Planning Commission Agenda 11-04-2013
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 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 - September 3rd, 2013 (to be posted)
b. Special Meeting - October 1st, 2013 (to be posted)
c. Regular Meeting - October 1st, 2013 (to be posted)
3. Citizen Comments.
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
5. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2013-094 finding that a modification to the TIF
Plan for TIF District No. 1-6 conforms with the 2008 Monticello Comprehensive Plan
6. Community Development Director’s Report
7. Adjourn.
MRNUTES
SPECIAL MEETING - MONTIICIEILLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, October 1, 2013 - 5:00 PM
Mississippi Room, AlonVicello Community Center
Present: Bill Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Grant Sala
Absent: Sam Burvee
Others: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve Grittman. Lloyd Hilgart
1. Call to Order
Bill Spartz called the special meeting to order at 5 p.m.
2. Purpose
The purpose of the special meeting is to revisit amending the native landscaping ordinance
and consider issues related to Residential Amenities (R -A) lot standards.
3. Workshop
Native Landscaping Ordinance Amendment
At their December 4'h, 2012 meeting, the Planning Commission had tabled a native
landscaping ordinance amendment pending further information. Commissioners had a
recent opportunity to tour on their own area residential, commercial and industrial
properties that inco-rporate native plantings in an effort to establish a visual reference from
which to consider native landscaping standards.
The commissioners seemed to agree that native landscaping would be allowable in the
front and side yards of properties in industrial and commercial districts subject to right of
way setbacks and professional installation and maintenance. Such landscaping would also
be allowable in 35% of the rear yard subject to a five foot buffer from neighboring yards in
residential districts. Although there was some concern noted about the potential for
increased blight, the majority of the commission seemed to prefer that native landscaping
be subject to inspection upon complaint in residential areas, rather than include a
requirement that it be professionally installed and maintained.
The commissioners also discussed permitting requirements. Native landscaping would be
subject to review to ensure that it meets planning and zoning standards. The permit
application would include a project narrative and a site plan that specifies the planting
schedule (including area appropriate type, quantity and seed grade) and a maintenance
plan. The permit would expire if planting did not begin within three months of the permit
date. The permit would otherwise be permanent as long as the site remained in compliance.
The City would arrange for mowing if the site were found to be in noncompliance.
Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes: 10/01/13
It was also suggested that it may be useful to consider approving an interim ordinance
subject to review after one year. Staff agreed to redraft the ordinance based on the
discussion and bring the matter back for consideration as part of an upcoming regular
Planning Commission meeting agenda.
Residential Amenities (R -A) Standards
Lloyd Hilgart pointed out that the majority of houses recently built in his Carlisle Village
neighborhood had been ramblers which, due to size, required that the design be modified to
fit on a single lot or that the structure be located on two adjacent lots. He recommended that
the 90 foot minimum base lot width be increased to accommodate the structural and
outdoor space requirements of the larger houses in demand in R -A districts. He suggested
that adding five feet on either side of the structure would address the move -yup type housing
objective specified in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan).
Staff indicated that contractors have voiced similar concerns about lot size. The average
base lot width is 90 feet with the requirement that at least 40% of the lots created through
subdivision exceed 100 feet in width. After some consideration of both base lot width and
base lot area, there seemed to be general agreement to increase the minimum base lot width
to 100 feet and to eliminate reference to a percentage of the average. Staff cautioned that
doing so may set up a slower development pace. This matter will be brought forward for
formal consideration at a future regular Planning Commission meeting.
Although some residential :land within the city boundary is preliminarily platted R -A, the
majority of that land is zoned Residential (Single -Family) or R-1. Staff noted that the
previous Comp Plan had guided all land in the annexation area as low density residential
with certain areas directed as higher amenity districts. The current Comp Plan provides less
direction related to density and guides residential land in the annexation area as Places to
Live.
4. Adiournment
BRAD FYLE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE SPECIAL MEETING AT 5:52 PM. BILL
SPARTZ SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0.
Recorder: Kerry Burri
Approved: November 4, 2013
Attest:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda – 11/04/13
5. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2013-094 finding that a modification to the
TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-6 conforms with the 2008 Monticello
Comprehensive Plan. (AS)
A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission is asked to adopt a resolution stating that a modification to
the TIF Plan for TIF District No. 1-6 conforms to the 2008 Monticello
Comprehensive Plan.
The Monticello EDA is seeking TIF District 1-6 modification for two purposes:
(1) To allow the EDA to authorize additional land acquisitions, within Central
Monticello Redevelopment Project Area No. 1, but outside of TIF District 1-6.
(2) To appropriately allocate funding within the TIF 1-6 budget for such acquisitions
and site improvements.
As part of the formal modification process, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 469 requires
that the City find the proposed modified TIF Plan conforms to the general plan for the
development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. Planning Commission
has customarily provided review and recommendation on comprehensive plan
matters, and as such, is asked to provide a recommendation in this regard. The
recommendation of the Commission will be included as part of future steps in the
modification review and approval process taken by the EDA and City Council.
For the Commission’s reference on these modifications, TIF District 1-6 was
established in 1985. The District was originally established for the construction of
33,000 square foot retail center. The retail center was constructed and was previously
the location of Maus Foods, and is now the Sixth Street Station building. The
original TIF plan for 1-6 had been previously modified since the time of its original
establishment to authorize additional expenditures for public improvements and other
(unspecified) project costs associated with the district. A copy of the management
plan summary for TIF District 1-6 is included with this report for the Commission, as
well.
TIF District 1-6 must be decertified by the City at the end of 2013. After decertification,
the EDA may spend tax increment collected in the district through the date
decertification, but may not make any further modifications to the TIF Plan. As there is
remaining increment collected in the district available for use, the EDA is seeking to
modify the district to allocate the expenditure of increment appropriately within budget
line items and to allow for additional land acquisition.
It is important for the Commission to note that unlike TIF districts established after
1990, the increment collected in TIF District 1-6 does not necessarily have to be spent
within the district in which it originated. However, one of the previous modifications
to this district included language which could be interpreted to restrict land
Planning Commission Agenda – 11/04/13
acquisition to the limits of TIF 1-6 boundaries. As such, the first proposed
modification allows for the EDA to use the increment for acquisition anywhere within
the established redevelopment area of the City, which encompasses a majority of the
city, including the downtown.
The second proposed modification reallocates increment among line items in the
budget such that available increment can be spent on acquisitions and needed site
improvements.
In terms of evaluating conformity to the Comprehensive Plan, the City has placed a
priority on the redevelopment and revitalization of the downtown through the adoption of
the Embracing Downtown Plan (Downtown, Chapter 3 of the 2008 Monticello
Comprehensive Plan), which was adopted directly into the Comprehensive Plan for the
Downtown Focus Area. The Embracing Downtown plan states:
“Monticello is in a position to use substantial tax increment finance resources to
facilitate site assembly for the Ace Hardware relocation and an anchor business.
However, the availability of these tax increment resources will expire in 2012 and
2013.” Embracing Downtown Plan, Executive Summary, Page x
Further, the plan states:
“Tax Increment Financing (TIF): TIF can provide assistance for land write-down,
public infrastructure and/or site improvements. Redevelopment TIF Districts are
established based on blight and functional obsolescence criteria and may be 25
years in length. Monticello has a fund balance of over $1 million in two TIF
districts (1-5 and 1-6) that will decertify in 2012 and 2013. Another TIF district
(1-22) will expire in 2024; it could provide additional resources for downtown
revitalization. Public hearings are required by the governmental unit for review
and approval of a TIF District budget and spending plan as well as a Development
Agreement.” Embracing Downtown Plan, Downtown Development Financing
Tools, Page 66
The EDA is seeking the modification of TIF 1-6 specifically to allow for the acquisition
of land within the downtown area, consistent with the Embracing Downtown plan as
noted, and to allow for site and transportation improvements supporting development or
redevelopment consistent with the Embracing Downtown plan. The flexibility of the
district allows the EDA to utilize the available increment to achieve goals associated with
the Embracing Downtown Plan, which is the Comprehensive Plan’s guiding document
for the downtown.
By completing the modifications as proposed, the EDA will have the flexibility to use
TIF 1-6 increment anywhere within the redevelopment project area, which includes the
downtown area. In addition, the budget line item modification allows specifically for
acquisition and site improvements, which are essentially the first critical step for moving
forward the Embracing Downtown.
Planning Commission Agenda – 11/04/13
B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Motion to adopt Resolution 2013-094, finding that a modification to the TIF
Plan for TIF District No. 1-6 conforms to the general plans for the
development and redevelopment of the City of Monticello, based on the
findings in said resolution.
2. A motion to deny adopting Resolution 2013-094 and directing staff to prepare
applicable findings of fact.
3. Motion to table any action.
C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff supports alternative 1. If the EDA wishes to utilize any of the available increment
in TIF District 1-6 for land acquisition in support of the accomplishment of the goals
identified in its 2013 Workplan and Embracing Downtown Plan, a formal modification of
the district is required. Again, the goal is to use this increment to effect the goals of the
Embracing Downtown plan, which is incorporated within Chapter 3 of the
Comprehensive Plan.
D. SUPPORTING DATA:
1. Resolution 2013-094
2. TIF District 1-6 Management Plan Summary
3. TIF District 1-6 Proposed Budget
4. Land Use Map
5. Central Monticello Redevelopment Project Area No. 1.
6. Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 3 – Embracing Downtown, excerpts
RESOLUTIONNO.2013-094
RESOLUTIONOFTHEPLANNINGCOMMISSIONOFTHE
CITYOFMONTICELLO,FINDINGTHATTHEPROPOSED
MODIFICATIONOFTHEREDEVELOPMENTPROGRAM
FORCENTRALMONTICELLOREDEVELOPMENT
PROJECTNO.1ANDTHEPROPOSEDMODIFICATION
OFTHETAXINCREMENTFINANCINGPLANFORTAX
INCREMENTFINANCINGDISTRICTNO.1-6CONFORM
TOTHEGENERALPLANSFORTHEDEVELOPMENTOF
THECITY
WHEREAS,theCityCounciloftheCityofMonticellohasauthorizedpreparationofa
modificationoftheRedevelopmentProgram(the“RedevelopmentProgram”)forCentral
MonticelloRedevelopmentProjectNo.1(the“RedevelopmentProject”)andthemodificationofthe
TaxIncrementFinancingPlan(the“TIFPlan”)forTaxIncrementFinancingDistrictNo.1-6within
theRedevelopmentProject,andtheproposedmodificationstotheRedevelopmentProgramandthe
TIFPlanhavebeensubmittedtothePlanningCommissionforcomment;and
WHEREAS,thePlanningCommissionhasreviewedtheproposedmodificationstothe
RedevelopmentProgramandtheTIFPlanandhascomparedthemwiththeplansfordevelopment
oftheCityasawhole.
NOW,THEREFORE,BEITRESOLVEDBythePlanningCommissionoftheCityof
Monticello,Minnesotaasfollows:
1.TheproposedmodificationstotheRedevelopmentProgramandtheTIFPlanarefoundto
beconsistentwiththeplansfordevelopmentoftheCityasawhole,includingwithout
limitationtheEmbracingDowntownMonticelloPlanapprovedbytheCityin2011,which
prioritizesredevelopmentofthedowntownareaoftheCity.
2.ItisrecommendedthattheCityCouncilholdthepublichearingrequiredbylawandadopt
theproposedmodificationstotheRedevelopmentProgramandtheTIFPlan.
Approvedthis4th dayofNovember,2013,bythePlanningCommissionoftheCityof
Monticello,Minnesota.
______________________________
Chairperson
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Secretary
EXTRACTOFMINUTESOFAMEETINGOFTHE
PLANNINGCOMMISSIONOFTHECITYOF
MONTICELLO,MINNESOTA
HELD:November4,2013
Pursuanttoduecallandnoticethereof,aregularmeetingofthePlanningCommissionofthe
CityofMonticello,WrightCounty,Minnesota,wasdulyheldattheMonticelloCityHallon
Monday,the4thdayofNovember,2013at7:00p.m.forthepurpose,inpart,ofadopting
findingsthattheproposedmodificationoftheRedevelopmentProgramforCentralMonticello
RedevelopmentProjectNo.1andtheproposedmodificationoftheTaxIncrementFinancing
PlanforTaxIncrementFinancingDistrictNo.1-6conformtothegeneralplansfortheCity.
ThefollowingCommissionmemberswerepresent:
andthefollowingwereabsent:
Commissioner_______________________introducedthefollowingresolutionandmoved
itsadoption:
ThemotionfortheadoptionoftheforegoingresolutionwasdulysecondedbyCommissioner
_____________________anduponvotebeingtakenthereon,thefollowing
votedinfavor:
andthefollowingvotedagainstthesame:
Whereuponsaidresolutionwasdeclareddulypassedandadopted.
18District Summary
th
e
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
f
u
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
2
0
1
3
or
k
e
e
p
t
h
e
f
u
n
d
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
P
r
e
-
1
9
9
0
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
o
p
e
n
a
f
t
e
r
de
c
e
r
t
i
fi c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
e
x
p
e
n
d
f
u
n
d
s
a
s
l
o
n
g
as
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
r
e
m
a
i
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
b
u
d
g
e
t
am
o
u
n
t
s
.
N
o
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
b
u
d
g
e
t
c
a
n
be
m
a
d
e
a
f
t
e
r
d
e
c
e
r
t
i
fi c
a
t
i
o
n
.
Th
i
s
o
p
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
s
o
f
t
w
o
s
t
e
p
s
:
1.
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
o
p
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
s
e
t
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
fu
n
d
s
.
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
l
y
,
i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
i
s
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
ca
n
b
e
s
p
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Ar
e
a
f
o
r
u
s
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
T
I
F
P
l
a
n
.
T
h
e
c
o
n
-
ti
n
u
e
d
u
s
e
o
f
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
1
-
6
o
ff e
r
s
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
su
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
-
Ci
t
y
N
u
m
b
e
r
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
-
6
Co
u
n
t
y
N
u
m
b
e
r
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
3
Na
m
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
R
a
i
n
d
a
n
c
e
Ty
p
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
/
1
2
/
8
5
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
/
5
/
8
5
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
/
5
/
8
5
Ye
a
r
o
f
F
i
r
s
t
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
9
8
8
4-
Y
e
a
r
K
n
o
c
k
d
o
w
n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
/
5
/
8
9
5-
Y
e
a
r
R
u
l
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
N
A
De
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
/
3
1
/
1
3
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
T
a
x
R
a
t
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
1
.
3
0
5
%
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
T
a
x
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
V
a
l
u
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
8
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
B
a
s
e
T
a
x
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
V
a
l
u
e
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
8
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
(
P
a
y
2
0
1
2
)
T
a
x
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
8
,
1
5
8
Pa
r
c
e
l
s
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
1
5
5
-
0
1
0
-
0
1
5
0
1
0
1
5
5
-
0
1
9
-
0
1
5
0
4
0
1
5
5
-
0
1
9
-
0
1
5
0
7
0
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
1
-
6
w
a
s
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
-
ti
o
n
o
f
3
3
,
0
0
0
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
o
o
t
r
e
t
a
i
l
c
e
n
t
e
r
.
T
h
e
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
TI
F
p
l
a
n
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
m
o
d
i
fi e
d
t
o
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
(
u
n
-
sp
e
c
i
fi e
d
)
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
s
t
s
.
T
h
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
s
n
o
t
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
th
e
l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
p
o
o
l
i
n
g
o
r
t
h
e
fi
v
e
-
y
e
a
r
r
u
l
e
.
I
t
i
s
d
u
e
to
b
e
d
e
c
e
r
t
i
fi
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
2
0
1
3
.
A
l
l
o
b
l
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
th
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
p
a
i
d
.
Ac
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
k
e
n
S
i
n
c
e
2
0
0
9
No
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
t
a
k
e
n
s
i
n
c
e
2
0
0
9
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
.
Ad
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
T
a
s
k
s
Th
e
T
I
F
p
l
a
n
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
o
n
fi l
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
O
ffi
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
St
a
t
e
A
u
d
i
t
o
r
(
O
S
A
)
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
n
e
e
d
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
t
o
co
n
fi r
m
t
h
e
O
S
A
h
a
s
t
h
e
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
-
tu
r
e
s
a
m
o
u
n
t
s
.
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
S
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
Op
t
i
o
n
1
-
D
e
c
e
r
t
i
f
y
Th
e
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
f
o
r
t
h
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
to
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
d
e
c
e
r
t
i
fi c
a
t
i
o
n
.
E
x
c
e
s
s
t
a
x
i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
i
n
-
cl
u
d
i
n
g
t
a
x
i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
b
e
p
a
i
d
i
n
2
0
1
2
)
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
co
n
v
e
y
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
r
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
t
a
x
-
in
g
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
E
D
A
w
o
u
l
d
n
e
e
d
t
o
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
de
c
e
r
t
i
fi c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
w
i
t
h
W
r
i
g
h
t
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
,
t
h
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
s
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
f
o
r
d
e
c
e
r
t
i
fi c
a
t
i
o
n
in
2
0
1
3
.
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
w
o
u
l
d
a
l
l
o
w
be
n
e
fi
t
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d
t
a
x
b
a
s
e
i
n
t
h
e
y
e
a
r
f
o
l
l
o
w
-
in
g
d
e
c
e
r
t
i
fi c
a
t
i
o
n
.
Op
t
i
o
n
2
-
U
s
e
R
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Pa
s
t
m
o
d
i
fi
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
o
w
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
E
D
A
h
a
s
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
f
o
r
th
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
u
s
e
o
f
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
f
r
o
m
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
1
-
6
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
-
je
c
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
o
w
a
n
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
f
u
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
o
f
$
6
9
0
,
0
0
0
a
t
th
e
e
n
d
o
f
t
h
e
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
n
2
0
1
3
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
c
o
u
l
d
e
x
p
e
n
d
District 1-6 (Raindance)Redevelopment
19District Summary
al
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
e
n
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
gr
e
a
t
e
s
t
n
e
e
d
/
b
e
s
t
u
s
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
f
u
n
d
b
a
l
a
n
c
e
an
d
f
u
t
u
r
e
t
a
x
i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
u
s
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
(
t
h
e
s
e
a
r
e
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
f
o
r
D
i
s
-
tr
i
c
t
1
-
5
)
:
•
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
b
r
i
d
g
e
o
v
e
r
F
a
l
l
e
n
Av
e
n
u
e
o
v
e
r
p
a
s
s
.
T
h
e
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
sh
o
w
s
a
f
u
t
u
r
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
.
Ta
x
i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
b
r
i
d
g
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
s
u
p
-
po
r
t
i
n
g
r
o
a
d
s
,
o
r
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
i
n
th
i
s
a
r
e
a
.
•
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
a
s
t
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
T
h
e
t
a
x
i
n
-
cr
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
r
o
m
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
1
-
5
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
u
s
e
d
t
o
su
p
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
I
-
9
4
i
n
t
e
r
-
ch
a
n
g
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
1
-
3
4
.
•
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
o
n
g
7
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
.
T
h
e
ar
e
a
w
e
s
t
o
f
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
1
-
5
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
s
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
u
n
-
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
fi n
a
n
c
i
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
co
u
l
d
b
e
u
s
e
d
t
o
a
tt r
a
c
t
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
th
i
s
a
r
e
a
.
•
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
7
t
h
a
n
d
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
2
5
.
•
E
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
Hi
g
h
w
a
y
2
5
.
•
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
o
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
5
.
•
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
o
f
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
2
5
an
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
.
•
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
E
m
b
r
a
c
i
n
g
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
o
n
Bl
o
c
k
3
4
a
n
d
A
n
c
h
o
r
B
l
o
c
k
.
2.
D
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
P
l
a
n
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
m
a
k
i
n
g
an
y
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
f
r
o
m
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
1
-
6
,
i
t
is
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
t
o
v
e
r
i
f
y
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
u
s
e
s
f
a
l
l
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
bu
d
g
e
t
a
n
d
a
n
y
p
a
r
c
e
l
s
f
o
r
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
l
i
s
t
e
d
in
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
.
I
t
i
s
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
m
o
d
i
fi c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
th
e
T
I
F
p
l
a
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
t
o
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
ex
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
.
A
t
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
,
t
h
e
b
u
d
g
e
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
be
a
m
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
a
l
l
o
c
a
t
e
t
h
e
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
a
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
“O
t
h
e
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
s
”
(
$
8
3
,
1
0
0
a
n
d
$
6
1
0
,
4
0
0
)
t
o
sp
e
c
i
fi c
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
.
20District Summary
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
1
-
6
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
T
I
F
P
l
a
n
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
m
o
u
n
t
C
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
T
I
F
P
l
a
n
B
u
d
g
e
t
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
e
d
f
o
r
i
n
P
r
i
o
r
Y
e
a
r
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
Estimated Total Life of District
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
a
n
d
O
t
h
e
r
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
T
a
x
i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
1
,
0
2
5
,
0
0
0
1
,
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
1
,
2
1
9
,
3
5
2
7
5
,
1
4
4
7
7
,
5
8
3
8
3
,
5
2
8
8
3
,
5
2
8
1
,
5
3
9
,
1
3
5
M
a
r
k
e
t
V
a
l
u
e
H
o
m
e
s
t
e
a
d
C
r
e
d
i
t
-
In
v
e
s
t
m
e
n
t
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
s
2
6
7
,
0
0
0
6
4
,
2
6
5
7
,
1
4
2
1
5
,
9
3
0
7
,
6
2
3
8
,
9
8
3
1
0
3
,
9
4
3
B
o
n
d
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
s
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
L
o
a
n
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
s
-
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
-
S
a
l
e
s
/
l
e
a
s
e
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
s
6
2
,
1
5
0
6
5
,
0
0
0
6
4
,
1
5
0
6
4
,
1
5
0
L
o
a
n
/
a
d
v
a
n
c
e
r
e
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
-
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
2
,
5
0
0
-
In
t
e
r
f
u
n
d
l
o
a
n
/
t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
-
O
t
h
e
r
-
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
(
i
n
)
-
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
/
O
F
S
1
,
4
3
7
,
1
5
0
2
,
3
3
4
,
5
0
0
1
,
6
9
7
,
7
6
7
8
2
,
2
8
6
9
3
,
5
1
3
9
1
,
1
5
1
9
2
,
5
1
1
2
,
0
5
7
,
2
2
8
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
O
t
h
e
r
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
n
g
U
s
e
s
L
a
n
d
/
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
2
2
9
,
0
0
0
2
3
5
,
0
0
0
2
3
2
,
0
7
6
2
3
2
,
0
7
6
S
i
t
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
/
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
s
t
s
2
8
,
0
0
0
2
8
,
0
0
0
2
8
,
0
0
0
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
0
P
u
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
0
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
a
n
d
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
7
5
,
0
0
0
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
1
8
0
,
2
7
6
1
8
0
,
2
7
6
P
u
b
l
i
c
p
a
r
k
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
0
S
o
c
i
a
l
,
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
,
o
r
c
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
0
In
t
e
r
e
s
t
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
0
B
o
n
d
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
B
o
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
6
9
2
,
0
0
0
6
9
2
,
0
0
0
3
9
7
,
3
7
3
3
9
7
,
3
7
3
L
o
a
n
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
a
l
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
0
L
o
a
n
/
n
o
t
e
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
p
a
y
m
e
n
t
s
0
A
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
v
e
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
3
8
,
1
5
0
4
5
,
0
0
0
3
6
,
5
9
8
3
6
5
2
6
5
0
0
5
0
0
3
7
,
9
8
9
P
a
y
i
n
g
a
g
e
n
t
f
e
e
s
0
O
t
h
e
r
8
3
,
1
0
0
0
0
O
t
h
e
r
6
1
0
,
4
0
0
0
0
T
r
a
n
s
f
e
r
s
(
o
u
t
)
1
4
0
,
6
5
4
1
4
0
,
6
5
4
T
o
t
a
l
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
/
O
F
U
1
,
3
8
4
,
1
5
0
2
,
2
9
3
,
5
0
0
1
,
3
6
4
,
9
7
7
3
6
5
2
6
5
0
0
5
0
0
1
,
3
6
6
,
3
6
8
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
/
O
F
S
O
v
e
r
(
U
n
d
e
r
)
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
/
O
F
U
5
3
,
0
0
0
4
1
,
0
0
0
3
3
2
,
7
9
0
8
1
,
9
2
1
9
3
,
4
8
7
9
0
,
6
5
1
9
2
,
0
1
1
6
9
0
,
8
6
0
F
u
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
-
B
e
g
i
n
3
3
2
,
7
9
0
4
1
4
,
7
1
1
5
0
8
,
1
9
8
5
9
8
,
8
4
9
0
F
u
n
d
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
-
E
n
d
4
1
4
,
7
1
1
5
0
8
,
1
9
8
5
9
8
,
8
4
9
6
9
0
,
8
6
0
6
9
0
,
8
6
0
5Introduction
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
M
o
n
t
i
c
e
l
l
o
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
A
r
e
a
N
o
.
1
.
PRELIMINARY - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
A B C Alternative C D E F
As Adopted in
Original TIF Plan
As Adopted in
Most Recent
Modification
Dated
2/13/2006
Proposed
Modification
Dated
11/25/2013
Proposed
Modification
Dated
11/25/2014
Actual Life to
Date Reported as
of 12/31/2012
Estimated Actual
Life to Date to
be Reported as
of 12/31/2013
Estimated
Actual Life to
Date to be
Reported at
Time of Fund
Closure in
Future Year
Estimated Tax Increment Revenues (from tax increment generated by the district)
Tax increment revenues distributed from the county 1,025,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,650,000 1,455,308 1,532,202 1,532,202
Interest and investment earnings 267,000 267,000 267,000 108,971 128,971 128,971
Sales/lease proceeds 62,150 67,500 67,500 67,500 64,150 64,150 64,150
Market value homestead credit - - - - -
Total Estimated Tax Increment Revenues $1,087,150 1,984,500 1,984,500 1,984,500 1,628,429 1,725,323 1,725,323
Estimated Project/Financing Costs (to be paid or financed with tax increment)
Project costs
Land/building acquisition 229,000 235,000 880,197 933,000 232,076 232,076 832,076
Site improvements/preparation costs 75,000 278,000 300,000 247,197 28,000 28,000 129,944
Utilities - - - -
Other qualifying improvements 693,500 320,930 320,930 320,930 320,930 320,930
Construction of affordable housing - - - -
Small city authorized costs, if not already included above - - - -
Administrative costs 45,000 45,000 45,000 37,410 39,410 45,000
Estimated Tax Increment Project Costs 304,000 1,251,500 1,546,127 1,546,127 618,416 620,416 1,327,950
Estimated financing costs
Interest expense 692,000 692,000 397,373 397,373 397,373 397,373 397,373
Total Estimated Project/Financing Costs to be Paid from Tax Increment $996,000 1,943,500 1,943,500 1,943,500 1,015,789 1,017,789 1,725,323
Revenue Less Expense (Fund Balance)$91,150 41,000 41,000 41,000 612,640 707,534 -
Estimated Financing
Total amount of bonds to be issued 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000
Notes:
Column B - The budget included in the State Auditor's records (Annual 2012 TIF Report) does not reflect the most recent Modification dated 2/13/2006. The date is correct but the budget amounts are incorrect.
Column B - "Other Qualifying Improvements" includes $83,100 "other fees" and $610,400 "other project costs" for which proposed use needs to be better defined in a proposed modification to the TIF District.
Column D - "Other Qualify Improvements" includes $140,654 for transfer out to TIF 1.
Column E - The amounts included in this column are estimates.
Column F - The amounts included in this column are estimates. City plans to spend an additional $600,000 on land acquisition and $101,944 on site improvements after 12/31/2013.
City of Monticello, MN
Tax Increment Financing District No. 6
Projected Tax Increment
BUDGET ACTUAL
10/31/2013
£¤10 £¤10
Æÿ25
!(14
!(11
!(43
!(50
!(68
!(5!(81
§¨¦
94
Æÿ25
!(75
!(18
!(117
!(3 9
!(106
!(37!(1 3 1
0 0.5 10.25
Miles-
November 1, 2011Data Source: MnDNR, Sherburne County, Wright County, and WSB & Associates. Land Use Plan
Legend
Places to Live
Places to Shop
Places to Work
Places to Recreate
Places for Community
Downtown
Mixed Use
Interchange Planning Area
Urban Reserve
Infrastructure
Rivers and Streams
Public Waters Inventory
Wetlands (National & Public Waters Inventories)
Potential Greenway
Potential Interchange
Future Bridge
Existing Arterial or Collector Road
Proposed Arterial or Collector Road
Powerline
Monticello City Boundary
Orderly Annexation Area
Amended by City Council Resolution 2011-92, September 26, 2011
v
Executive Summary
Embracing Downtown Monticello
The Monticello Economic Development Authority (EDA) seeks to create a vibrant downtown district,
capturing the benefits of its historic downtown area, location on the Mississippi River, river crossing and
other community assets. The EDA envisions a downtown that is economically sound, convenient and
accessible – where pedestrians can enjoy great shopping, dining and entertainment.
In the Spring of 2010 the Monticello EDA issued a Request for Proposal – Embracing Downtown
Monticello - seeking a multi-disciplinary consulting team to provide guidance for the revitalization of
downtown Monticello. In September 2010, the consulting team consisting of McComb Group, LLC,
Economic Development Services, Inc., Architectural Consortium, LLC, and Westwood Professional
Services, was engaged to analyze existing conditions and issues, and create an implementation plan that
integrates market, transportation, land use and finance considerations. The EDA established a Steering
Committee with responsibility for interaction with the project consulting team.
Description of the Planning Process
The Embracing Downtown Monticello planning process included five phases:
1. Research and analysis
2. Assessment of alternatives and preliminary feasibility
3. Stakeholder review of alternatives and identification of the preferred alternative
4. Feasibility and strategy development for the preferred alternative
5. Creation of a downtown revitalization strategy
Conditions and Issues
Monticello functions as the sub-regional center between St. Cloud and Maple Grove due to its size,
location, and a constellation of assets including major employers, health care, shopping, dining,
entertainment, the civic center and hockey center.
In recent years downtown Monticello has been in a cycle of decline. The older store formats and
parking don’t work for today’s businesses and customers. In many communities, including Monticello,
this leads to a negative, self-reinforcing cycle of low customer traffic, high business turnover, low rents,
and insufficient revenue for building maintenance and state building code updates.
Businesses in downtown Monticello lack visibility. The older buildings are oriented to Broadway –
historically the high traffic corridor in the community. Only 20% of the businesses downtown orient to
TH-25, the corridor with the highest traffic count in recent years due to the Mississippi River bridge
crossing. However, TH-25 in downtown Monticello enjoys traffic counts that are stronger than the
development area south of I-94 in Monticello. Walgreen’s recently evaluated available sites in
Monticello and built a new store at the intersection of Broadway and TH-25 in downtown. The
investment by Walgreen’s can be a catalyst for revitalizing downtown.
vi
The market analysis, which serves as a critical foundation for the Embracing Downtown Monticello
implementation strategy, reveals market potential that substantially exceeds the land area available
downtown. Key categories that can be accommodated downtown include: a department store, grocery,
dining and other retail stores.
Community Goals and Guiding Principles
Community goals and guiding principles serve as another critical foundation for the plan. The following
ten strategies for downtown Monticello, paraphrased from the Land Use Chapter of the Monticello
Comprehensive Guide Plan (2008 update), were considered by the Steering Committee and consulting
team and integrated into the 2011 Embracing Downtown Monticello plan.
The downtown focus area should extend from the River to 7th Street, and from Locust Street on
the west to Cedar Street on the east.
Downtown land use should be a mix of retail, service, office, civic, and residential development.
Cargill should be encouraged to remain in the downtown area.
With continued traffic growth on TH-25, it is essential to form a strong link along Walnut Street
between the river, Broadway businesses, and the Community Center to establish connections
between the factors that attract people to the downtown.
To help create a new “main street” all new development on Walnut Street should have
storefronts oriented to Walnut Street.
The City should explore ways to improve pedestrian and bicycle experience along Walnut.
It is essential to prevent the use of Walnut Street for “by-pass” or “cut-through” traffic as traffic
volumes increase on TH-25. Traffic calming measures should be applied to Walnut Street.
Housing should supplement and support downtown commercial development. Housing should
be encouraged on the edges of downtown, not as a replacement for commercial use, and all
housing in the downtown should be multiple family housing.
Strong connections to adjacent neighborhoods should be promoted for the downtown;
pedestrian crossings of TH-25 at Broadway and 7th Street should be enhanced.
Downtown connections with the River should be enhanced, especially at Walnut Street.
Downtown access would be improved by trail or bike lane improvements along River Street to
take advantage of the controlled intersection with TH-25.
The community goals and guiding principles together with the market potential formed the foundation
for the redesign of downtown. Other critical factors that informed the physical redesign of downtown
include the following:
Traffic patterns
Historic downtown buildings
A commitment to a pedestrian-friendly environment
Contemporary retail design including visibility and parking
Mississippi River, parks and trails
Community Center
Cargill, Xcel Energy and New River Medical Center
vii
A Framework Plan was
developed for the downtown
CCD District that illustrates
the reorganization of the
northern part of downtown
to capture existing market
opportunities for both new
development on vacant lots
and redevelopment of other
existing properties.
The plan represents a 90
degree reorientation of the
downtown shopping district
with improved access and
sight lines from TH-25. The
north end is anchored by
public access and river
oriented commercial activity.
The south end is anchored
by existing retail near I-94
(Cub Foods area) and the
Community Center, which
generates over 230,000 visits
per year. It is a fusion of a
traditional downtown with a
format that works for
today’s retailers.
A key feature of the
Framework Plan is the
proposed addition of a traffic
signal at the intersection of
TH-25 with 4th Street to
enhance access to the four-
block area bounded by 4th
Street, Broadway, TH-25, and
Locust Street. This four-block area represents the primary opportunity to create a site larger than a city
block that can accommodate a medium-sized retailer, such as a department store, and its required
parking. An anchor use in this location will enjoy access and visibility from TH-25 and will become the
focal point for additional retail redevelopment in the downtown CCD District.
Vision, Guiding Principles and Goals
Vision: Downtown Monticello is the sub regional center for business, professional, personal, health care
services, dining and river-anchored recreation between St. Cloud and Maple Grove. Retail vitality is
created by anchor stores and businesses that provide shopping and convenience goods in a human scale
environment and are concentrated in districts with safe and convenient access and good parking. Retail,
viii
dining and entertainment businesses build on proximity to the Mississippi River, parks and trails to create
an activity node for outdoor recreation including bicycling, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, walking,
sledding, skating and bird watching.
Guiding Principles provide a flexible framework to guide public and private sector planning, decisions,
teamwork, and investment over time. Recommended principles include:
Build on core assets of greater downtown Monticello:
o Monticello’s role as the sub regional center between St. Cloud & Maple Grove
o Mississippi River & city parks
o Traffic generated by bridge crossing
o New River Medical Center
o Community Center
o Employee/customer/visitor base created by Xcel, Cargill & New River Medical Center
o New Walgreen’s
A shared vision among property owners, business owners, and the City is the foundation for
effective team work and long term success.
A shared understanding of realistic market potential is the foundation for design and generation
of a healthy business mix.
A safe, attractive human scale environment and entrepreneurial businesses that actively
emphasize personal customer service will differentiate downtown from other shopping districts.
The river is a distinctive asset that differentiates downtown Monticello and serves as a
foundation for design and as a focus for activity.
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.
The city and business community must work actively with MnDOT to ensure safe local access to
business districts.
Goals: To secure the vision described above, the consulting team recommends that the following goals
be adopted and implemented by the City of Monticello and its EDA.
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 don’t 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 West Bridge Park to help create an anchor attraction at
the north end of Walnut Street.
ix
TRANSPORTATION
Acknowledge that TH-25 will be limited in terms of providing direct property access.
Develop circulation patterns that utilize local streets for individual site access.
Recognize TH-25 as a barrier between the east and west parts of the historic downtown core
areas extending to either side of the TH-25 corridor.
Consider developing in districts to reduce the need or desire to cross TH-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 TH-25 as a corridor for pedestrian movement.
Improve pedestrian connections between Broadway 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.
Explore creation of a fourth signalized intersection on TH-25 at 4th Street to improve access to
areas with development and redevelopment potential on either side of the TH-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 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 TH-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 CCD.
Development should orient toward the intersection of TH-25 with Broadway to take advantage
of high traffic volumes in the TH-25 corridor.
New development in the TH-25 corridor should be scaled to allow visibility to development up
to a block or more away from TH-25.
New buildings in the TH-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.
Feasibility and Financing Overview
The feasibility of transforming of downtown was analyzed. Monticello has an opportunity to capitalize
on the new Walgreen’s and related intersection improvements to relocate a locally owned, business -
Ace Hardware – to a new, more visible site on the southeast corner of Broadway and TH-25. The
market analysis and early stage discussions with a department store and hotel indicate that it may be
feasible to attract a significant new anchor; this would drive additional customer traffic to downtown.
x
The estimated preliminary redevelopment costs for each downtown block were calculated using
assessor’s market values and a contingency to cover other costs. The amount of additional retail or
office space that could be located on each block, if it was developed, was estimated, along with the
estimated tax increment generated from the new development and estimated revenues from sale of
pad sites and parking license fees. The result was a preliminary estimate of the financial feasibility of
redeveloping each block. This analysis demonstrated that some blocks are relatively inexpensive to
redevelop, while others are more expensive and/or yield less tax increment. This analysis was used to
identify the areas where redevelopment would be most effectively implemented.
Monticello is in a position to use substantial tax increment finance resources to facilitate site assembly
for the Ace Hardware relocation and an anchor business. However, the availability of these tax
increment resources will expire in 2012 and 2013. A priority use of additional tax increment generated
by new private developments (hardware store and anchor) will be additional redevelopment and
relocation activities. Common areas and streetscape improvements follow private investment, with
funding coming from common area fees, tax increment finance, and possible redevelopment/small city
grant funds available through the MN Department of Employment and Economic Development.
The Mississippi riverfront revitalization projects can serve as an early stage catalyst also. Legacy Funds –
available from the constitutionally dedicated sales tax devoted to the environment, arts, history and
culture – can provide an external source of funds for public realm improvements connected to the river,
parks and trails.
Implementation Strategy
The implementation strategy is flexible and driven by market opportunities and willing sellers. Property
values and rents will likely rise in revitalized areas with improved customer traffic because increases can
be supported by increased business volume. Central to the success of the revitalization effort is the
principle of “value creation.” Value creation results in:
Increased customer traffic,
Increased economic activity and vitality downtown,
A growing number of businesses with increased sales and profits,
Buildings that increase in value base on increased sales and profits,
Increased tax revenues to the city, and
Increased tax increments to support continued revitalization of downtown.
The Monticello EDA has critical statutory authority, financial resources and access to staff through the
City of Monticello to support downtown revitalization. However, the EDA has comprehensive economic
development responsibilities for the community, a scope well beyond downtown revitalization.
Organizationally the community should consider establishing a Downtown Development Corporation
that includes public and private sector leaders; major employers; downtown business and property
owners; professionals in banking, law and accounting; the Community Center; Park Board; Downtown
Association and Chamber of Commerce.
66
Redevelopment Summary
Existing building acquisitions and business expansion needs create the opportunity to launch
redevelopment in Downtown Monticello. Seizing these opportunities will set the stage for additional
redevelopment.
Downtown Redevelopment Financing Tools
A number of tools for financing redevelopment and public infrastructure for redevelopment are
available to the City of Monticello. Success in identifying and utilizing available funding sources will
contribute greatly to the success of achieving Monticello’s redevelopment objectives. Part of
Monticello’s approach to financing redevelopment should include constant monitoring of federal, state,
county, and private foundation and non-profit sources for grants that can be applied to public and
private costs for redevelopment activity. The primary financial tools available for redevelopment at this
time include:
Tax Increment Financing (TIF): TIF can provide assistance for land write-down, public infrastructure
and/or site improvements. Redevelopment TIF Districts are established based on blight and
functional obsolescence criteria and may be 25 years in length. Monticello has a fund balance of
over $1 million in two TIF districts (1-5 and 1-6) that will decertify in 2012 and 2013. Another TIF
district (1-22) will expire in 2024; it could provide additional resources for downtown revitalization.
Public hearings are required by the governmental unit for review and approval of a TIF District
budget and spending plan as well as a Development Agreement.
Tax Abatement: Tax Abatement can be established to operate in a fashion similar to TIF, but with
potentially more flexibility in the use of funds. The state statute establishing tax abatement allows
political subdivisions to grant an abatement of the taxes they impose to be used for increasing or
preserving tax base, providing employment, acquiring or constructing public facilities, redeveloping
blighted areas, or financing or providing public infrastructure. Revenue from abated taxes is used to
fund bonds for improvements in a fashion similar to the typical use of TIF revenue, but without the
stricter use limitations applied to TIF districts. Tax Abatement may be applied for periods up to 15
years for the purposes outlined above. The City of Monticello could request that other political
subdivisions such as the County or School District also abate taxes within a district established by
the City, but the other jurisdictions are not obligated to do so. Tax abatement cannot be applied
within an active TIF District, so for the downtown area of Monticello this financial tool may have
more applicability in the future as the current TIF districts expire.
The EDA and Monticello City Council would need to establish a policy for the utilization of Tax
Abatement to finance redevelopment activities.
USDA Rural Development Community Facilities Grant and Loan Program – These funds are used to
assist communities with population less than 20,000 in developing/redeveloping essential public
facilities and/or infrastructure. Grants require other funding sources to be involved; the grant
amount is based on a community’s economic capacity & economic distress data. Loans generally
carry favorable interest rates and long payback periods of 25 to 30 years. Applications must be
submitted to the USDA staff/offices. The USDA staff will work closely with applicants via a pre-
Planning Commission Agenda: 11/04/13
1
6. Community Development Director’s Report
Land Use Decisions
To follow is a summary of action by the City Council as related to October Planning
Commission items:
Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for a Variance from the minimum 30 foot
interior side yard building setback requirement in the Wild and Scenic Recreational River
Overlay District and a Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of an attached and
detached garage exceeding a total of 1,200 square feet for 413 East River Street.
Applicant: Walters, Charles
a. CUP approved on October 14th
Public Hearing - Consideration of request for Conditional Use Permit for detached Major
Accessory Structure in an R-1 District. Applicant: Eiden, Karl
a. CUP approved on October 14th
Public Hearing – Consideration of a request for Preliminary and Final Plat and
Conditional Use Permit for Shared Access for a retail commercial use in a B-4 (Regional
Business) District. Applicant: ALDI, Inc.
a. CUP, preliminary and final plat and development contract approved on October
28th
December Meeting
To-date, no applications have been received for the Planning Commission for December 3rd.
The application deadline is November 4th.
Despite the lack of formal applications, staff is still planning for a December meeting as it is
intended to bring back to the Commission the suggested changes to the Native Landscapes
and R-A ordinances prior to a public hearing. In addition, staff will be able to provide the
Commission with the planned overview of the land use application process, which was to
occur at a future workshop (requires one less meeting).
2013 Industry of the Year Event
On October 23rd, 2013, the City of Monticello IEDC presented the 2013 Monticello Industry
of the Year Award to Suburban Manufacturing. The award was presented during the IEDC’s
annual Industry of the Year & Manufacturer’s Appreciation Breakfast. The event was hosted
by the IEDC and EDA and sponsored by the Monticello Times.
Suburban representatives accepted the award after a presentation by IEDC acting chair Wayne
Elam, which highlighted Suburban’s product lines, innovation, community involvement and
amazing growth.
Planning Commission Agenda: 11/04/13
2
Following the award presentation, guest speaker Bruce Peterson, Executive Dean of
Academic Initiatives at St. Cloud Technical College addressed the crowd of nearly 70. Mr.
Peterson pointed out Wright County’s impressive manufacturing employment numbers and
the larger than average young workforce. Mr. Peterson was also able to showcase the
numerous programs that the STTC offers to assist manufacturers in developing their
workforce, both today and tomorrow. Judging from the crowd surrounding Mr. Peterson after
his presentation, this is an important issue for Monticello’s manufacturers.
Copies of both the Suburban award presentation is posted on the City’s website as part of our
press coverage for the event.
R-4 Workshop on 11/25 - Joint City Council/Planning Commission
At the request of both the Mayor and Planning Commission, staff have scheduled a joint
Planning Commission and City Council workshop at 5:30 on Monday, November 25th, prior
to the regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Please note this is a change from the
tentatively scheduled date of November 12th. It is intended that this workshop address the
following topics:
Comprehensive Plan objectives for “Places to Live”
Need for R-4/Housing Study
Understanding R-4 Regulations
R-4 Location factors (access, surrounding land use, nearby services, topography,
etc.)
R-4 Locations (inside current municipal boundary and within annexation area)
Technical implementation of locating R-4 sites (Comp Plan amendment, rezoning,
“study” areas)
Embracing Downtown
Staff believes that an “update” open house with the many community stakeholders involved in
the Embracing Downtown planning effort should be planned. Although much work is
currently occurring to achieve the plan goals, much of that work is not a physical or visible
improvement. This may be leading to questions on just what is happening with the plan. It is
important to communicate with the stakeholders on the continued efforts and commitment to
the Embracing Downtown vision.
As such, staff will be working to arrange the open house prior to the end of the new year to
update stakeholders on:
Block 34 progress
EDA Options Group work
TIF 1-6 modifications
TH 25/75 Improvements
ReStoreing Downtown committee work