° cod v o '° U o U 0 o o o 0 °" u v a _ �, v ro o ° `' a x +y+ cz v awi -d U > .o c� 0 o °n ° w -� o •U G -ctD o W U U U U O +� b O � cd �. O bA 'i+ 4' � s, 4' m GL s0 0 O O }' L1. 4 «S L1. cd co'U � N > � 'C O u— � U cUd + ¢ w w w O w u Q, ,.� ° -0 ° ° O v° o o o U b o y cd > v ,O 'G 0 0 W A A A A 2 �> A U 9 U O L Q 0 a 0 0 0 W C:) 0 o w 3 U 7c O y o7; o > C! Q) Q o o 0 h Cd tri Ct M :z o 0 'd U O o 0Uw � V) orn U sp O 0U —a 4, a bb U 'd L'F'i U Q U OU O E 4-3 U v �So � c. o 0 N ► 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. ► Approximately 15% of residents in 2010 are employed within the community. This has dropped from 18% in 2002. ► 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. ► 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). 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. 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. Figure 4-1:2012 Total Establishments by Size Number of Establishments by Size Low Jwcenq { �� 9 �.I_f. _ ="r-71 Y,_- M �I 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: ► 78% of the visited businesses were locally owned and operated. ► 20% of businesses were in manufacturing, 18% in retail trade, and 13% in other services. ► 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 part -time employees, up from 6.96 three years ago. ► 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. ► Survey results indicated that the medical industry is the highest employer in Monticello, followed by retail trade and manufacturing. ► 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: 4 -2 1 Economic Development City of Monticello ► Improve Business Retention and Expansion Through Technical and Development Assistance. ► Improve Labor Force Availability and Productivity. ► Improve Infrastructure to Help Move Goods, Customers, and the Labor Force More Efficiently. ► 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: ► 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 fiber optic system. ► Proximity to universities. ► Overall location. ► Expansive park system. ► 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. 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Economic Development 1 4 -3 Figure 4 -2: Chanqes in Tax Capacity Value - Commercial /Industrial 300,000 250,000 200,000 Z" M 150,000 CL ti x 100,000 50,000 0 Figure 4 -3: Tax Capacity Comparison Industrial Retail office Single Townhorne Apt Industrial Retail Office 2Nk 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 4 -4 1 Economic Development City of Monticello 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 Figure 4 -4: Distribution of 2011 Taxes Payable All Other lic utility 310,074 34% sidential mestead v,886,235 28% will be needed to achieve community objectives for Downtown. This 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. 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. 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Economic Development 1 4 -5 Some findings of the study included: ► Downtown Monticello enjoys a strategic location between the Mississippi River and I -94. This focuses traffic on TH -25 resulting in traffic counts higher in Downtown than south of I -94 ► 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. ► Downtown has the largest concentration of shopping goods stores and restaurants. ► Downtown's trade area population was estimated at 93,500 in 2010 and is projected to have an annual growth rate of 2.2 %. ► 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. ► CentraCare Health System, with 25 beds and 600 employees has established Monticello as a regional medical center. ► Increased residential development stimulates increased commercial development. The recent economic conditions have slowed residential development, thus resulting in reduced tenant demand for retail space. ► 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 Q CXtvigri x11 M: amb-3m" Liy MOV11 4 -6 1 Economic Development City of Monticello 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: ► Acquisition of land. ► Preparation of sites for development. ► Construction or reconstruction of public improvements. ► Provision of adequate parking supply. ► Remediation of polluted land as needed. ► 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. 2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Economic Development 1 4 -7 0 toalwo s r MOO v +- E a 0 Z v 0 v O C O W v O "p O p a o �; CO O O d 2 o 7- j.+ W 0 0 � cts (V 'pp co 0 >'Ov O aj n °�"' a0i 0 on 6 ° 4-1 '> a cz ° py 0 °tin x o64 3 O Q) Q a ° oCU a� O y W O o .O .= O v .a a, o UO .� N CL U E v +4 �O+ 2O d' o 0 A ry r., /. 41r. ., cis cu O CQ,, cu co 0 w x p O° �a E> 0 ~ on r o v o 0 1.. cn > s y0 Gy ++ a 0 O U O �+ 0 0 0 O� rn O 'a r. O }+ oco z O +M+ Z CZ `lw to cu �x A w 3 a cd �o e n w o Oo $m4a •� cu °' Q o � CU °' co3 p ® ° ti y �� on Q. � 0 �! 0, •a > z w Q a o 0 ° o 0 m o 0 cu a°i a ° C >. '>cu 1-4 O p p o ° O O U p fr Ll, 0 y U v b cn y y O y p y W y 114 O p y W O rn 0 YC ++ W p > `�' CA -0 Sr O sa v GL O U >, O 0. yo+ O y N �LO 4-14- o u M bn Cw CO,a Q) 4 U- o v coo M 5 Z 0& cu E> 0 a° 4D -0 Q cd Co to ,.a o � on o w, o� a w -0 O .v, W M '" yo cd +, G, 4 , sp. 0 U U 4.1 QX U ski 0 `~ � W a0i 1 O O O as a� � w d w w w ° a 0 ° u° cdV o 0 U s .� > �+ '� a) v ci E a 0 Z v 0 v O C O W a o �; CO d 2 o 7- j.+ W 0 0 � cts (V 'pp co 0 >'Ov O aj y o 4 0 on 6 ° 4-1 '> a cz a y x o64 3 0 a� as cl a� O y W O o Im a .O .= O v 4' U 4� 0 0 0 0 U O t a N CL O . p N w �,o E v +4 �O+ 2O d' o 0 A ry ► The job base in Monticello is made up of a wide range of small to medium sized employers. In 2007, Only five 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). ► The 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. ► The 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. The results of this study provide important insights on future job growth. The study identified a series "strengths" for attracting bioscience firms 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 fiber 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. The St. Cloud State study also made note of several weaknesses in attracting these business to the com- munity. The list included: ► Lack of hotels and lodging. ► No defined plan. ► Small community. ► Low tax base. The recommendations of this Study apply to efforts 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 - The 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 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 foun- dation 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 4 -2 1 Economic Development City of Monticello 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. Figure 4 -1: Changes in Tax Capacity Value - Commercial /Industrial 450,000 - 400,000 350,000 300,000 v 250,000 T Q v 200,000 FR 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 to 2007 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. The chart in Figure 4 -1 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 2007 than in 1997. This trend takes on additional meaning when compared to other classi- fications of property. Figure 4 -2 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. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Economic Development 1 4 -3 300,000 250,000 200,000 v a 150,000 a v x F 100,000 50,000 0 Figure 4 -2: Tax Capacity Comparison Industrial Retail Office Single Townhome Apt Industrial Retail Office Single Townhome Amt 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 All Other T. 55 Figure 4 -3: Tax Capacity Comparison Xcel Energy 39% rger" 4 -4 1 Economic Development City of Monticello This 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. The 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 diversified. 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. 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 Down- town. This 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. These actions may require the use of tax increment financing, tax abatement or other finance tools avail- able to the City. 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 deterio- rated 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: ► 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. These actions may require the use of tax increment financing, tax abatement or other finance tools avail- able to the City. Development Strategies The following strategies will be used to implement the Comprehensive Plan in the area of Economic Develop- ment: 1. The City must use the Comprehensive Plan to pro- vide 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 expan- sion areas are capable of supporting new develop- ment in a timely manner. 4. The City should evaluate the need and feasibility of additional city-owned business parks as a means attracting the desired businesses. 2008 Comprehensive Plan Economic Development 1 4 -5 5. The City should establish a plan to evaluate the feasibility of implementing the recommendation of the St. Cloud State study and if feasible to take necessary action to attract bioscience businesses to Monticello. 6. The City will continue to work with existing busi- nesses to maintain an excellent business environ- ment, retain jobs and facilitate expansions. 7. The City will work with the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital to ensure the retention and to promote the expansion of health care services in Monticello. 8. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to main- tain and enhance the quality of life in Monticello as a tool for attracting businesses and jobs. 4 -6 1 Economic Development City of Monticello City Council Agenda: 05/28/13 8. Consideration to appoint a Planning Commission representative to the Transportation Advisory Committee. (AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: On March 14, 2011, the City Council authorized the formation of a Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) for the purpose of assisting the City in defining transportation needs, lobbying support for transportation projects /studies, providing public education support, developing funding sources, and establishing transportation investment priorities, as well as to serve as a platform for future regional planning initiatives. The TAC meets quarterly (unless more frequent meetings are need for a given project) on the second Thursday of the given month. The group meets at 7:30 AM at City Hall. A schedule is attached for reference. Former Planning Commissioner Rod Dragsten had served as the Planning Commission's representative to the TAC. At the time of his resignation as a Planning Commissioner, the sitting Planning Commission indicated that a rotation of Commissioners could attend the TAC meetings, based on availability. This rotation is proving ineffective due for notification and agenda communication. Therefore, staff is requesting a recommendation for formal appointment of a Commissioner to the TAC. This recommendation will then be forwarded on to the City Council for ratification. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to recommend appointment of Commissioner to serve as the Planning Commission representative to the Transportation Advisory Committee. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City staff defers to the Commission on this decision. D. SUPPORTING DATA: City Meeting Calendar City of Monticello - Re ularl y Scheduled Meetings of Council and Appointed Commissions - 2013 I Holiday Industrial/ Planning Bertram City TiberNet'Advisory Economic , , Development' , ' , MCC Economic Commission Chain of Lakes Council . . Board .Aythgrite • Advisory Development 7AM 6PM Advisory 8AM 7PM . .:.bPM :. ' . 0PM 4:30PM Police Parks Transportation Library Board Monticello Advisory orderly Advisory Commission Comm ttee 5:30PM Annexation Commission 7PM 8AM 7:30AM Area 8PM January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri SE MENEM MENEM July 2013 August 2013 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri M MIMEMIM 9 IMIMENIMMIN ME©E 12 13 M MIMMUNIM! 16 MEMEMENIMMEMEN1 19 20 21 M MENEEMEMi 24 25 26 27 28 29 MEMEMEN ®M®M■■ INIMEVINE11 25 26 27 28 MINIMEMME MENEM July 2013 August 2013 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat ©MM 9 IMIMENIMMIN ME©E 12 13 14 MENOME� 16 MEMEMENIMMEMEN1 19 20 21 22 MiZa"111MMEM 24 25 26 27 28 29 MEMEMEN ®M®M■■ INIMEVINE11 25 26 27 28 May 2013 MENEM July 2013 August 2013 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 9 IMIMENIMMIN 11• ' 12 13 14 MEMEMEM 16 MEMEMENIMMEMEN1 19 20 21 22 IMMIXIMEEM 24 25 26 27 28 29 10010101011ME ®M®M■■ INIMEVINE11 25 26 27 28 29 30 MEF Em"I'DIMEME ,AVF,AVEEM NIME10101011 on EM01 N May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat ENEEMEN 2 3 4 5 6 7 ©MEMEME 9 1 ; ;: 11• ' 12 13 14 MEMEMEM 16 (0 11 19 20 21 22 IMMIXIMEEM 24 25 26 27 28 29 10010101011ME ®M®M■■ 24 25 26 27 September 2013 CG in RAnn Ti is W-1 Thi i Fri C.fi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 ; ;: 11• ' 12 13 14 15 16 (0 11 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ®M®M■■ 24 25 26 27 October 2013 MIMEMENM MENNEN MEMMEM 2 3 MEN 5 6 7 EME-AME 9 10 V 0 0 0 MENOMEN 16 17 18 C: 20 21 NOWEEME ®M®M■■ 24 25 26 27 28 October 2013 MIMEMENM Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat MEN 2 3 MEN 5 6 7 E0561 9 10 V 0 0 0 ENIMMEME 16 17 18 C: 20 21 ® ®M®M■■ 24 25 26 27 28 November 2013 Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 14 15 16 17 18 C: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 IMMINIMIMMIN IMMIMEME101 M1010000101 INEREMEN MEMEMME December 2013 OMMMMMM EMMUM1011 006reIRMIMIN EMBEEMIS EMENEEN Regularly scheduled meetings are sometimes rescheduled. Notice of meeting changes are posted 72 hours in advance on the Community Center bulletin board in compliance with open meeting law. Planning Commission Agenda: 05/07/13 9. Community Development Director's Report Building /Development Activity Please fin attached a copy of the department update PowerPoint presentation prepared by the Building Department and presented to the City Council on May 29tH Hillside Farm The lots in Hillside Farm 3rd and 4th Addition have been posted for Notice of Expiration of Redemption period. The properties are now being referred to the state for tax judgement sale. There are 48 total lots in the two additions. Only one of the lots, in 3rd Addition, has been built out. Under the development agreements, the developer was allowed to build model homes for sale purposes once grading, curbing and one lift of asphalt was complete. Hillside Farm 3rd and 4th Addition have not been accepted by the City for public improvements. Prior to receiving word regarding the tax forfeiture of the lots, the City had been working with the property owner which is the original developer (Trison Development) to determine an appropriate course of action for the completion of the public improvements. These improvements include minor utility work and the final lift of pavement on the public streets. The developer was able to purchase the lots outright from the bank who originally held the mortgage on the property. As such, the bank's letter of credit are no longer valid on the property and the City cannot draw on the letters of credit to complete the improvements. However, the developer is not able to complete the required improvements due to financial constraints. Therefore, the developer is in default of their development contact and must complete the improvements before any further development is allowed. In that regard, the City has filed an affidavit of developer default against all the lots in the two additions, which clearly outlines the remaining public improvements and indicates that the City reserves the right to complete the improvements and assess the costs to the lots. Any buyer seeking to purchase a lot would receive this information with a title search. In addition, the Department of Building Safety has been informed of this situation should any inquiries on lots arise. Based on the last conversations with the developer /property owner, it was the intention to bring forward an amendment to the development contract which would have provided the ability for the developer /property owner to sell lots, escrowing all (or portion as approved by Council) of the lot sale revenue (after payment of applicable special assessments). At a trigger point to be determined, the City would undertake the full statutory assessment process and complete the remaining improvements. This would have allowed development of the lots to occur. However, with the likely tax forfeiture of the lots, such discussions have been halted for the time being. Staff has contacted the City Attorney for further recommendations on this matter. Planning Commission Agenda: 05/07/13 The City Attorney has confirmed that the recorded planned unit development runs with the land via the development contract and is binding on all successors, heirs and assigns. The development standards will therefore be upheld through the continuing process, or until amended. Planning Recommendations The zoning code amendments reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission in May for the CCD and industrial building standards were adopted by the City Council on May 29th, 2013. The Council also approved the Great River preliminary and final plat. Economic Development Position Update In May, the EDA authorized WSB to prepare a contract for economic development services for review by the EDA in June. The City Council subsequently approved 50% of the proposed funding necessary for WSB's consulting economic development services, subject to review and approval of a contract for services. As such, final decision on the contract is anticipated to be made by both the Council and EDA sometime in June. 2 CITY OF Monti"ceflo BUILDING SAFFTY Monticello Department of Building Safety May 13th, 2013 Welcome to the City of Monticello Building Safety Department. The Building Department serves residents and businesses by supporting new construction projects, renovation of existing properties, and building expansion within the City of Monticello. Our staff is dedicated to providing user - friendly, professional customer service in order to make it easier for individuals and companies to achieve their building objectives and comply with building codes, zoning requirements, and City ordinances. The City adopts codes and zoning policies to protect the health, safety and quality of life of Monticello residents. Enforcement of these regulations results in a number of benefits: a more beautiful community, stable neighborhoods, and a safe, secure and balanced environment. Anyone planning to build or improve his or her property should contact the department. The Building Department, in cooperation with other City divisions such as the Planning Department and the Community Development Team, actively encourages investment and reinvestment so that the City remains an attractive and vibrant community in which to live and work. Rental Ordinance F± Licensing Continued efforts to seek more efficient ways to improve the current program. * Ordinance in place since 2007 * Changes to the application process to make to more user friendly, and at the same time getting the information we need to stay effective. Purpose: To maintain our current housing stock in a safe, healthy and code compliant status. Benefit property owners, renters and the community. $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $32,115.00 2008 (07) Rental Fees Collected $39,525.00 2009 $38,850.00 2010 $40,665.00 2011 $35,505.00 2012 $37,656.00 2013 *May 1st Total Applications Received 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 287 2008 (07) 312 2009 346 2010 358 2011 340 2012 308 2013 * May 1st rz s� I IL Rental, Inspections 600 545 500 400 300 200 100 0 2008 (07) 282 2009 273 247 224 198 2010 2011 2012 2013 * May 1st 700 M. 611I11 400 351 300 2009 tracking showed the Developments 200 Blight rather th the # of lots 100 r17 Blight Comparisons 2009 - 2012 625 122 Properties 164 62 Properties Mowed by Contractor / Also, courtesy calls were given to owners prior to notices being mailed 2009 2010 2011 2012 $14,000,000.00 $12,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $8,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $0.00 COMMERCIAL Building Valuation 1111 1111 111 111 INDUSTRIAL SINGLE FAMILY MISC. (Public Facility, Multi- TOTAL VALUATION Family, and Institutional) � ►z i Z� ZL�z i S[ i> Q ►z i 7i f �!� i S f ►� 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 TOTAL # OF PERMITS 300 - 200 100 607 632 649 0 - 2009 2010 2011 2012 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 $3,870,167 Pz1I1>r: Valuation Comparison: Year to Date 2009 - 2013 $1,397,651 PkIIIII $1,312,891 2011 $1,979,177 f►IIM $2,601,391 NOW 400 359 350 300 250 rel 150 — Number of Permits Comparison: Year to Date 2009 - 2013 100 X 158 165 A 2009 2010 2011 2012 / 2013 City of Monticello Help Desk 2009 - 2012 M a T-- M _4 7M �Ww 7 11 �J""= 4 4 0 18 10 Inoperable /Unlicensed 2 Animal Control 13 29 34 30 Vehicle 0 Ballfield Scheduling 1 2 3 0 MCC 5 Blight /Nuisance 83 65 58 45 Missed Garbage or Recycling 0 Broken Garbage or Recycling Cart 0 1 0 0 Motor Vehicle Licensing 3 Brush & Branch Disposal 4 8 5 0 Noise 7 Building Permits 21 40 45 30 Other 85 Burning Permits 2 1 1 0 Parks and Rentals 11 Cemetery 5 8 13 6 Rental Permits 1 Compost Facility 1 5 1 13 Road Construction 4 Curfews 2 0 1 2 Snowplowing 4 Delinquent Utility Bills 2 1 0 0 Street Lights 3 Drainage Concerns 1 1 3 1 Streets 17 Easement Areas 1 3 0 0 Utility Bills & Invoices 26 Engineering 1 0 12 9 Voting 0 Events 38 9 19 14 Water Leaks 0 FiberNet 9 2 2 1 Water Quality 2 General Public Works 6 5 10 1 Water /Sewer /Garbage Accounts 14 Human Resources 1 0 10 3 Winter Parking Restrictions 0 Junk Amnesty Day 3 0 2 2 The Department of Building Safety Responded in a timely manner to each of the inquiries pertaining to this department over the past 4 years. 4 4 0 18 10 15 2 0 0 3 4 7 1 1 0 91 40 24 20 23 10 3 5 7 0 11 1 2 0 2 4 5 3 13 20 12 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 11 27 35 50 1 0 0 REP (Radiological Emergency Preparedness) Training / Drills / Exercise Travel Equipment Supplies Budget for 2013 (Ends June 30th 2013) $5Y000 $1,500 $10,000 $500 Amount used so far this fiscal year $5,300 $315 $1,871 E Other $6,000 0 REP (Radiological Emergency Preparedness) Budget for 2014 Training / Drills / Exercise $15,000 Travel $1)500 Equipment $10,000 Supplies $19000 Other $5,000 REP (Radiological Emergency Preparedness) 1) Quarterly Meetings 2) St. Benedict's Senior Community Evacuation Planning 3) Centra Care Health, Monticello Evacuation Planning 4) Licensed Daycare Evacuation Planning 5) School District Evacuation Planning 6) Monthly Portable Radio Communications Tests (schools &t bus company) 7) June 11th, 2013 Full Scale Plume Phase Drill 8) July 23rd, 2013 Full Scale FEMA Evaluated Plume Phase Exercise 9) Training - As Time Allows The Building Department's goal is to provide comprehensive, consistent, and clear information on the codes and ordinances that need to be followed, so please call us at (763) 295 -3060 if you have any questions or concerns.