Planning Commission Agenda 01-05-2010
AGENDA
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
January 5th, 2010
6:00 PM
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz,
and Barry Voight
Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman – NAC
1. Call to order.
2. Consideration to approve the Planning Commission minutes of December 1st, 2009.
3. Citizen Comments.
4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda.
5. Consideration to call for a Public Hearing for the adoption of the 2010 City of Monticello
Zoning Map.
6. Comprehensive Plan review
a. Transportation Plan update – City Engineer Bruce Westby
7. Community Development Director’s Report.
8. Adjourn.
Planning Commission Agenda- 01/05/2010
1
5. Consideration to call for a Public Hearing for the adoption of the 2010 City of
Monticello Zoning Map. (AS)
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed 2010 City of Monticello
Zoning Map and to call for a public hearing for the adoption of the Zoning Map.
The City Attorney has recommended that the City adopt an official zoning map each
year.
The draft attached as supporting data has been reviewed by the Community Development
Coordinator, City Administrator, and Consulting City Planner for accuracy. Records of
all official boundary adjustments, annexations and rezoning actions have been reviewed.
Additionally, no amendments to the map have been requested since the time of the
previous review and adoption. Therefore, we believe the map presented is an accurate
reflection of all zoning action.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to call for a public hearing on the adoption of the 2010 City of Monticello
Zoning Map.
2. Motion to recommend tabling of action on the 2010 City of Monticello Zoning
Map for further study.
3. Motion of other.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends calling for the public hearing on the City of Monticello Zoning Map as
proposed. This draft represents an accurate picture of Monticello’s zoning based on a
review of all available records,
SUPPORTING DATA
Exhibit A: Draft 2010 City of Monticello Zoning Map
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10
1
6. Consideration to complete an annual review of the 2008 City of Monticello
Comprehensive Plan. (AS)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission is asked to complete an annual review of the adopted 2008 City of
Monticello Comprehensive Plan, and to provide recommendations for amendment, if desired.
The comprehensive plan states that an annual review of the Comprehensive Plan “keeps an
active and current focus on achieving the vision for Monticello and the use of the
Comprehensive Plan.”
To aid the Commission in this review, staff has included both excerpts of the Plan (the full
document is available online Under the Planning Department of the City’s website), and an
analysis of the major concepts of the Plan. Obviously, the Commission’s comments are not
limited to these excerpts or statements, but rather these broad policies are the representative
direction of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, a discussion of these items is a critical
component of the annual review.
Additionally, during its December meeting, the Planning Commission asked for a report on
the status of the Transportation Plan, which is a critical planning document for the City and
exists as Chapter 6 of the Comprehensive Plan. City Engineer Bruce Westby will be present
to provide a detailed update to the Commission and Item 6(a) addresses that item in written
detail.
The Commission should be aware that significant alterations to the Plan require formal
amendment, which requires a super-majority of the City Council for adoption.
ANALYSIS
CHAPTER 1: PLANNING FRAMEWORK
Annual Updates
1. Development trends and projects from the current years.
The development of this Comprehensive Plan occurred over a two year period. As
such, the Comprehensive Plan anticipates both the impacts of rapid growth, and
considers a more cautious approach to development. A more measured approach
to growth was implemented in the Plan due to both the economic slowdown and to
the City’s land-use goal of providing move-up housing options.
Even with a more cautious approach, the pace of development illustrated by the
growth projections within the Land Use Chapter may require update through a
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10
2
more comprehensive analysis, which is described within the “Annual Updates”
section. Should Commission which to proceed with this adjustment, a formal
recommendation in this regard should be made.
It should be noted that a number of undeveloped residential and commercial
projects received approvals for conditional use permits or platting prior to the
adoption of the plan. Although some of those approvals have since lapsed (Hidden
Forest, Jefferson at Monticello), the Commission is charged with reviewing any
extension of previous approvals through the scope of this Comprehensive Plan.
Updated information on housing supply in relationship to Monticello’s most recent
developments and building permit data is included for the Commission’s
reference.
Community Development staff have also asked that NAC prepare an outline for a
potential housing study for the community, as a starting point for discussion. If
the Commission believes that a more in-depth look at housing trends for the
community should be completed, a housing study may be a logical first step.
2. Summary of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
To date, no amendments have been proposed.
3. Discussion of current development issues and implications for the
Comprehensive Plan.
As mentioned, the Comprehensive Plan did anticipate a slower growth progression
over the near term.
However, the Commission should consider the likeliness of a scenario by which
development begins to increase in pace and by which the City is presented with
development proposals which do not meet stated Comprehensive Plan objectives.
These may include proposals which do not provide move-up housing opportunities
or accommodate conservation design principles in areas with significant natural
resources. The Commission was asked to consider a request in this regard during
its November cycle. The developer of Hillside Farms was requesting a reduction
in PUD development standards due to market conditions. The Commission’s
decision was to request that the developer maintain standards until such time that
the developer could provide specific housing designs that would still meet the
intent of the R-1A’s step-up design regulations.
Modifying Land Use Controls
The Comprehensive Plan clearly cites that for Monticello, zoning regulations are the
critical tool for achieving the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. A comprehensive update
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10
3
to the Zoning Ordinance has been planned since the adoption of the Plan and has been
initiated since the last review of the Comp Plan in 2009. While consistency between the
plan and the ordinances is required by State Statute, it also supports practical application
of the Comprehensive Plan policies. Without an ordinance supporting the Plan, the City is
unable achieve Comp Plan objectives.
For example, the Comprehensive Plan does not regulate residential land use by density.
The Plan instead only guides locations broadly for residential uses, then further defines
the type and character of residential development through goal statements. The zoning
ordinance would support move up housing objectives by clearly refining zoning districts
and design standards within those districts.
The Planning Commission/Steering Committee for the zoning ordinance revision will be
taking on a review and in-depth discussion of the zoning districts and standards over the
next few months.
Next Steps
Much progress has been made since the 2008 adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in
relationship to the Comprehensive Plan’s identified Next Steps.
Updating of the Zoning Ordinance is noted again within this portion of the Framework,
and this project is moving along on schedule.
Also recommended as Next Steps are updates to the Subdivision Regulations and Park
Dedication Ordinance. An update to the Park Dedication ordinance was completed earlier
this year. Updates to the Subdivision Ordinance are expected to occur after the adoption
of the revised Zoning Code, which is expected to occur in 2010.
Other recommended actions outlined in the Next Steps section:
Natural Resource Inventory
This recommended next step is complete and the final inventory document is being
prepared. Full copies will be provided to all Commissioners, and a digital version
will be posted online.
Transportation Plan
See item 6(a) of this report for more information on the Transportation Plan
chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.
Downtown
While the Comprehensive Plan did not specifically find that the 1997 Downtown
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10
4
Revitalization Plan requires a complete revision, it did find that significant
attention should be given to reviewing the plan and developing prioritized action
plans for downtown.
In discussions regarding this item in January of 2009, the Planning Commission’s
direction was to recommend that renewed efforts at downtown planning should
occur in the near future. However, the Commission noted that the downtown
property owners and businesses should have a large role in helping to guide that
process.
The Monticello Downtown Business Association has been formed since that time
and is building its momentum. Additionally, the upcoming joint City Council and
EDA meeting on January 13th will provide insight into potential projects and
funding sources for downtown projects, including the updating of the downtown
plan.
It should be noted that the Zoning Ordinance revision will not include major
changes to the CCD District language until such time that a new study is
completed for downtown. The 1997 still stands as valid.
Financial Management Plan
Finance Director Tom Kelly has been preparing the foundational documents for a
financial management plan. Among these is a Capital Improvement Plan, which
details major capital improvement projects (from land purchase to road projects)
through 2014. This document has been reviewed and approved by the City
Council (December 2009). See item 7 of this agenda for more information on that
item.
The EDA has also directed the completion of an analysis of all active TIF districts.
This analysis was completed by Northland Securities (the study was headed by
Comp Plan consultant Rusty Fifield) and has been adopted by the EDA. If
Planning Commissioners are interested in seeing a copy of that analysis, a copy
will be provided on request.
CHAPTER 3: LAND USE
Future Growth
This segment of the Land Use chapter details the importance and impacts of future
growth. As noted within the Framework Chapter, a frequent review of the stated growth
projections is important in maintaining the balance between growth pressure and
Comprehensive Plan policy.
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10
5
Again, as part of its annual review, the Commission may choose to direct a more in-depth
analysis of the growth trends and projections illustrated in the plan, especially in light of
the potential for continued weak economic conditions.
The Commission may also choose to reaffirm or adjust the policy statements below:
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 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 Uses
In terms of Land Use classifications, the Comprehensive Plan outlines a set of objectives
and/or policies for both the type of land use, and for the area in which that land use
occurs. In considering future development, the City will use both of these to evaluate
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Places to Live
Objectives
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.
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10
6
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.
Policies
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.
Safe Places Policies
Recognizing the community’s stated priority to create safe neighborhoods, the
Comprehensive Plan specifically included a set of policy statements for
residential uses as related to this goal.
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.
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10
7
6. The City will provide water that is safe to drink by protecting water supply
sources.
Places to Work/Economic Development
Objectives
1. Expanding and diversifying the property tax base.
2. Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for people to work and live in
Monticello.
3. Promoting wage levels that provide incomes needed to purchase decent
housing, support local businesses and support local government services.
4. Take advantage of opportunities to attract corporate headquarters/campuses
and businesses that specialize in biosciences and technology businesses in
Monticello.
5. Encouraging the retention and expansion of existing
Policies
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 oriented to
bioscience, technology, research and development, corporate headquarters,
business office, wholesale showrooms, and related uses.
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.
Policies (from the Economic Development Chapter)
1. The City must use the Comprehensive Plan to provide adequate locations for
future job-producing development (Places to Work).
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10
8
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 should evaluate the need and feasibility of additional city-owned
business parks as a means of attracting the desired businesses.
Places to Shop
Policies
1. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to attract and retain businesses that provide
goods and services needed by Monticello residents.
2. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to capture the opportunity for commercial
development that serves a broader region. Places to Shop with a regional
orientation should be located where the traffic does not disadvantage travel
within Monticello.
3. Commercial development will be used to expand and diversify the local
property tax base and as an element of a diverse supply of local jobs.
4. Places to Shop will be located on property with access to the street capacity
needed to support traffic from these businesses.
5. Each parcel should supply an adequate supply of parking that makes it
convenient to obtain the goods and services.
6. Building materials, facades and signage should combine with public
improvements to create an attractive setting.
7. Site design must give consideration to defining edges and providing buffering
or separation between the commercial parcel and adjacent residential uses.
Downtown
Policies
1. Downtown is a special and unique part of Monticello. It merits particular
attention in the Comprehensive Plan and in future efforts to achieve
community plans and objectives.
2. Downtown is intended to be an inter-connected and supportive collection of
land uses. The primary function of Downtown is as a commercial district.
Other land uses should support and enhance the overall objectives for
Downtown.
3. Wherever possible, street fronts should be reserved for businesses.
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10
9
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Downtown should emphasize connections with the Mississippi River that are
accessible by the public.
7. Downtown should be a pedestrian-oriented place in a manner that cannot be
matched by other commercial districts.
8. Downtown should have an adequate supply of free parking for customers
distributed throughout the area.
9. The City will facilitate private investment in Downtown and, if necessary, use
its redevelopment powers to remove barriers to desired private investment.
Strategies
1. The Downtown land use area should be an area running from the River to 7th
Street. It is bound on the east by Cedar Street and on the west by Locust
Street.
2. Land use in the Downtown should be a mix of retail, service, office, civic and
residential development. Although an industrial land use, Cargill Kitchen
Solutions is an important and ongoing part of Downtown. Change in land use
should only occur if Cargill Kitchen Solutions decides to leave this location.
At such time, it would be desired not to perpetuate industrial use at this
location.
3. With continued traffic along Highway 25, it is essential to work to establish a
strong link along Walnut Street between the Community Center, businesses
on Broadway and the River. The objective is to establish strong connections
between all of the factors that attract people to the Downtown.
4. To help move towards the creation of a new “main street” all new
development on Walnut Street should have storefronts oriented to Walnut
Street. This development may be single story commercial or multi-level
mixed use.
5. Orienting storefronts to Walnut Street is only one element of making the street
more attractive for pedestrians. The City should also explore other ways to
improve the pedestrian and bicycle experience along Walnut Street.
6. It is essential not to allow Walnut Street to become a bypass route for
Highway 25. As congestion increases on Highway 25, there is an impetus to
seek other routes. Walnut Street is an attractive cut-through option. Th e
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10
10
orientation of buildings, on-street parking, boulevard trees, and curb “bump
outs” are examples of means to calm traffic and discourage cut-through
movements.
7. Housing is intended to supplement and support, but not replace, commercial
development in the Downtown. All housing in the Downtown area (as
identified in the Comprehensive Plan) should be multiple family housing.
Land is a limited commodity in the Downtown and should not be consumed
by single-story housing. Housing should only be allowed above street level on
Broadway and Walnut Street. Housing should be encouraged on the edges of
the Downtown, in locations needing redevelopment and not viable for
commercial uses.
8. The Downtown benefits from strong connections with adjacent
neighborhoods. These neighborhoods provide an important customer base for
Downtown businesses. A vibrant Downtown enhances these areas as places to
live. Improved pedestrian connections, particularly across Highway 25, are
needed to strengthen and maintain these connections. Existing crossing points
Broadway and 7th Street should be enhanced.
9. Downtown would benefit from stronger connections with the riverfront.
Downtown is one of the few locations in Monticello that allows meaningful
public access to the Mississippi River. This asset should be enhanced as a
means of attracting people to Downtown. West Bridge Park lies in the
Downtown area, but does not feel like an active part of Downtown. One
possible improvement is a connection with Walnut Street. Currently, Walnut
Street terminates south of River Street and is separated by a grade change. The
potential for trail and/or street connection should be evaluated. Community
events and activities in West Bridge Park also build the connection between
the community, Downtown and the River.
10. Access to the Downtown would be improved by making trail and/or bike lane
improvements along River Street to provide another means of reaching
Downtown and take advantage of the controlled intersection with Highway
25.
Mixed Use
Policies
1. Development should not have direct access to Broadway Street. Access
should come from side streets.
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. All non-residential development
will be oriented to Broadway Street and not to 3rd Street or River Street.
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10
11
4. Commercial development compatible with the Downtown should be
encouraged to locate there.
5. More intense housing and commercial uses may be allowed if directly related
to the hospital.
Places to Recreate/Parks
Policies (from the Parks chapter)
1. Neighborhood parks are essential elements of Monticello neighborhoods.
Neighborhood parks are intended to be two to six acres in size.
2. The Comprehensive Plan seeks a service area of one mile or less for a
neighborhood park. This service area must account for barriers created by
natural and man-made features. The goal is to have a neighborhood park
within walking or biking distance of every home.
3. There is a clear nexus between development and the need for additional parks.
The City will use the park dedication powers convey by State Law to acquire
land (or cash) to implement this Plan. The City will require the dedication of
desirable locations for parks in all new subdivisions, unless the subdivision is
adequately served by an existing (or planned) neighborhood park. Land
received by the City through park dedication must have the capacity for park
use. Dedicated land should not be encumbered by steep slopes, poor soils,
utility easements and other impediments to intended park uses.
4. Parks should be connected by trails and sidewalks to provide walking and
biking access for both neighborhoods and the broader community.
5. The development, improvement and maintenance of the park system requires
careful financial planning. With park dedication providing a key resource, this
planning must be tied to ongoing projections of future growth. Th is planning
should work to ensure that funding plans for the acquisition and development
of the regional park do not deplete funding for the rest of the system.
6. Timely development of neighborhood parks is essential. Funding of the park
system should provide for both acquisition and timely development of
neighborhood parks. This objective may require new financial strategies.
Finance tools such as special assessments and housing improvement areas
would allow a park to be built at the outset of residential construction.
7. Planning for neighborhood parks should also consider the needs of rural
residential subdivisions. A less dense development pattern does not remove
the need for neighborhood parks, but may alter the service area and location.
Places for Community and Urban Reserve
No specific objectives or policy statements were made for these land use
classifications. However, the Comprehensive Plan text does discuss opportunities
and considerations for each.
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10
12
Greenway
Through the adoption of the Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment, the City
re-affirmed the concept of greenway corridors. Although their final alignment
and configuration will be determined by the pattern of actual development, the
NRI/A does provide a concept which links those places the community holds as
valuable, those of high ecological significance, and other factors such as existing
powerline corridors and conservations easements.
Policies
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.
5. To provide opportunities for corridors for wildlife movement and ecological
connections between natural areas.
Northwest Area
1. Encourage development in this part of the community to utilize infrastructure
investments and to provide the capacity to develop in high amenity areas.
2. Provide for a variety of housing alternatives based on the natural features and
the surrounding land uses. Areas with high natural amenities or proximity to
the planned regional park should be reserved for move up housing.
3. Expansion of existing Places to Work in a manner that creates more “head of
household” jobs.
4. Preserve and promote public use of natural areas, including the establishment
of greenway corridors.
5. Identify and preserve key street corridors.
6. Preserve areas for future Places to Shop and Places to Work around a future
highway interchange, if such an interchange proves viable.
South Central Area
1. It helps to facilitate the expansion of the sanitary sewer system in conjunction
with the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue. This sanitary sewer capacity is
needed to support future industrial growth area along Highway 25.
Planning Commission Agenda – 01/05/10
13
2. These areas encourage growth in areas that could use the new eastern
interchange with I-94 rather than Highway 25.
3. 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.
4. 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.
East Area
The Comprehensive Plan places greater priority on growth to the west and south.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
In terms of process, the Commission may choose to recommend any and all proposed
amendments as part of one motion, or individually by Chapter or sub-section.
Additionally, the Commission may make a formal motion regarding other recommendations
related to the plan, such as the noted re-analysis of growth projections. These directives do
not require amendments to the plan, but rather support the current contents.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that the Comprehensive Plan document continues to accurately represent the
goals and objectives outlined by the City. Many of these objectives have yet to be tested by
actual development proposals. At this time, staff has not cited any recommended
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
However, staff does believe that the Commission may want to discuss how it wishes to
proceed with regard to the housing and growth trends identified within the Plan and perhaps
provide additional recommendation/support as related to downtown planning efforts.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 1: Framework
B. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 2: Community Context
C. Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3: Land Use
D. NAC Housing Study Proposal
E. Housing and Building Permit Data
For the full version of the Comprehensive Plan, please visit www.ci.monticello.mn.us. Click on
“City Departments”, then “Community Development”, “Planning”, and then 2008
Comprehensive Plan.
Monticello is fortunate to possess many assets, including a beautiful setting
an excellent location, and a rich heritage. The Comprehensive Plan seelcs
to use, preserve and enhance these assets in building a great place to live,
work, shop and play.
Monticello offers housing choices thatfit all stages of a person's life. Exist-
ing neighborhoods are thefoundation of the community. The Plan seeks to
promote pride in property that results in maintenance and reinvestment
to sustain these great places to live. Looking to 2030, Monticello seeks to
expand the supply of "move up" housing that allows people to upgrade
their home without leaving the community. As the population ages, the
elderly will be drawn to Monticello because of the housing and health care
options.
Monticello provides the types and quality of services and amenities required
to attract and keep people in Monticello. Key among these factors are;
► An excellent public education system.
► Access to a wide range of quality health care services.
► An unequaled system of parks, trails and recreation facilities including
the unique assets of the Monticello Community Center, the Mississippi
River and continued focus on the potential conversion of YMCA Camp
Manitou into a regional park.
► A downtown area that combines a successful commercial district, com-
munity identity and heritage with connection to the Mississippi River.
► A thrivingplace of commerce that provides needed goods and services
through businesses that are engaged in the civic life of Monticello.
Monticello seeks a wide range of employment opportunities with a growing
emphasis on jobs at higher wage levels that allow more people to live and
work in Monticello.
Through a combination oflocation and community characteristics, Monti-
cello has the opportunity to become an important regional center forjobs,
shopping and health care between the Twin Cities and St. Cloud. Monticello
seeks to seize this opportunity in a manner that benefits the community.
2008 Comprehensive Plan Planning Framework 1 1-1
Monticello's population will continue to become more
diverse. This diversity will be seen in age, race, culture
and wealth. The Plan must be flexible enough to re-
spond to change while remaining true to core values
and qualities.
Monticello must be a safe place to live, work, shop, and
travel.
Monticello has a beautiful natural environment. The
Plan seeks to use the environment as a catalyst for de-
velopment whilepreserving natural assets for public use
and future generations.
All actions should work to make Monticello sustainable
socially, economically and environmentally. Steps taken
today also look to providing resources to maintain and
enhance Monticello in the future.
This statement describes the vision for the future of
Monticello. It describes the fundamental qualities and
principles aspired to by the Monticello community. It
is a snapshot of how Monticello should look, feel and
function in the future. The vision provides the basic
framework for planning and decision-making by pre-
senting a benchmark against which future actions can
be measured. When faced with a decision that will
affect the community's future, decision -makers can
ask how the potential results might fit with and move
the community towards the vision for the future as
articulated in the Comprehensive Plan. The City of
Monticello has created and adopted this Comprehen-
sive Plan as a means for realizing this vision.
Overview of the Plan
Role of the Plan
The Comprehensive Plan is a tool for guiding the
growth, redevelopment and improvement of Monti-
cello. The traditional view of the Comprehensive Plan
focuses on land use. The Land Use Plan describes the
The Comprehensive Plan has far broader implications
for shaping the character of the community and the
quality of life in Monticello.
► The Plan seeks to create and sustain the elements
that define the character, heritage and identity of
the place that is Monticello.
► The Plan influences the economic health of the
community. The Plan seeks to attract new in-
vestment and guide it to proper locations in the
community. The Plan protects the investment in
existing properties by promoting strong residential
neighborhoods and business districts.
► The Plan shapes the future of municipal govern-
ment. Public improvements are needed to facilitate
and sustain development. The form of develop-
ment influences the character of the local popula-
tion and the demand for public services.
The 2008 Update
The 2008 Comprehensive Plan updates the previous
Comprehensive Plan adopted by the City in 1996. The
ongoing growth and development creates the need to
update the Comprehensive Plan. It is essential to look
back and evaluate how Monticello has grown and to
consider the opportunities and challenges that lie in
the future. An important catalyst for this update to
the Comprehensive Plan was the 2005 Orderly An-
nexation Agreement with Monticello Township. The
Agreement creates the means for the orderly expansion
of the City and the protection of the surrounding rural
area. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan provides the tools
for achieving these objectives.
While the 2008 Comprehensive Plan continues direc-
tions and policies set by prior planning, it is more than
a refreshening of the document. The framework for
the comprehensive plan has been restructured. The
1996 Plan contained three chapters: Inventory, Goals
and Policies, and Development Framework. The 1996
Plan also includes appendices with Inventory Data and
use of property within Monticello. It reinforces desir- Tactics Report.
able land use patterns, identifies places where change is
needed and sets the form and location of land for future
growth. The vision for Monticello is more, however,
than a rational pattern of development.
The 2008 Comprehensive Plan consists of a series of
interrelated chapters. These chapters work collectively
to create a plan for the future of Monticello. The chap-
ters of the Comprehensive Plan include:
1-2 1 Planning Framework City of Monticello
► Planning Framework
► Community Context
► Land Use
► Economic Development
► Parks
► Transportation and Utility System Plans
This structure reorganizes the Comprehensive Plan into
a more conventional and usable format.
The 2008 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the City
Council on May 12, 2008.
Organization of the Plan
Planning Framework describes how the Comprehensive
Plan should be used to achieve Monticello's vision and
goals for the future.
Using the Comprehensive Plan requires an understand-
ing of the Community Context that shapes plans and
policies for Monticello. The 2008 update of the Com-
prehensive Plan was not created in a vacuum. Input
from the public was a critical source of information and
guidance. The Plan draws on a wide range of informa-
tion that describes the Monticello of today and forces
that will influence the future.
The Land Use chapter seeks to guide the use of land in
order to realize the Vision for the future of Monticello.
It forms the practical foundation of the Comprehensive
Plan. Land use patterns define community identity.
The organization of residential, business, and public
land uses influence how people live, work and play in
Monticello. The Land Use chapter promotes strong
residential neighborhoods, a flourishing industrial base,
a vibrant downtown core, focused commercial areas,
and numerous recreational opportunities.
In a perfect world, the market would operate within this
land use framework and meet the development needs
of the community. Unfortunately, certain community
objectives may not be met relying solely on land use
regulations and market forces. The other chapters of the
Comprehensive Plan address areas of public policy and
action that work with the land use plan to achieve the
overall community objectives set forth in the vision.
Another critical area of city involvement is economic
development. Creating jobs and expanding the tax
base are important elements of Monticello's vision. The
Economic Development chapter describes goals and
strategies beyond the management of land use.
Parks and trails are excellent examples of how municipal
investments enhance the quality of life in Monticello.
Parks provide places for the community to gather and
play. They also provide a means for protecting natural
features, open spaces, and other aspects of Monticello's
rural heritage. A system of trails connects the commu-
nity and allows for safe movement outside of our cars.
The Parks chapter of the Comprehensive Plan describes
Monticello's plan to maintain, expand and enhance the
system of parks, trails, recreational facilities and open
space. It becomes a new chapter of the Comprehensive
Plan. In the 1996 Plan, parks and trails are addressed
in the Development Framework.
The 2008 Comprehensive Plan envisions that other city
policy plans will be distilled to form new chapters in
the Plan. Transportation is an example of a municipal
function that should be supported by a chapter in the
Comprehensive Plan. There are significant interrela-
tionships between land use and transportation. Streets
provide the initial capacity for land to develop. Land
use produces the vehicle trips that determine roadway
use and operations. Future street function and charac-
ter influence land uses adjacent to and served by street
corridors. A draft Transportation Plan was completed
in 2006. It is the intention of the City to review the draft
Transportation Plan in light of the land use changes in
the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. The adopted Transpor-
tation Plan creates the information needed to create a
Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. It
is not recommended that the Transportation Plan be
adopted in its entirety as a chapter of the Comprehen-
sive Plan. Father, the Transportation chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan should be a separate document
that includes the key transportation plans and poli-
cies that need the support of the Comprehensive Plan
and the coordination with other Plan chapters. This
approach does not encumber the technical and other
policy data in the Transportation Plan with the legal
standing of a municipal comprehensive plan.
2008 Comprehensive Pian Planning Framework 1 1-3
This approach should also be applied to other aspects of
municipal government that play a role in implementing
the Comprehensive Plan. Areas to consider for addi-
tional chapters in the Comprehensive Plan include:
► Sanitary sewer
► water supply
► Surface water management
► Natural resources
► Housing
Appendix A summarizes the public input collected dur-
ing the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan.
Authority to Plan
The power to create and employ a comprehensive
plan comes from State Law. Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 462.351 to 462.364 contains the planning
powers granted to Minnesota cities. Specifically, M.S.
Section 462.353, Subd. 1 authorizes the City to "carry
on comprehensive municipal planning activities for
guiding the future development and improvement of
the municipality and may prepare, adopt and amend
a comprehensive municipal plan and implement such
plan by ordinance and other official actions." This Plan
is created and adopted under this statutory authority.
For reference, portions of State Law (2006) related to
the Comprehensive Plan are included in Appendix A.
The Comprehensive Plan lays the foundation for land
use management and control. The City has adopted
zoning and subdivision regulations to implement the
Plan. These regulations describe the limitations and
procedures for the use of land in Monticello.
Using the Plan
The Comprehensive Plan is the most important tool for
guiding the future of Monticello, but the plans, goals,
and policies contained within can only be achieved if
the Plan is used. The purpose of this section is to pro-
vide guidance on using the Comprehensive Plan.
Adopting the Plan
The process for adopting the Comprehensive Plan
begins with the Planning Commission. State Law
requires that the Planning Commission hold at least
one public hearing on the proposed Plan. After public
comments are received, the final document is prepared
and presented to the Planning Commission for recom-
mendation to the City Council. The Plan is adopted by
resolution of the City Council that requires approval
of two-thirds of all of its members.
Amending the Plan
The Comprehensive Plan tries to anticipate the future of
Monticello. Some conditions will be addressed by the
Plan; other changes may be unexpected or even beyond
the scope of the Plan. Responding to these changes may
require amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
The Plan should not be amended capriciously. The care
that was given to the creation of this plan must also be
applied to any amendment.
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may take
several forms:
► Changes in the map or categories of the Land Use
element.
► Changes in other elements of the Plan.
► Plans and other studies that become part of the
Comprehensive Plan.
► Updating of entire sections of the Plan.
► Addition of new chapters as needed to accomplish
the goals and policies of this Plan.
► Revisions related to major geographic sections of
the community.
Amendments to the Plan may originate from the Plan-
ning Commission, City Council or another party with
a vested interest in affected property. Adoption of
amendments, however, can only be accomplished by
City Council resolution. All amendments are subject to
the same public hearing and two-thirds vote require-
ments as the adoption of the original plan. Council
initiated amendments, however, may not be adopted
until the Council has received a recommendation
from the Planning Commission, or until 60 days have
elapsed from the date of submission to the Planning
Commission.
1-4 1 Planning Framework City of Monticello
Annual Updates
A strategy for keeping the Comprehensive Plan up to
date and relevant is through an annual review of the
Plan and development trends. This annual review
could include:
► Development trends and pro) ects from the current
years.
► Summary of amendments to Comprehensive
Plan.
► Discussion of current development issues and im-
plications for the Comprehensive Plan.
This approach keeps an active and current focus on
achieving the vision for Monticello and the use of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Updating growth projections is an important part of
an annual review. The City should lead an annual and
collaborative approach to updating these projections.
An annual update should be based on a discussion
among key stakeholders including the City, developers,
the business community and the School District. This
approach ensures that the projections are based on
the best possible information and that all stakeholders
are using common assumptions about future growth.
Another benefit of this approach is an ongoing forum
for the discussion of recent trends and the future of
Monticello.
Modifying Land Use Controls
State Law requires that the Comprehensive Plan contain
guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption
of official controls necessary to ensure planned, orderly,
and staged development and redevelopment consis-
tent with the Land Use Chapter. Official controls may
include ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision
controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building
codes and official maps.
Zoning Regulations
State Law views zoning regulations as a critical tool for
implementing the Comprehensive Plan. Minnesota
Statutes, Section 462.356 states:
"...the planning agency [Planning Commission] shall
study and propose to the governing body [City Coun-
cil] reasonable and practicable means for putting the
plan or sections of the plan into effect. Subject to
the limitations of the following sections, such means
include, but are not limited to, zoning regulations, for
the subdivision of land, an official map..."
The City has adopted zoning regulations (Title 10 of the
City Code) for the purpose of carrying out the policies
and goals of the land use element of the Comprehensive
Plan. The application of zoning districts and the specific
regulations must support the objectives of the Com-
prehensive Plan. Adopting an updated Comprehensive
Plan should immediately be followed by a review and
modification of the zoning ordinance.
In a broad sense, this review of the zoning ordinance
should examine the following items.-
No-
tems:
► The regulations for each zoning district should be
reviewed to determine if they fit with the intent of
the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning districts should be examined in relationship to
land use designations. Changes in zoning districts will
be needed to match zoning with land use.
One of the policy decisions the City will need to make is
how to implement the land use plan through the zoning
district designations. In the Twin Cities metropolitan
area, State Law (the Metropolitan Land Planning Act -
Minnesota Statutes, Section 473) mandates consistency
between the land use plan and zoning regulations. Out-
side of the metropolitan area, there is not a statutory
requirement for consistency. While the goal should
be a clear and strong connection between the land use
plan and zoning, Monticello has flexibility on how and
when to make changes. Strategies include, but are not
necessarily limited to, the following:
► Keep current zoning in place until such time as the
use terminates or redevelopment is initiated.
► Rezone property to a zoning district compatible
with a land use plan category.
► Develop an interim strategy to address current use
situations as they relate to long term objectives.
2008 Comprehensive Plan Planning Framework 1 1-5
It is essential, however, to remember that zoning regula-
tions control the use of land. If Monticello chooses a
strategy that does not immediately create consistency,
then the City must have a clear strategy for when
changes are made.
Nonconforming Uses
Changes in zoning districts may create nonconform-
ing uses. Such uses occur when the existing land use
is not allowed within the zoning district. In most
cases, when these situations arise as the result of a new
Comprehensive Plan, the goal is not to influence an im-
mediate change in property use. Instead, the objective
is to guide future investments to achieve the outcomes
desired by the Comprehensive, Plan.
Nonconforming uses are controlled by Section 9.15 of
the City Code. A review of the zoning regulations will
provide the context for an evaluation of the noncon-
forming provisions. This evaluation, in turn, may point
to Ordinance changes that will assist in the reasonable
transition of nonconforming land uses.
Subdivision Regulations
While the land use plan has direct implications for zon-
ing, the Comprehensive Plan does not have comparable
effects on the land subdivision and platting regulations.
Changes in these regulations are not required for the
immediate adoption of the Plan, but are recommended
in order to incorporate some of the concepts discussed
in the Plan.
Project Evaluation
In adopting the Comprehensive Plan, the City of Mon-
ticello makes a commitment to use the Plan as a means
of evaluating a variety of private and public projects.
This evaluation requires using a series of questions to
consider the merits of a project:
► Is the project consistent with the land use plan?
► Does the project move Monticello towards its vi-
sion for the future?
► Is the project consistent with the policies contained
in the Plan?
A negative answer to one or more of these questions
may illustrate flaws in the proposed project. These
flaws may be fundamental and require denial of the
project, but modifications to the project that bring it
into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan may be
possible. Negative answers to the questions listed above
might, however, point to a need to amend the Plan
(see Amending the Plan). In such situations in which
a noncompliant project underscores a potential flaw in
the Plan, then the project should be approved and an
effort to properly amend the Plan should be initiated.
Repeated failures to amend the Plan in order to allow
worthy projects to move forward will eventually render
the Comprehensive Plan useless.
What is a Project?
To apply this process, it is helpful to define a "project."
This definition has both practical and legal consider-
ations. For the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan,
the following items are considered projects:
► Platting of land for private development
► Rezoning of property
► Acquisition and disposition of public lands
► Construction of public improvements
► Provision of financial assistance to private devel-
opment
The discussion that follows examines each type of
project in greater detail.
Platting
The Land Platting and Subdivision Regulations of the
City Code do not require consistency with the Compre-
hensive Plan as a prerequisite for approving a prelimi-
nary and final plat. The regulations do tie back to the
Comprehensive Plan for certain aspects of subdivision
design, such as streets and parks.
Rezoning
Rezoning that changes the use of a parcel should not
be undertaken without corresponding changes to the
Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The Plan
and the zoning regulations act in concert to manage
land use. The zoning regulations do not specifically
require the City Council or Planning Commission to
1-6 1 Planning Framework City of Monticello
consider relevant provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan as part of the review of proposed amendments to
zoning regulations.
Acquisition and Disposition of Public Lands
According to State Law (M.S. Section 462.356, Subd.
2), publicly owned land within the City cannot be ac-
quired or disposed of until the Planning Commission
has reviewed the proposal and reported in writing to
the City Council as to the compliance of the proposed
action with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council
may, by resolution adopted by two-thirds vote, dispense
with this requirement when it finds that the proposed
acquisition or disposal of real property has no relation-
ship to the Comprehensive Plan.
Construction of Public Improvements
The Comprehensive Plan guides capital improvements
by all political subdivisions. No capital improvements
shall be authorized by the City (and its subordinate
units) or any other political subdivision having jurisdic-
tion within Monticello until the Planning Commission
has reviewed the proposal and reported in writing to
the City Council as to the compliance of the proposed
action with the Comprehensive Plan (M.S. Section
462.356, Subd. 2). As with land transactions, this
requirement can be dispensed by Council resolution
if the capital improvement has no relationship to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Provision of Financial Assistance
Tax increment financing is the only finance tool for-
mally tied to the Comprehensive Plan. State Law
requires that the City find that a TIF plan conforms
with the Comprehensive Plan. As a matter of policy,
similar evaluation should apply to other forms of public
financial assistance. In agreeing to provide financial as-
sistance to private development, it is reasonable that the
City Council determines that the development furthers
the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Next Steps
Updating the Comprehensive Plan is one step in the
ongoing process of guiding development and public
investments. The Comprehensive Plan identifies a
series of next steps in this process.
Zoning ordinance
A priority should be given to the review and updating
of zoning regulations. The vision and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan will not be achieved unless zoning
regulations are aligned with the Plan. Outside of the
seven -county metropolitan area, zoning regulations
control the use of land, regardless of their consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Subdivision Regulations
Subdivision regulations are another important land use
management tool for the City. These regulations should
be reviewed to identify and adopt changes that enhance
the ability to implement the Comprehensive Plan. In
particular, the review of the subdivision regulations
should focus on compliance with current State Law,
support for zoning regulations, protection of natural
resources, and dedication of park land.
Park Dedication ordinance
The statutory power to require the dedication of park
land is an essential tool for implementing the Compre-
hensive Plan. The park dedication ordinance should be
updated to provide consistency with the Comprehen-
sive Plan and compliance with current State Law.
Natural Resources Inventory
A natural resources inventory (NRI) would identify the
type, location and significance of natural features in
Monticello and the orderly annexation area. Informa-
tion from a NRI is invaluable in:
► identifying areas of environmental significance that
need public protection.
► Coordinating development proposals with the
natural environment.
► Planning for a greenway system around Monti-
cello.
2008 Comprehensive Plan Planning Framework 1 1-7
Transportation Plan
An updated Transportation Plan has remained in draft
form pending completion of the Comprehensive Plan
update. The draft plan should be reviewed to ensure
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and adopted.
A summary of the adopted Transportation Plan should
be added as a chapter in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan highlights several important
transportation initiatives for continued planning. They
include:
► Evaluating of the feasibility of a new west inter-
change with I-94.
► Ongoing management and mitigation of traffic on
TH 25 between I-94 and the River.
► Planning for the construction of the Fallon Avenue
Bridge, the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue and the
related expansion of municipal utility systems.
► Coordinating development projects to protect
future collector street corridors.
► Evaluating transit opportunities to maximize the
use of the Northstar project and other transit op-
portunities.
► Ensuring that pedestrian facilities are provided
throughout the City and across major transporta-
tion corridors.
► Coordinating with regional transportation ef-
forts.
Downtown
The process of updating the Comprehensive Plan did
not discover an immediate need for another Down-
town planning project. Instead, the Downtown area
of Monticello requires ongoing public attention and
development assistance in the form of:
► Inventory of actions that could be taken to enhance
the Downtown.
► Prioritization of these actions.
► Creation of an annual "action plan" that lists of
objectives for 2008, allocates needed resources and
assigns roles and responsibilities.
► Study of traffic and movement issues in the Down-
town area and the creation of a plan to resolve
these issues.
► Establishment of a process that brings together
Downtown stakeholders to review results of the
past year and to set the action plan for the coming
year.
Financial Management Plan
The Comprehensive Plan has many financial implica-
tions. The creation and use of a financial management
plan will help to identify, prioritize and fund the ac-
tions needed to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
A financial management plan will be a tool to ensure
that available financial resources are used in the most
effective manner. It also encourages actions that are
financially sustainable.
1-8 1 Planning framework City of Monticello
Planning for the future does not start on a clean slate. The future will be
built on the foundation of Monticello as it exists today. The Monticello of
today has evolved over time, shaped by a variety of forces. These forces
will continue to shape the community into the future.
The Community Context section of the Comprehensive Plan examines
a variety of forces and factors affecting development of Monticello. A
clear understanding of these influences provides the context for planning
decisions.
Physical Characteristics
Location
Monticello's location is a critical factor for the future. Monticello is cen-
trally 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.
In the future, this highway will serve as the connection with commuter
rail transit service in Big Lake.
This location presents both opportunities and challenges to Monticello's
future:
► 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.
2008 Comprehensive Pian
Figure 2-1: Regional Setting
Cloud
i Lake
Mona o
Minne polisSt. aul
Twin Cities egion
Community Context 1 2-1
► 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.
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.
► Public waters and wetlands. Industrial - All forms of businesses with manufacturing,
physical This map illustrates the location and type of h sisal distribution, warehousing or other industrial use. The
factors that will shape future development of Monti- map shows properties that are currently planned for
cello. This map was used to
form and evaluate land use industrial use, but have not yet developed.
alternatives during the planning process. K-12 School — Elementary, middle and high schools.
The section that follows explains these physical factors Institutional — Churches, cemeteries, hospitals and
in greater detail. other quasi -public land uses.
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
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
2OO8Comprehensive Plan
Community Context 1 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:
00, 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 (2OO7)
J008Comprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2-5
Figure 2-4: Natural Resources
4
ra
AIF
0 TO
z a. < M 0
CD
Or
7, I"
MCA
1�7
-IWO
It
70
co
2-6 1 Community Context City of Monticello
0
X01
0
0
14
(D
1?7
A,
Uw
it
UT
Z C
4)
4
ra
AIF
0 TO
z a. < M 0
CD
Or
7, I"
MCA
1�7
-IWO
It
70
co
2-6 1 Community Context City of Monticello
Figure 2-5: Street System
Z00OComprehensive Plan Community Context 1 2-7
Figure 2-6: Orderly Annexation Area
{|�yof�ondmeUo
2-8 1 Community Context
Ib
co
CU
c0q)
{|�yof�ondmeUo
2-8 1 Community Context
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
Fiqure 2-10: Housing Type and Tenure (2000)
Figure 2-11: Housing Type and Tenure - City/County/Region (2000)
700
600
500
:D 400
300
200
100
0
Figure 2-12: Year Built/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 Builjt/TenurelAge of Householder (2000)
�...._.._ _...._...� ...__...__..... 45
40(
35(
30(
25(
20(
15C
100
50
1990 or later - Own
1970 to 1989 - Own
Before 1970 - Own ` 0
1990 or later - Rent
1970 to 1989 - Rent-��""�
l���. _`' T" 55-64 65-74 75+
Qry`~N Before 1970- Rent " ...-•--r"""�'r 35-44 45-54
15-24 25-34
e °{ Nouseh°`der
Ag
Figure 2-14: Housing TypelTenurelAge of Householder (2000)
600
500
400
300
200
100
to lim Lj 'MW W 77�_� 1
lie
1? 4-1 0 F,
�-Ln
o CU N t Ln et
CC Ln rq
4-4
Q +.A o o
C_.? `� 4.0 C
�^ o
+_0
0
Units in Sr uc�
0
ure/Tenure orN
Pge °{ \Ao
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
Fiaure 2-15: Aae of Population 1990 and 2000
Fiaure 2-16: Aae Distribution Citv/Countv/Reaion (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
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Figure 2-19: Residence Five Years Ago
Same house Different House in Different House in Different state Elsewhere
same county same state
EI 1985 (1990 Census) ■ 1995 (2000 Census)
Figure 2-20: Year Moved Into House (2000)
90%
82%
80%
70% 67% 67%
60% 1
50%
40%
30%
20% 16% 16%
11% % 10% 9 o
0
10% ,. 4% 3% 7% 8 /o
1990 or later 1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1969 or earlier
■ Monticello ] Wright County ® Twin Cities SMSA
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 Pian 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:
► 70% of Monticello households
are family households (see Fig-
ure 2-21). This compares with
76% for the entire County and
65% for the region.
► 53% of all Monticello family
households include a married
couple.
► 44% of all households included
children under the age of 18.
Figure 2-21: Household Type - City/CountylRegion (2000)
Fiqure 2-22: Household Type (1990 and 2000)
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.
2-14 1 Community Context City of Monticello
Figure 2-23: Household Size (1990 and 2000)
Figure 2-24: Household Size - City/CountylRegion (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 Pian 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
2-76 1 Community Context
Figure 2-26: Race (1990 and 2000)
Figure 2-27: Race - City/County/Region (2000)
100%
97%98%
90% 6%
80%-
70%
60%-
50%-
40%-
30%
0%s0%40%30%
20%-
10% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 4% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 2%
White Black or African American Indian Asian Some other race Two or more
American and Alaska races
Native
■ Monticello [3 Wright County M Twin Cities SMSA
1,400
1,200
0
.0 1,000
u
�n
0 800
N 600
C 400
E
200
W
Figure 2-28: Race of Elementary School Population (2006/07)
PINEWOOD MONTICELLO MONTICELLO LITTLE
ELEMENTARY SENIOR HIGH MIDDLE MOUNTAIN
ELEMENTARY
■ White
E3 Black
® Hispanic
El Asian
■ American Indian
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
I9nnnl
Figure 2-3 1: Income - CitylCounty/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)
100,000
M ON M
dr M N
80,000 rv` � 00N.
LA
N O —
N � N� %00 N �p M
60,000
Ln N 'I n � M N Ln
Lq
M dam' !. to
tr
d'
40,000Ln00 v
ON 0
ON 0
Nr1tN N
N C
(T N N N N
20,000
0
Median household Median family Per capita
■ Monticello 11 Albertville M Buffalo 0 Elk River ■ Otsego 0 Rogers ■ St. Michael
Ficaure 2-33: Socio -Economic Indicators Monticello Schools (2006/07)
Figure 2-34: Household Income by Age of Householder (2000)
2-18 1 Community Context City of Monticello
Z0010prW _"VIM
Figure 2-35: Educational Attainment (1990 and 2000)
Figure 2-36: Educational Attainment - City/CountylRegion (2000)
70%
0
60%
c 50%
a 40%
Ln
30%
zUU/0
0 10%
CL
0%
Figure 2-37: Marital Status - CitylCounty/Region (2000)
Never married Now married, Separated Widowed Divorced
except separated
■ Monticello E]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 under 6 labor force
years
■ 1990 D 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% o
a,
> 40% M
0
35% o 0 0
30% CYNN N N a 00
W N
¢ 25%
� o
,Q
20% o n
M 0
0 15% o
10% OR
v 5% 0 0 o
0% —r -
Management, Service Sales, office Farming, Construction, Production,
professional fishing, extraction, transportation
forestry maintenance
■ Monticello E]Wright County E Twin Cities SMSA
Stear
Sherk
Cou
6�
Other H
Cot
2�
Other Place
lVill 11 lcaNuila
Plymouth 6%
7%
)nticello
31%
Nright
my
i5%
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.
2008 Comprehensive Plan 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)
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%io
0
90%
$ CO
00
0
80%
C
70% -
`1°
60%
50%
Q
40%--
30%
0
a o
\ \ \
20%
N M
_10%
o I -e
EFIE,
c c o ge
o Ln c
d'
0%
o oAM -ammemn,
N M
r r r- �„� T_
Drove alone
Carpool Public
Walk Other Work at home
transportation
■ Monticello [3 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) The chart in Figure 2-48 shows theplace 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
.
1
part of the States community pro-
515
file is a listing of "major employers".
Elementary and secondary education
Figure 2-49 contains major employ-
Xcel Energy
ers reported for Monticello.
Figure 2-48:
These employers account for 2,885
Residence of
jobs. These jobs represent 56%
Persons Working
of the people that reported jobs
in Monticello
in Monticello as part of the 2000
(2000)
Census. While this is somewhat
Denny Hecker Monticello
an apples -to -oranges comparison,
150
it does provide a sense of the nature
Machine job shop
of employment in Monticello. The
Cub Foods
employment base is not dominated
122
1 bt
by several arge emp oyers, u
• r in Monticello 2007 spread among a large number of
Figure 2 49. Mayor Employers ( )
small and medium sized employers
Emolover Products/Services Employees in different types of businesses.
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
2008 Comprehensive Pian Community Context 12-23
This page intentionally left blank
-24 1 Community Context City of Monticello
The future vision for Monticello provides the foundation for the Compre-
hensive Plan (the vision statement appears in Chapter 1). The Land Use
Plan, in turn, provides the framework for how land will be used to help
achieve the future vision for Monticello. The Land Use Plan seeks to rein-
force desirable land use patterns, identify places where change is needed
and guide the form and location of future growth.
The Land Use Plan for Monticello was shaped by a variety of factors,
including:
► Community input gathered through public workshops and Task Force
discussions.
► The existing built and natural environment in Monticello.
► The vision for Monticello's future.
► Factors described in the Community Context chapter of the Plan.
► Systems plans for transportation, sanitary sewer and water supply.
This represents a departure in form from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan.
The 1996 Plan included the land use plan as part of a broader Develop-
ment Framework section. The 1996 Plan described Monticello's land use
plan by general district of the community as a means of attending to the
unique issues in each district. The 2008 Update of the Comprehensive
Plan establishes a separate land use chapter consisting of the following
components:
► A section on Future Growth describes the implications of future resi-
dent growth and the amount of growth anticipated by the Plan.
► The Land Use Plan Map (see Figure 3-2) shows the land uses assigned
to each parcel of land.
► Land Use Cate og ries further explain the Land Use Plan by describing
the land uses depicted in the Map. This section includes land use poli-
cies describe the objectives that Monticello seeks to achieve through
the implementation of the Land Use Plan and the supporting elements
of the Comprehensive Plan.
► Focus Areas provide a more detailed discussion of characteristics,
goals and policies for key areas of the community.
2008 Comprehensive Plan .and Use 1 3-1
Future Growth
In looking to the future, Monticello must not just con-
sider 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 Compre-
hensive 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 develop-
ment 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.
more growth than is reasonable. The chart in Figure
3-1 shows the projection of future residential growth
assumed in the Comprehensive Plan.
Figure 3-1: Growth Trends and Projections
300 --- _ _ .._... _�...._............. ..... ....... _...........
._..__ ......_._�.....
256
250 242
/��/22
zoo
1167
150 150 150 150 150 150 150; —#—Actual
150t 30 i--�_'�.'. _-1
—0—Projected
110
100 9
/70
50
50 0 30
0
o,1w oyo
ti ti � ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti
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, attract-
ing both builders and residents. Housing market condi-
tions 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 sustain-
ing 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.
Given these uncertainties, the Comprehensive Plan 2.
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
The City will consistently review recent develop-
ment trends and update growth projections to serve
as a basis for public and private planning.
Over the life of this Comprehensive Plan, growth
will occur within the boundaries of the current
municipal boundaries and the Orderly Annexation
Area.
3-2 1 Land Use City of Monticello
3. Future development should be guided to locations
that utilize existing infrastructure and locations
that facilitate the construction of street and utility
systems that meet the objectives of the Compre-
hensive Plan.
4. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate action
by Monticello to annex or extend utility systems to
property immediately north of the Mississippi Riv-
er. 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 de-
picted 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 man-
ner.
► Make efficient use of municipal utility systems and
facilitate the orderly and financially feasible expan-
sion 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 effec-
tive land use management tool requires a definition of
each land use. These definitions provide a common
understanding of the basic characteristics of each cat-
egory 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 inten-
sity of development desired in different locations.
The 2008 update of the Comprehensive Plan uses a dif-
ferent 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.-
10-
ationale:
► 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 compre-
hensive 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 pro-
vide a more detailed guide for land use and devel-
opment. 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 land Use 1 3-3
Figure 3-2: Land Use Plan Map
3-4 1 Land Use City ufMonticello
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 sub-
division, 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 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 hous-
ing 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 de-
signed 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 pat-
tern.
This integration strengthens neighborhoods by increas-
ing 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 hous-
ing. 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 sus-
tained 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 hous-
ing needs change over the course of a person's life (see
Figure 3-4). Young adults may not have the income
capacity to own the typical single family home. This
3-6 1 Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3-4: Life Cycle of (lousing Supply
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 hous-
ing 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 loca-
tions. 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 Mon-
ticello. 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 achiev-
ing the desired results. The desired outcomes require
private investment. This investment occurs when
demand exists or the City can provide an incentive to
attract investment.
2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-7
Part of attracting move up housing comes from cre-
ating 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.
bjective:
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 collec-
tor streets.
3. The City will use public improvements to enhance
the appearance and character of a neighborhood.
Some examples of improvements that define an
area include streets with curb and gutter, trees in
the public boulevard, street lighting systems, and
storm water ponding.
4. Sidewalks, trails, and bikeways will connect the
neighborhood to other parts of the community.
5. Every neighborhood should have reasonable access
to a public park as a place for residents to gather
and play.
All of these elements work together to create a desirable
and sustainable place to live.
Balancing the Built and Natural Environments
The natural amenities of the growth areas (west and
south) in Monticello should serve as a catalyst for
residential development. The proposed regional park
(YMCA property) offers the dual assets of natural fea-
tures and recreational opportunities. Lakes, wetlands
and other natural amenities exist throughout the or-
derly annexation area.
Studies have shown that parks and open space have a
positive economic effect on adjacent development. An
article published by the National Park and Recreation
Association states that "recent analyses suggest that
open spaces may have substantial positive impacts on
surrounding property values and hence, the property
tax base, providing open space advocates with con -
Figure 3-5: Relationship Between Development and
Natural Features - Parkway
Figure 3-6: Relationship Between Development and
Natural Features - Trail Corridor
F
wincing 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 objec-
tives, 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 ex-
cellent illustration. The majority of the riverfront in
Monticello is controlled by private property. Public
access to the River comes at points provided by public
parks.
a8 1 Land Ulfse City of Monticello
Figure Figure 3-7: Example of Conservation Design Development
OPEN SPACE DESIGNNORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOO]
- Pastures
Total Housing Units: 98
It - Equestrian Facility Semi-Custorn. Single-Fanwly Homes
- Wetlands Enhancements Lot Width: 82' Minimum
LotSlze: 9,900 to 16,000 Sq. Ft,.
Conservation Easements
Wit
House Sq. Ft.: 2,400 to 4,800 Sq. Ft.
I # -
Central Park
Wi
' V', C�'' "t t
Price Point Packages: $450,000 to
Liki I p 27 Acre Park South of Lake $650,000
'4
OR
OSLO'
1, NEIGHBORHOOD FEATURES NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD
7
Central Park Total Mousing Units.- 66
Cusloin, Luxury Twin.Homes
Northeast Neighborhood Green
Lot Width-- 45'x 90'Twinhome
South Neighborhood Green
LotSize: 4,05OSq Ft.
Association Dock and Park House Sq. Ft.: 2,800 to 3.800 Sq. Ft,
AV•
Price Point Packages: $475,000 to
$750,000
M
FIE
t z
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 neighbor-
hoods 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 hous-
ing. 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 Min-
nesota 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 ma-
jority 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 cities and developments can guide
future planning and decision making in Monticello.
2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-9
Attractive Places
Attractive physical appearance is one of the most
common attributes of Places to Live in Monticello.
Attractiveness is a combination of design, construc-
tion 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 influ-
ence the potential for attractive neighborhoods:
► Building codes and additional regulations to pro-
mote quality construction.
► Subdivision regulations control the initial configu-
ration 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) influ-
ences 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 ad-
dress 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) obs, shop-
ping 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, ser-
vices 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 de-
velopment. Places to Work seeks to provide locations
for the retention, expansion and creation of businesses
that provide j obs for Monticello residents and expan-
sion and diversification of the property tax base. In
order to be a center of employment with a wide 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
3-10 1 Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3-8: Land Use Plan - Places to Work
OP
x
t
A,
.o n..r
, FF
n
,
r . r '•.• lF
the most cnanenging 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 at-
tracting new development, it is necessary to understand
why Places to Work are important to Monticello. The
objectives for this land use include.-
00 -
Expanding and diversifying the property tax base.
10
Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for
people to work and live in Monticello.
► Promoting wage levels that provide incomes need-
ed to purchase decent housing, support local busi-
nesses and support local government services.
1* Take advantage of opportunities to attract corpo-
rate headquarters/campuses and businesses that
specialize in biosciences and technology.
00- Encouraging the retention and expansion of exist-
ing businesses in Monticello.
2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-11
Figure 3-9: Land Use Plan - Places to Shop
"IN
R
1
-4 Nkll
1
v
- Y
I
Policies - Places to Work
1. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to des-
ignate 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 Mon-
ticello, the Land Use Plan promotes the establish-
ment 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 oriented to bioscience, technology, re-
search and development, corporate headquarters,
business office, wholesale showrooms, and related
uses.
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, distribu-
tion and related businesses.
5. Places to Work may include non -industrial busi-
nesses that provide necessary support to the un-
derlying development objectives of this land use.
Examples of supporting land uses include lodging,
office supplies and repair services.
3-12 1 Land Use City of Monticello
Additional public objectives and strategies for Places
to Work can be found in the Economic Development
chapter.
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 Compre-
hensive Plan seeks to:
1.
2.
0
4.
5.
91
7.
The Comprehensive Plan seeps to attract and retain
businesses that provide goods and services needed
by Monticello residents.
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to capture the op-
portunity 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 ac-
cess 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 edg-
es 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.
The Comprehensive Plan describes issues, plans and policies related to the Downtown in several sections
of the Plan.
Downtown
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 cen-
tral 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 dis-
tricts. The future success of downtown requires it to
be a place unlike any other in Monticello.
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the vision
and objectives described in the 1997 Downtown and
Riverfront 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 facilities reinvestment and places poten-
tial 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 Down-
town along Broadway was discussed. The Compre-
hensive Plan consciously defines — 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.
2008 Comprehensive Pian Land Use 1 3-13
More than any other land use category, Downtown has
strong connections to other parts of the Comprehen-
sive Plan. The following parts of the Comprehensive 6.
Plan also address community desires and plans for the
Downtown area:
C
00.
00,
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 fac-
tor for the future of Downtown. The Transporta-
tion chapter of the Comprehensive Plan (and the
related Transportation 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 lays the foun-
dation for public actions and investments that will
be needed to achieve the desired outcomes.
Policies - Downtown
1. Downtown is a special and unique part of Mon-
ticello. It merits particular attention in the Com-
prehensive Plan and in future efforts to achieve
community plans and objectives.
2. Downtown is intended to be an inter -connected
and supportive collection of land uses. The primary
function of Downtown is as a commercial district.
Other land uses should support and enhance the
overall objectives for Downtown.
3. Wherever possible, street fronts should be reserved
for businesses.
4. Housing in the downtown can facilitate necessary
redevelopment and bring potential customers di-
rectly into the area. Housing may be free-standing
or in shared buildings with street level commercial
uses.
5. Downtown is the civic center of Monticello. To
the degree possible, unique public facilities (such
as the Community Center, the Library and the Post
7.
0
a
Office) should be located in the Downtown area as
a means to bring people into the Downtown.
Downtown should emphasize connections with
the Mississippi River that are accessible by the
public.
Downtown should be a pedestrian -oriented place
in a manner that cannot be matched by other com-
mercial districts.
Downtown should have an adequate supply of free
parking for customers distributed throughout the
area.
The City will facilitate private investment in
Downtown and, if necessary, use its redevelop-
ment powers to remove barriers to desired private
investment.
All of these policies work together to attract people to
Downtown and to enhance the potential for a successful
business environment.
Mixed Use
The Mixed Use is a transition area between the Down-
town and the hopsital campus. It has been createdin
recogonition of the unique nature of this area. The area
serves two functions. It is the edge between long-term
residential neighborhoods and a major tranportation
corridor (Broadway Street). It is also a link between
the Downtown, the hospital campus and the east in-
terchange 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.
3-14 1 Land Use City of Monticello
3. All non-residential development will be oriented
to Broadway Street and not to 3rd Street or River
Street.
4. Commercial development compatible with the
Downtown should be encouraged to locate there.
5. More intense housing and commercial uses may be
allowed if directly related to the hospital.
Places to Recreate
Places to Recreate consist of public parks and private
recreation facilities. The land uses are essential ele-
ments 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 manag-
ing 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 regula-
tions "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 Com-
prehensive Plan
Places for Community
Places for Community consist of public and semi-public
land uses. Public uses include all governmental facili-
ties (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.
2008 Comprehensive Pian
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
desired characteristics of residential neighborhood.
Criteria for locating an institutional use in a residential
land use area include.-
1.
nclude:
1. Size. Large buildings and site areas can disrupt
neighborhood cohesiveness. Use in lower density
residential areas should not be more than [to be
determined] square feet in lot area.
2. Parking. Parking may spill on to neighborhood
streets without adequate on-site facilities. The
parking needs will vary with the use of the facility.
Each facility should provide adequate on-site or
reasonable off-site shared parking based on the use
of the facility.
3. Traffic. Institutional uses should be oriented to
designated collector or arterial streets.
4. Lighting and signage. Site lighting and signage
needs may resemble commercial uses. These site
factors should be managed to fit the character of
the surrounding residential development.
Urban Reserve
The Urban Reserve contains all property in the Orderly
Annexation Area that it not shown for development in
the near term in this Plan. The objective is to encourage
rural and agricultural uses, preventing barriers to future
development opportunities. It is anticipated that the
City will grow into portions of the Urban Reserve as
planned land use areas become fully developed and ca-
pacity 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.
Futureplanning will consider the locations in the Urban
Reserve best suited for development.
Land Use 1 3-15
Interchange Planning Area
The Interchange Planning Area encompasses undevel-
oped 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 mix-
ture 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 pri-
vate 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 pat-
terns in a manner that is sensitive to the existing en-
vironment 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.
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 loca-
tions that will shape the future of Monticello.
Northwest Monticello
This focus area includes the entire northwest corner
of the community. The land use objectives in this area
include:
1. Encourage development in this part of the com-
munity 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 proxim-
ity to the planned regional park should be reserved
for move up housing.
3. Expansion of existing Places to Work in a manner
that creates more "head of household") obs.
4. Preserve and promote public use of natural areas,
including the establishment of greenway corri-
dors.
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.
3-16 1 Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3-10: Land Use Plan - Northwest Monticello
The Comprehensive Plan envisions that growth will ex-
tend westward from existing development. The initial
high amenity residential development is expected to
occur along the eastern perimeter of the new regional
park (YMCA Camp Manitou). No Places to Live are
planned with the boundaries of this park. Future
development will be influenced by the capacity of the
street system, including plans for the construction of
a highway interchange.
The remainder of this section describes the land use
issues and objectives for northwest Monticello in
greater detail.
West Interchange
A new interchange with Interstate 94 is a critical vari-
able 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 improve-
ments 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
2008 Comprehensive Pian
25. Without the bridge, the primary benefit is to pro-
vide 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 of
the interchange (or block it) and to preserve the area
around the interchange for future commercial, indus-
trial 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 con-
nection?
00- 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 guid-
ance to future land use and transportation in Monti-
cello. 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 sup-
porting street system has future land use implications
for a broader area.
Regional Park
Another critical factor in the future of the Northwest
Area is the future of the YMCA camp. The City and
Wright County are in negotiations with the Minneapo-
lis YMCA to acquire the 1,200 -acre Camp Manitou.
The Comprehensive Plan anticipates that the Camp
will be converted into a regional park.
Land Use 1 3-17
Figure 3-11: Community Connections to Regional Park
The area around this park is guided for future Places
to Live. No residential development should be al-
lowed 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 be-
yond 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 Busi-
ness 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,
3-18 1 Land Use City of Monticello
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 resi-
dential development. The Comprehensive Plan seeks
to create both high quality business parks and residen-
tial 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 plan-
ning. 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:
► 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 regional park and to new neighbor-
hoods.
► 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
2008 Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to enhance the existing commercial core along Broadway by building
strong connections with the riverfront and the civic/retail district on the south end of Walnut Street
of other infrastructure investments before extending
utilities for redevelopment of the golf course.
Downtown Focus Area
Downtown Monticello needs special attention in the
Comprehensive Plan. Following the last Comprehen-
sive Plan update, the community undertook a separate
downtown planning process. This process resulted in
the 1997 Downtown and Riverfront Plan. This Plan
emphasizes the importance that the community places
on Downtown. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
continues to rely on the 1997 Downtown and Riverfront
Plan as a guide for public and private actions in the
Downtown area.
The 1997 Plan shows that a vision and a plan are not
enough to create the type of Downtown desired by
the community. While some actions have occurred
pursuant to the 1997 Plan, much of its vision remains
unfulfilled. The Comprehensive Plan will not, however,
create any actions that will immediately transform
the Downtown environment and achieve community
objectives. 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 recog-
Land Use 1 3-19
Figure 3-12:1997 Downtown Plan - Land Use
•
10*40,40*0 WWO"
.. .........
mow*** ------
f!!=a
yE.OWAWROM
j7,_TX 71
The 1997 Downtown Plan envisioned land use in eleven districts, each with varying targets for use and T-ransitiona - Mix of small office, personal and business services, multi -family residential and single
character: family homes.
Riverfront - Specialty retail, eating establishments, lodging, entertainment, multifamily residential, Neighborhood — Predominantly single family horns following existing neighborhood patterns.
office; upper level residential or office, two or three story buildings; river orientation; emphasis on Industrial — Cargill Kitchen Solutions operations only; transition to Civic/Institutional, Walnut or
public areas surrounding buildings (rather than parking lots). Transitional if Cargill Kitchen Solutions ceases operation.
Broadway: Downtown - Small and mid-sized retail, specialty retail, personal and business services, Parks and Ooen Space — Parks, cemeteries, outdoor public spaces and gathering spaces. Civic/
eating establishments, lodging, entertainment and office; upper level residential or Ace,' two story Institutional - Municipal and county facilities (except maintenance operations), public meeting spaces,
buildings; orientation to Broadway. community activity spaces, educational facilities, churches, outdoor gathering spaces.
Broadway: East and, West - Singe family residential, strong emphasis on restoration of existing older Civic/institutional - Municipal and county facilities (except maintenance operations), public meeting
homes. spaces, community activity spaces. educational facilities, churches, outdoor gathering spaces.
Walnut - Small and mid-sized retail, personal and business services, eating establishments and office,
tipper level residential or office; two story buildings encouraged; orientation to Walnut Street.
Pine - Mid-sized retail and office; two story buildings encouraged, orientation to Pine Street.
Seventh Street - Larger scale retail and service, auto -oriented retail and service, drive through
restaurants, lodging, orientation of Seventh Street.
3-20 1 Land Use City of Monticello
The current end of Walnut Street is a barrier to improving connections between Downtown and the
riverfront.
nize the practical realities facing commercial develop-
ment in Downtown.-
10- The configuration and traffic volumes of Highway
25 significantly reduce opportunities for direct ac-
cess from the Highway to adjacent properties.
01- Traffic volumes on Highway 25 will continue to
increase. Greater volumes and congestion act as an
impediment for people living south of 1-94 coming
to Downtown.
00- 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.
00.
00.
"Big box" and retail development continue to oc-
cur 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.
These challenges influenced the recommendations
in the 1997 Downtown Plan. Neither Broadway
Street nor Highway 25 can serve as an effective
main street" or Downtown focal point for Mon-
ticello. For this reason, the Plan recommended
flipping the orientation of future development to
Walnut Street. Walnut had the capacity to create
more the qualities found on a downtown main
street. More importantly, Walnut Street provides
2008 Comprehensive Plan
a "bridge" between the traditional downtown/
riverfront and the highway oriented commercial
uses to the south.
Some actions have taken place in accordance with the
1997 Plan. The Community Center complex stayed
in Downtown and anchors the south end of Walnut
Street. Combined with the Library, the area has civic
destination that attract people from all areas of the
community. The commercial development east of the
Community Center shows how new buildings can bring
storefronts to the street.
There are also examples of missed opportunities. The
old library was replaced with a bank. This site seeks
visibility from Highway 25. The parking lot and not the
building is oriented to Walnut Street. Such sites cre-
ate gaps and impair the ability to connect the existing
Downtown core with the south end.
Downtown Strategies
Given current plans and conditions, the Comprehen-
sive Plan recommends the following strategies for
Downtown.
1. The Downtown land use area should be an area
running from the River to 7th Street. It is bound on
the east by Cedar Street and on the west by Locust
Street.
2. Land use in the Downtown should be a mix of retail,
service, office, civic and residential development.
Although an industrial land use, Cargill Kitchen
Solutions is an important and ongoing part of
Downtown. Change in land use should only occur
if Cargill Kitchen Solutions decides to leave this
location. At such time, it would be desired not to
perpetuate industrial use at this location.
3. With continued traffic along Highway 25, it is
essential to work to establish a strong link along
Walnut Street between the Community Center,
businesses on Broadway and the River. The objec-
tive is to establish strong connections between all of
the factors that attract people to the Downtown.
4. To help move towards the creation of a new "main
street" all new development on Walnut Street
should have storefronts oriented to Walnut Street.
Land Use 1 3-21
This development may be single story commercial
or multi-level mixed use.
5. Orienting storefronts to Walnut Street is only one
element of making the street more attractive for
pedestrians. The City should also explore other
ways to improve the pedestrian and bicycle experi-
ence along Walnut Street.
6. It is essential not to allow Walnut Street to become
a bypass route for Highway 25. As congestion
increases on Highway 25, there is an impetus to
seek other routes. Walnut Street is an attractive
cut -through option. The orientation of buildings,
on -street parking, boulevard trees, and curb "bump
outs" are examples of means to calm traffic and
discourage cut -through movements.
7. Housing is intended to supplement and support,
but not replace, commercial development in the
Downtown. All housing in the Downtown area
(as identified in the Comprehensive Plan) should
be multiple family housing. Land is a limited
commodity in the Downtown and should not be
consumed by single -story housing. Housing should
only be allowed above street level on Broadway and
Walnut Street. Housing should be encouraged on
the edges of the Downtown, in locations needing
redevelopment and not viable for commercial
uses.
8. The Downtown benefits from strong connections
with adjacent neighborhoods. These neighbor-
hoods provide an important customer base for
Downtown businesses. A vibrant Downtown en-
hances these areas as places to live. Improved pe-
destrian connections, particularly across Highway
25, are needed to strengthen and maintain these
connections. Existing crossing points Broadway
and 7r" Street should be enhanced.
9. Downtown would benefit from stronger connec-
tions with the riverfront. Downtown is one of the
few locations in Monticello that allows meaning-
ful public access to the Mississippi River. This
asset should be enhanced as a means of attracting
people to Downtown. West Bridge Park lies in the
Downtown area, but does not feel like an active
part of Downtown. One possible improvement
is a connection with Walnut Street. Currently,
Walnut Street terminates south of River Street and
is separated by a grade change. The potential for
3-22 1 land Use
Figure 3-13: Land Use Plan - South Central
trail and/or street connection should be evaluated.
Community events and activities in West Bridge
Park also build the connection between the com-
munity, Downtown and the River.
10. Access to the Downtown would be improved by
making trail and/or bike lane improvements along
River Street to provide another means of reaching
Downtown and take advantage of the controlled
intersection with Highway 25.
South Central Focus Area
Continued residential growth to the south is an impor-
tant 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 reconstruc-
tion of Fallon Avenue. This sanitary sewer capacity
is 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 con-
tinued 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.
City of Monticello
_ .-., � y;,�t��- ,av ..::±': l..t�'<u'i"�'•EA: �'I'�'���rlT.:7•�4��i"'�'CS"�,rat3E��f�Er..i%i._i4�.x`,�>'�""'°-'�"" ��z`�.x�"a __.K,�..�21. �'�
Figure 3-14: Land Use Plan - East Focus Area
A key to development in this focus area is the construc-
tion of the Fallon Avenue bridge. The bridge leads to
the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue and the related ex-
pansion 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:
► 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 man-
agement 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.
2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1 3-23
MEMORANDUM
TO: Angela Schumann
FROM: Alan Brixius/Stephen Grittman
DATE: December 3, 2009
RE: Monticello –Housing Study Work Program
FILE NO: 802
We have assembled a work program for a staged analysis of the City’s housing stock,
with the objective being the ability to identify residential market conditions in the
community. The first portion of the study would be an inventory of the Monticello’s
multi-family market. The inventory is intended to gauge the impacts of the current
market on multiple family housing, with a focus on the rental market.
The second portion of the study would be an inventory and analysis of the single family
market. This aspect of the study would utilize the City’s data on existing single family
units, both occupied and vacant, and identify the current conditions of the vacant
properties. As part of this analysis, we will include a summary of vacant residential
parcels, and project an absorption rate. Where possible, we will work to ascertain the
status of preliminary platted parcels, and their long-term likelihood of eventual final
platting and development.
The third portion of the study would be an overall examination of housing conditions,
with a focus on longer term trends for both detached and attached residential types.
I. Multiple Family Inventory
According to Monticello rental housing registration, the City had 1,121 rental housing
units in 2009. Of these units, the City had 13 buildings containing 10 -20 units and 14
buildings that contained 20+ units. The study would complete an inventory of these
units to provide data that may be helpful to the City in the following ways:
a. Identifying available labor force housing stock to prospective industries
considering Monticello as a possible relocation site.
b. Identifying current housing stock rent ranges and vacancy rates for multiple
family housing developers interested in doing a project in Monticello.
2
c. Housing data to households interested in moving to Monticello.
Currently, 16 properties comprise 60 percent of the City’s rental housing units. The
following work program outlines a process by which the properties will be inventoried
and the following data will be collected:
1. Location. Each of the City’s largest multiple family housing complexes will
be identified by name and address and mapped by location.
2. Property Ownership. Ownership and management will be identified
including contact information.
3. Housing Data. Housing data will be collected through site visits and
interviews with property management data to be collected including:
a. Total number of units.
b. Number of units by number of bedrooms.
c. Rent rates by unit size.
d. Occupancy/vacancy rates.
e. Site amenities:
1) Garages/parking.
2) Recreation amenities.
3) Party room.
4) Laundry facilities.
4. General Conditions. Site observation of site and building condition
including photographs.
5. Report Summary. Preparation of inventory summary.
II. Single Family Inventory
a. Examine existing single family housing stock for occupancy rates.
b. Inventory vacant single family housing for location and exterior housing condition.
With the assistance of building department staff, this analysis may include interior
condition where available.
c. Inventory vacant platted lots (preliminary and fina l), including mapping and
status. As noted above, we will attempt to determine the status of preliminary
plats which have not been final platted through developer/owner interviews,
where possible.
3
III. Analysis
The analysis portion of the study would consist of trends and housing occupancy in the
context of Monticello’s growth and development over the past 20 years, looking ahead
for the next 20 years. As part of this analysis, we will include demographic and housing
information for Wright County and the T win Cities area to provide perspective on the
local housing economy.
In the analysis portion of the project, we will summarize interview results, develop
predictions for absorption trends in both markets, and discuss options for City action
related to housing opportunity.
The design of this study is intended to allow the City to choose either or both Stage I
and II, and add Stage III if desired, dependent upon the market segment, and the level
of analysis. Stages I and II are essentially inventory information which can be used for
observation and independent analysis by City officials and/or development industry
interests. Stage III would add NAC’s comments as to impacts of the economy on the
housing market, and a summary discussion of options for City action, if desired.
This work program may be modified to address any additional needs of the City. Please
review this proposal and contact us if you have any questions or concerns.
300
250
M
150
100
50
(C
Residential Lot Inventory -Post 2000 Developments
N N
C,
0, C -
X
IN TOTAL LOT COUNT
* LOTS CURRENTLY FINAL PLATTED
LOTS BUILT OUT
* LOTS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
* LOTS TO BE PLATTED
December 31
2010
Planning Commission Agenda –1/05/10
1
6a. Comprehensive Plan Review - Transportation Plan Update (AS)
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
As part of the annual review of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan, the Planning
Commission requested an in-depth update regarding the status of Chapter 6:
Transportation Plan.
The Transportation Plan is a general system document that provides a framework
for long-term development of transportation in the community, along with the
relationship of the transportation system to the City’s land use patterns.
The Plan inventories Roadway Conditions, highlights Planning Issues, identifies
Roadway Needs, and sets out the Transportation Plan for the community, with the
role of supporting the City’s recent land use plan as adopted in the 2008
Comprehensive Plan.
In February of 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed the Transportation Plan
and recommended approval and adopted of the Plan by resolution.
Since that time, the City Council has had many discussions related to the contents
of the plan and has not yet formally adopted the Plan. Although the Plan has not
been adopted by the Council, actions have been taken to help move the document
forward.
For example, the City Council has acted on the River Street/Highway 25 matter,
which was a major point of concern related to Highway 25 traffic circulation.
Information on the traffic patterns resulting from the decision will be analyzed on
an on-going basis. The City Council also called a regional transportation meeting
to discuss a future river crossing. Attendees from Wright, Sherburne Counties,
the cities of Big Lake, Monticello, Mn/DOT and Big Lake Township were in
attendance at the meeting. The ultimate outcome of the meeting was that the
majority of parties agreed a second crossing would be needed. The next steps for
the group will be to determine how to proceed with a location analysis.
City Engineer Bruce Westby will be attending the January Planning Commission
meeting to review the Transportation Plan and discuss how the Plan will be
moved forward, including an expected timeline for adoption.
Mr. Westby will also be able to offer information on the seven primary focus
areas of the Transportation Plan that received special attention within the
Comprehensive Plan as follows:
New interchange location with I-94.
Traffic management on TH 25 between the freeway and the river.
Construction of the Fallon Avenue bridge.
Planning Commission Agenda –1/05/10
2
Establishing future roadway corridors.
Evaluating transit opportunities.
Facilitating the City’s pedestrian system.
Coordination with regional transportation efforts, including future river
crossing alternatives.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
No action required.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Transportation Plan Draft, dated January 2009 (available online under City
Departments & Services, Engineering - Transportation)
B. Staff Memo, dated 1-16-09
C. Planning Commission Minutes, February 3, 2009
MEMO
TO: Monticello Planning Commissioners
FROM: Angela Schumann
RE: Draft Monticello Transportation Plan
DATE: 1-16-09
CC: Jeff O'Neill, Bruce Westby, Steve Grittman
Commissioners,
Please find enclosed your copy of the draft Monticello Transportation Plan.
Planning Commission will hold a public hearing regarding the plan during its
regular meeting on Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009.
The Planning Commission is holding the public hearing in fulfillment of State
statutory obligation as follows:
M.S. Section 462.356, Subd. 2. Compliance with plan.
After a comprehensive municipal plan or section thereof has been
recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with the governing
body, no publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality
shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement be
authorized by the municipality or special district or agency thereof or any
other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the municipality until
after the planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal, or
capital improvement and reported in writing to the governing body or other
special district or agency or political subdivision concerned, its findings as to
compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement with the
comprehensive municipal plan. Failure of the planning agency to report on
the proposal within 45 days after such a reference, or such other period as
may be designated by the governing body shall be deemed to have satisfied
the requirements of this subdivision. The governing body may, by resolution
adopted by two-thirds vote dispense with the requirements of this
subdivision when in its judgment it finds that the proposed acquisition or
disposal of real property or capital improvement has no relationship to the
comprehensive municipal plan.
The Parks Commission, Police Commission and Industrial and Economic
Development Committee are also reviewing the draft Transportation Plan. They
will be providing comments and a formal recommendation to the Planning
Commission on February 3rd. Outside and regional agency review and
comment may also be provided during the hearing.
City Engineer Bruce Westby and consulting engineering firm WSB & Associates
will present the plan components during the hearing and will be available to
answer the Commission's questions and to address concerns.
Planning Commission will be asked to consider a resolution recommending
adoption of the Transportation Plan to the City Council, as well as a
recommendation on the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan for the
inclusion of the Transportation Plan. If adopted by the City Council, the
Transportation Plan becomes the foundation for the City's transportation
infrastructure and capital improvement planning. The full document becomes
an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan, incorporated by summary as Chapter
6 of the Comprehensive Plan itself.
As Commission reviews the plan, it is recommended that emphasis be placed
on the following initiatives highlighted within the Comprehensive Plan:
• Evaluating of the feasibility of a new west interchange or interchanges
with I-94.
• Ongoing management and mitigation of traffic on TH 25 between I-94
and the River.
• Planning for the construction of the Fallon Avenue Bridge, the
reconstruction of Fallon Avenue and the related expansion of municipal
utility systems.
• Coordinating development projects to protect future collector street
corridors.
• Evaluating transit opportunities to maximize the use of the Northstar
project and other transit opportunities.
• Ensuring that pedestrian facilities are provided throughout the City and
across major transportation corridors.
• Coordinating with regional transportation efforts.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of the plan. Staff looks forward to
hearing your thoughts and comments on this document.
MINUTES
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2009
6:00 PM
Commissioners: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, William Spartz, and
Barry Voight
Council Liaison: Susie Wojchouski
Staff Angela Schumann, Gary Anderson, Steve Grittman — NAC
Call to orcler_
Chairman Dragsten called the meeting to order and declared a quorum of the
Commission, noting the absence of Commissioner Hilgart and the presence of Council
Liaison Wojchouski.
2. Consideration to aunrove the Planning Commission minutes of J
Community Development Director Schumann indicated that the minutes of the regular
meeting of January 6th, 2009 would be provided at an upcoming meeting.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SPARTZ TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP OF JANUARY 6th, 2009.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT . MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
3. Citizen Comments.
NONE.
4. Consideration of adding items to theagenda.
NONE.
5. Public Hearing - Consideration of amendment to the Monticello Comprehensive Plan for the
adoption of Chapter 6: Transportation Plan. Applicant: City of Monticello
Community Development Director Schumann introduced the Transportation Plan, noting
that the State Statute allows for the Planning Commission's review of the Transportation
Plan during a public hearing. She noted that if adopted, the Plan becomes Chapter 6 of
the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. A supermajority of the City Council will be
required to adopt the plan formally as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09
Planner Grittman indicated that a staff report had been prepared as an introduction to the
document, summarizing the contents of the plan to serving to aid the Commission frame
their recommendation. A proposed resolution had also been prepared in the event that
Commission is prepared to recommend adoption of the Plan. Grittman stated that staff's
recommendation is for adoption of the Transportation Plan.
One particular aspect of the plan that staff focused on was Highway 25. Grittman noted
that the Planning Commission had spent quite a bit of time discussing Highway 25 during
the Comp Plan process, and this plan outlined options for alleviation of the current and
future congestion. Staff is recommending a further study of roundabouts as the preferred
option, as staff believes roundabouts provide the best alternative to solving multiple
corridor issues over the long term. Grittman noted that multiple jurisdictions will be
involved in the ultimate decision. The goal for staff was to encourage further detailed
study of roundabouts for the corridor. The other major issues staff has reviewed relate to
river crossings, a third interchange location, and overall transportation system function.
City Engineer Bruce Westby thanked the Commission and emphasized the Transportation
Plan is designed to assist the Commission, Council, property owners and developers as a
decision-making document in transportation. It is a planning document, and as such it
does not have a specific set of measures that has to be implemented in a certain order
within a certain timeframe.
Westby turned the detailed presentation of the plan over to Chuck Rickart of WSB &
Associates, the plan preparer. Rickart stated that the primary purpose of the plan is to
provide technical guidance to policymakers and staff on transportation issues within the
community. Although it is not specific, it does provide a foundation for future
transportation decisions. It also provides the ability for coordination between
neighboring communities. The overall objective is to accommodate growth through
transportation. This is achieved by maintaining access for business in both motorized and
non -motorized traffic and doing so efficiently.
Rickart stated that the previous transportation plan provided a basis for this preparation.
From there, the recently adopted Monticello land use plan was incorporated, as well as
long range plans from Big Lake. This was done to be able to review river crossing
projections. The next step was to update traffic projections based on the long range
documents. Rickart indicated that the plan provides a basic analysis of existing
conditions in terms of what is there today and what issues exist. Then, the plan analyzes
future roadway access, non -motorized traffic, transit, aviation and goods movement, and
finally funding.
Dealing specifically with Highway 25, engineering staff understood through the Comp
Plan that Highway 25 was perhaps the largest single issue to be addressed by the
Transportation Plan. Rickart stated that existing traffic at the river crossing is 27,500-
35,000 vehicles per day. At 2030, approximately 45,000 vehicles per day are projected.
Rickart outlined the Transportation Plan's analysis of possible improvements to deal with
this volume.
01
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09
Rickart reviewed short term improvement options. The first option was signal timing
modification implementation. Rickart stated that with other recent improvements, signal
timing could be improved in the corridor. Second, adding turn lanes could help improve
the capacity of the corridor, primarily at 7th Street, I-94 and Broadway intersections.
Third, the study looked at access modifications, such as closing off side street access in
certain locations, concentrating access at Broadway, 4th and 7th Streets. Signals could be
placed at these intersections as part of this. The plan also looks at roundabouts in lieu of
signals. In a scenario including roundabouts, similar to access modification at 4th, 7th and
Broadway, traffic would be concentrated to roundabouts at those intersections. Rickart
noted that the study indicates that roundabouts illustrate the largest long term benefit and
improvement to the corridor.
Rickart also reviewed long-term solutions for the Highway 25 corridor congestion,
including looking at a one-way pair option. Rickart described the function of one-way
pairs. Ultimately, over the long-term, the options illustrating the most improvements to
the corridor include a second river crossing and an additional western interchange to pull
traffic to other routes.
Rickart noted that timelines illustrated in the plan assume normal funding cycles for Mn/
DOT and typical project development. Improvements can move forward if funding
situations change.
Rickart reviewed the Highway 25 corridor improvement options in greater detail. In
discussing signal timing changes and turn lane improvements, Rickart stated that as part
of an upcoming mill and overlay project on Highway 25, Monticello work with Mn/DOT
to add turn lanes as noted in the plan. For the medium term, access modifications such as
median extension with signal additions or roundabouts could be implemented. A lot of
these things could also take place timed with development.
Rickart noted that again, although these improvements do have an overall improving
impact on the corridor, the long term issue is that 45,000 vehicles will still be traveling
Highway 25 and crossing the river. In order to mitigate delays due to that traffic, the
options for alleviating problems at the river are to add an additional lane, a one-way pair,
an additional river crossing and another interchange, or a combination of those
improvements.
In terms of interchanges and overpasses, Rickart stated that the Fallon Avenue overpass
has been identified in previous plans. This plan assumes completion of that overpass in
2030. The Federal Highway Administration has indicated that prior to construction of
any other interchange west of Highway 25, the Fallon Avenue overpass is required to be
completed. It is estimated that about 11,000 cars would use that overpass.
This plan anticipates up to two interchanges west of Highway 25, Rickart reported.
These could be located anywhere between County Road 39 and Orchard Road and would
divert about 6,000 cars per day from the Highway 25 corridor at I-94. However,
eventually, that traffic would still find its way back to Highway 25 to cross the River. In
short, these improvements would not impact the river crossing, but would improve
functionality of the Highway 25 corridor.
3
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09
Rickart explained that river crossing options reviewed in the plan include a one-way pair
with a corresponding river crossing or the widening of an existing bridge. These options
would require improvement to the interchange at I-94. Rickart commented that staff had
noted that the primary issue with a one-way pair is the creation of two high-volume
barriers within the downtown. This creates problems for east -west traffic movements and
pedestrian crossings.
The Transportation Plan also reviews three additional river crossing locations. The first
was at Orchard Road, connecting to Sherburne County Road 11. It is estimated that this
crossing would see a traffic volume of 11,000 vehicles per day, and would divert
approximately 7,000 vehicles out of the 45,000 crossing at Highway 25. With a possible
County Road 11 interchange at I-94, it would also create a regional connection. Rickart
suggested that the negative could be that the growth areas are on the other sides of the
community at this time; this option would most likely not serve immediate growth areas.
The second river crossing option was at Washington Avenue, connecting to Sherburne
County 14. This option would see a traffic volume of 22,000 vehicles per day, and divert
16,000 vehicles out of the 45,000 in 2030. Although this route would not be a direct
connection to I-94, it would align with the Fallon Avenue overpass. This would be a
purely local connection providing access for local population. However, it would carry a
significant amount of traffic. It also serves the growth area of south Monticello and Big
Lake. The third option was a river crossing aligning with the interchange at CSAH 18.
This crossing would carry 18,000 cars and divert about 10,000 trips from Highway 25.
Primarily, the issue with this crossing is that it gets closer to the proposed Otsego
crossing. The spacing then becomes unlikely to create as large of an impact on Highway
25 traffic, Rickart stated. It does provide a little bit more regional impact connecting to
Highway 14 and directly to the existing interchange at CSAH 18.
Rickart then explained that other item reviewed in detail within the plan included the
collector roadway network. The expansion of this network includes extensions of School
Boulevard west of Highway 25 to County 39, the extension of 7th Street west to eliminate
the existing gap and improvements to 85th Street south of School Boulevard. Rickart also
discussed completion of the north frontage road or 95th Street, which uses existing right
of way from the old interstate ramp. He stated that other north -south and east -west minor
collector improvements are also identified to improve the overall roadway network.
For non -motorized transportation, Rickart stated that two plans were created within the
plan. The first is a local plan identifying trail, sidewalk and on -road paths. The second
connects those local systems to a regional plan. The creation and coordination of these
two plans ensures non -motorized connections are provided. Rickart noted that the plans
use the recently completed Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment as a foundation for
trail opportunities. He commented that the non -motorized plans were developed with the
Parks Commission with assistance from City Administrator O'Neill and Schumann.
In terms of transit, Rickart indicated that the plan discusses the existing park and ride
facility along south Highway 25 and the existing service provided by RiverRider. The
study did look at possible connections to the Northstar commuter rail service in Big Lake.
Working with River Rider, it was determined that the primary obstacle to expansion of
M
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09
transit service to Northstar is the bottleneck at Highway 25. River Rider has commented
that getting across the river in bus is no different than in a car in terms of congestion.
Rickart suggested that a future river crossing could change that scenario. The other
connection reviewed within the plan was to connect to the Metro system coming out of
Maple Grove. Again, the drawback is funding sources. Rickart relayed that River Rider
indicated that they are able to acquire only so much funding for service design.
Providing a metro connection would take almost their whole budget. They have
commented that if their budget expands, they would also consider a system expansion.
Rickart summarized the plan's analysis of funding and financing. He stated that the plan
envisions that the City will work with Wright and Sherburne Counties and the State
wherever possible. He reported that a regional coalition has been formed to review river
crossing alternatives, as the more involved with surrounding communities for solutions,
the more likely Monticello is to gain funding support. Rickart stated that federal funding
exists and cycles will be coming up; Monticello will work with Mn/Dot to get some
projects into the funding priority list. The other option for improvements funding is
through local assessments. Rickart cited CSAH 18, which was built with a local
assessment program.
Rickart concluded by outlining the next steps, which include the incorporation of public
hearing comments. Staff will bring those comments, along with results of meetings with
outside agencies, forward to the City Council. He reported that staff is looking at
Council adoption in March of this year.
Engineer Westby clarified that when staff discusses a recommendation as related to
roundabouts, staff is recommending a detailed study on the level of service these types of
improvements would provide to the corridor. In short, the goal would be to provide a
much better foundation of knowledge before recommending that the City move forward
with an actual implementation alternative. Westby also introduced the outside agency
representatives present, including Terry Humbert with Mn/DOT, John Mentor, the
Sherburne County Public Works Director, and Wayne Fingalson, Wright County
Highway Engineer.
Chairman Dragsten inquired if all of the Highway 25 improvement options would be
further studied, or is staff recommending that just the roundabout study move forward.
Westby stated that there may be elements recommended that do not require great study.
However, with any major improvements, a larger study is commenced to cover
environmental impacts and design impacts and to look at costs and benefits. Westby
stated that the study would look in detail at whatever options the City directed.
Community Development Director Schumann again addressed the Commission, stating
that the Police Commission has reviewed the document and would forward comments to
the City Engineer. The Parks Commission has also reviewed the plan, in particular the
Trails portion. They recommended approval, with some comments. Schumann entered
into the record the draft minutes of the Parks Commission for that purpose. Schumann
reported that the IEDC had also reviewed the plan. While the IEDC did not provide a
formal recommendation, they did provide general comments for the Commission's
5
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09
review. Other formal written comments from the public had been received and were also
entered in record.
Commissioner Gabler provided her thoughts on the plan, stating that she thought the plan
functioned very well. She stated that in some areas, it was perhaps too vague and could
have been more detailed, for example in the area of transit. Gabler noted that Monticello
has strong potential for growth, which should cross beyond residential into other
development sectors. This notation was made in relationship to the plan introduction.
Gabler stated that table 5.1 seemed to provide a good task list for future transportation
improvements. She also noted that in terms of a possible river crossing at Washington
Avenue, the IEDC commented on the proximity to the hospital and she noted that further
study ion relationship to hospital expansion would be needed. Finally, in looking at the
timeframe presented in the plan she asked if there was a way to look at the interim
picture, for example projections at 2015. Rickart stated that the 2030 timeline was
selected due to a complete land use plan for development to that point. Rickart explained
that the City would need to determine a land use picture for 2015 in order to determine a
transportation projection for that timeframe. Gabler inquired if an analysis of what
impact another interchange in the west would have in terms of impact on the City's
industrial park. Rickart stated that typically, the development would drive the
interchange location. Rickart noted that the interchange would obviously provide an
improvement for access to those industrial developments. Gabler suggested that a better
clarification of timing on an interchange was needed.
Commissioner Spartz began his comments by stating that he thought transportation in
many ways dictates land use. Spartz stated that the Highway 25 corridor is his biggest
concern and found this plan addresses that issue in depth. He indicated that he would
support working with neighboring communities to improve transit options. There is a
great need to look at how to make transit function better and he believed that it should be
a 0-5 year option. Spartz stated that his other suggestion related to river crossing. He
indicated his discouragement at it being a long-range solution. Spartz commented that a
researching a second river crossing needs to be a clear direction for the City.
Spartz continued, stating his personal view as a user of the current roundabout in
Monticello. In that regard, he is not a big fan, as it doesn't seem to function as it should.
While he understands it is a public acceptability issue, he commented that he is struggling
with understanding its application in Monticello. For example, how a large vehicle with
a camper or boat is going to maneuver through a roundabout. If another bridge will help
alleviate the volume of traffic, perhaps the roundabouts will accentuate what happens
downtown. Everything he has read about roundabouts indicates they are safer and allow
traffic to move better. However, he would like to know about situations where they don't
work for comparison purposes, as he is concerned about the volume of traffic coming for
multiple directions.
Commissioner Voight stated that after reading the plan, he thought that as Chapter 6 of
the Comp Plan, this is the best chapter in the entire plan. In his opinion, it is far and
above the quality of the balance of the comp plan because it lays out specific analysis and
potential modifications. While it does not prescribe a specific route, it lays out the
options, along with likely impacts. He stated that it provides guidance with foundations
C
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09
for that guidance. Voight explained that he also approved of the solid justification for the
Fallon Avenue overpass. Before reading this document, that improvement seemed like a
bridge to nowhere. After reading this plan, he indicated that he understands the need.
Voight reaffirmed that preparing the plans for the Fallon Avenue overpass and for a
second bridge crossing is critical. While the river crossing may be a 30 year project, it is
essential to have a plan in place. He cited stimulus funding and that if funding becomes
available in such scenarios, Monticello needs to be prepared. He commented that he
thought the plan was well organized, but that overall, the City needs more aggressive in
planning.
Voight inquired about extending frontage roads along Highway 25; if there was a reason
the roads aren't named. Rickart responded that they are commonly referred to as
frontage roads, but they are extension of Cedar and Deegan, so they could be labeled that
way.
Dragsten re -stated that Fallon Avenue needs to be a top priority. Dragsten agreed that the
plan was well prepared. He cited Table 5-1 with the listing of priorities as an important
tool. He noted the combination of intersection improvements along Highway 25 could be
lumped as one improvement, as they all aid in the functionality of that corridor.
Dragsten questioned whether the City would look at all of the options further, and then
narrow them down. Rickart stated that the next step in a detailed study would be an
intersection control evaluation (ICE). In this case, the ICE would be at 4th Street, 7th
Street and County Highway 75. The City will look at all options for those intersections
from signals to roundabouts. Mn/DOT then reviews the options and from there formal
recommendations will be developed based on the analysis.
Dragsten inquired what the timeline would be for immediate options noted, such as signal
timing and River Street modifications. Rickart answered that District 3 does have an
application in for Highway 25 signal retiming through the first stimulus allotment, which
is about a 12 month timeline. River Street's most recent study will be brought to Council
next week. Pending that review, something may move forward there as well. Rickart
also noted that as far as turn lanes, County 11 will get dual left turn lanes in Sherburne
County in 2010. The Transportation Plan identifies right turn lanes at 7th , I-94 and
County 75 to also support Highway 25 corridor improvements. Those could be
completed with the Highway 25 overlay project, which is expected in 2010.
Gabler commented that if the City is considering turn lanes and also roundabouts, isn't
the City spending money twice? Rickart indicated that would be true. If roundabouts are
truly something the City is interested in considering, it would be important to accelerate
study timing in order to avoid duplicative spending. Dragsten inquired why the old
Highway 75 off ramp doesn't get used as 95th street. Westby responded that the existing
ramp was left in place because Mn/DOT is looking at replacing the twin bridges and
wasn't sure if they would need those ramps for traffic control, so they were left in place.
They will be replacing the bridges in July of 2009 — 2010. Staff will continue to talk with
Mn/DOT on whether the City will be able to use those once the project is complete.
7
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09
Dragsten asked Mr. Humbert and Mr. Fingalson to comment on the overall plan and
roundabouts in particular.
Mr. Terry Humbert, District 3 Project Development Engineer, thanked the Commission
and City staff for the opportunity to review and comment on the plan. Humbert stated
that he had reviewed plan and in general concurred with the results of the plan.
Regarding roundabouts, Mn/DOT is generally in favor of them as they have shown to
reduce crashes and improve travel speeds. While they don't work everywhere, Humbert
stated that extra analysis would be completed to include how semi -trucks or large
vehicles would move through at this location. Dragsten asked Humbert to comment on
Monticello's application in terms of roundabouts. Humbert stated that two-lane
roundabouts are not yet functional on Minnesota highways, although they are under
construction at Highway 95 and 65. He noted that similar to dual lane left turns, people
will learn how to drive them.
Dragsten inquired about bridge funding. Humbert responded that it is most likely that
trunk highway funds would not be eligible because a second bridge would carry local
traffic, which is not on the trunk highway system. There may be State Aid or other local
funding options and federal funding may be available.
Spartz asked Mr. Humbert about multiple roundabouts within a short distance. Humbert
replied that although multi -lane roundabouts are somewhat limited, there are interchange
locations where roundabouts are used at closer spacing. Spartz inquired if those are in
Minnesota. Humbert replied that they are located in Minnetonka and Medford.
Wojchouski stated that she was under the impression that the State is recommending
roundabouts at locations such as Highway 75 and Highway 25. Humbert answered that
in general, it is the favored option for intersections, although there is a caveat that other
constraints that may not yield it as the final option. Spartz inquired what some of those
constraints might be. Humbert responded that it might be right of way acquisition issues,
spacing, or excessive traffic movements in one direction.
Wayne Fingalson, Wright County Engineer, addressed the Commission. Fingalson stated
that although they have not reviewed the plan in great detail, the plan provides a good
framework in terms of how transportation improvements would be constructed.
Fingalson stated that in response to the questions about roundabouts, there is a place for
them, but there is a learning curve as to how they function. There is a good system in
place for evaluating all options.
Spartz inquired about the possibility of partnering with other communities to expand park
and ride and transit options, as this would ultimately take vehicles off Highway 25.
Fingalson commented on the initiative coming out of Wright County Economic
Development to support further study of metro transit expansion. Fingalson stated that
although increasing transit options make sense, getting people across the bridge is still a
problem. Voight indicated that he believes that people will continue to use I-94 to
commute over Northstar as a quicker option.
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09
Fingalson commented that funding is always a factor in any transportation improvement.
Fingalson noted that federal and state funding limitations do exist. While the stimulus
will help, there are still too many projects for the amount of funding.
Westby expanded on roundabout locations on multi -lane roundabouts, noting the two-
lane roundabout in Richfield. The 2020 volume there are projected to be 40,000 vehicles.
There are also multi -lane roundabouts in place in Woodbury on Radio Drive. These are
not on the State Highway system, but are in existence for reference on how these types of
roundabout systems function.
Chairman Dragsten opened the public hearing.
Bob Viering, on behalf of the Monticello Chamber of Commerce, addressed the
Commission. Viering echoed the comment that the Plan is well written and researched.
It provides a good analysis of the current situation and laying out options. He indicated
that the only long-term solution to the Highway 25 issue is the construction of a second
bridge. The Chamber would support seeing steps taken to make this a priority. In regard
to Highway 25, the Chamber would also encourage working with Mn/DOT to implement
the other short-term solutions. Finally, in looking at commuter patterns, Viering cited a
recent study indicating that currently approximately 50% of those living in Monticello
commute into the 7 -county metro area. The vast majority of that is on I-94. Only 20% of
people who live in Monticello live in Monticello. So, as I-94 does impact residents and
those coming in to work in Monticello, Viering stated that the Chamber would add the
improvements to 1-94, including possible expansion, be added as a priority. Viering
noted the presence of Sherburne and Wright Counties, as well as the State, as a positive
to start working on the bridge project.
John Mentor, Sherburne County Public Works Director, addressed the Commission. He
noted that Sherburne County has been working closely with Big Lake, Big Lake
Township, Mn/DOT and the City of Monticello on the dual left turn lane on County 11.
It will be a step to improving congestion on Highway 25. As the last gentleman had
suggested, these entities have already been meeting for a little over a year on these
mutual transportation issues. One of the topics of discussion has obviously been the
bridge. In that regard, while there is a need for the local connection, he encouraged
continued cooperation with the City of Big Lake, Big Lake Township and Sherburne
County. Mentor did not that the County Board does have a current policy prohibiting
condemnation for transportation, which is important to note in terms of a local bridge
project. Dragsten agreed that mutual cooperation will be essential in getting the bridge
project completed.
Shannon Bye, Monticello Township, addressed the Commission. She commented that
relying on the freeway is not always a good option, especially on Fridays and weekends.
She encouraged a closer look at transit. She noted the Chamber's previous comment on
I-94 commuter traffic. In light of that, she stated that the transit option should be viewed
as a part of any I-94 improvement priorities.
Charlie Pfeffer, addressed the Commission representing Ocello, LLC. Pfeffer referred to
carbon -related issues in terms of where development will occur. He stated that as
9
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09
developers, it adds a significant issue as to where people will choose to live and work.
Pfeffer encouraged the Commission to be aware of that and to view the plan as somewhat
fluid in light of those impacts.
Chairman Dragsten asked if it would be possible to clarify comments as related to I-94.
Rickart stated that they could add comments related to the I-94 coalition into the plan.
Terry Humbert indicated that right now, looking at traditional funding, the addition of
lanes to I-94 is probably beyond 2030. Mn/DOT has identified the six -lanes of I-94 as a
`tier -two' project for the stimulus. He explained that an issue to be dealt with is lane
balance. When adding lanes, Mn/DOT needs to be aware of lane transitions. South of
the Crow River, the Metropolitan Council also has some jurisdiction. Dragsten asked
when Mn/DOT may find out about such funding. Humbert stated it would most likely be
2010.
Hearing no other comments, Chairman Dragsten closed the public hearing.
Wojchouski sought confirmation from Westby that the Chelsea Road traffic counts would
be included in the final plan. Westby confirmed that they were inadvertently omitted and
would be included in the final plan.
Spartz commented that although roundabouts may not be his favored option, if it works
best for the Highway 25 corridor, then the essence of moving the plan forward is most
important.
Dragsten suggested that no matter what occurs in short-term on Highway 25, the need for
the bridge crossing is clearly a priority and that it should be moved from 2030-2050
timeline to 2015-2030 timeline. Dragsten inquired if a bridge crossing was included in
the Sherburne County plan. Mentor indicated that it was not. Wojchouski stated that for
Big Lake, this is not an immediate, perceived problem as it is in Monticello. Dragsten
concurred, although it can ultimately impact their commuting residents.
Gabler agreed, noting that as it takes a long time to plan for such improvements, and as
such plan for the improvements from 2009-2015. The Commissioners agreed that the
emphasis should be on planning for this crossing.
Gabler also recommended that the Fallon Avenue Bridge remain the number one priority
for 2009-2015. Dragsten suggested grouping all of the Highway 25 improvements into
one category. Rickart clarified that Fallon Avenue overpass only needed to be completed
before any other interchange be considered. The Commissioners agreed that it was still a
priority.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VOIGHT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE 2009
MONTICELLO TRANSPORTATION PLAN, WITH THE SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS AS NOTED, INCLUDING:
• ALL OPTIONS FOR HIGHWAY 25 IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE
IMMEDIATE STUDY OF A SECOND RIVER CROSSING, BE TAKEN AS A
10
Planning Commission Minutes — 02/03/09
FIRST PRIORITY FOR STUDY AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE CITY
OF MONTICELLO.
• THE COMPLETION OF THE FALLON AVENUE SHOULD REMAIN A
HIGH PRIORITY FOR THE CITY OF MONTICELLO AS STATED WITHIN
THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
THIS MOTION MAY BE BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE AMENDMENT
PROVIDES AN APPROPRIATE TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER FOR THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SUPPORTS THE PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN, AND
FURTHERS THE CITY'S LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES THROUGH
THE PROVISION OF VITAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES.
MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GABLER. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
6. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for final plat for Union Crossings Fourth Addition
and amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for Union
Crossings_ Applicant: Ryan Companies
Planner Grittman presented that staff report for the request, stating that Ryan Companies
is seeking a subdivision of the existing Union Crossings Lot 2, Block 2 to create two
parcels from what is currently one. Grittman reported that the purpose of the subdivision
is to separate the property occupied by the Office Max building from the easterly
remainder of the property. The Office Max parcel will be Lot 1, Block 1 Union
Crossings 4th Addition, and the remainder will be Lot 2. Lot 2 will be set up to
accommodate future development, and may be split again at that time.
Grittman explained that Union Crossings was developed as a Planned Unit Development
to provide for a variety of retail buildings in a shopping center arrangement. The zero -
lot -line subdivision in this case does not raise any issues from a planning standpoint,
since the site was developed to provide utilities and stormwater control on a
comprehensive basis, rather than lot by lot. As such, the engineering staff have
recommendations as to easements and similar issues, but there is no concern with
forgoing the easements that would have otherwise
Grittman stated that staff is recommending approval of the plat as proposed.
Dragsten inquired as to the reasoning for the irregular lot lines. Grittman responded that
it is most likely these jogs are due to carving out lot lines based on needed parking and
private utility connections. Dragsten stated that it would seem this configuration may
eventually lead to property issues. Grittman agreed that is true for residential property,
but in this case, the overall development is under the control of a single property
manager.
Gabler asked if the applicant is familiar with the conditions noted. Grittman indicated
that they are.
11
Planning Commission Agenda – 1/5/10
1
7. Community Development Director’s Update. (AS)
Chief Building Official Appointment
Ron Hackenmueller has accepted the position of Interim Chief Building Official and was
officially appointed by the City Council on December 14th. Ron brings to the
department a great amount of experience, knowledge, communication, and leadership
skills. While the Building Department is adjusting to the new staff level, they are
working on closing out building permits, working on closing out the 2009 rental units and
collecting the 2010 rental applications.
Budget and CIP Adoption
The City Council adopted its 2010 budget on December 14th. Finance Director Tom
Kelly did a tremendous job of explaining the 2010 budget picture and providing context
on how this budget compares to previous years. The City Council also adopted a 2010-
2014 Capital Improvement Plan. This is the first CIP approved by the City. It lays out a
plan for capital expenditures for the City over the next five years. This document is an
incredibly important tool as the City makes fiscal plans for major expenses including land
acquisition, equipment purchases and possible facility development. The full copy of the
CIP is available online. You can view it from a link on the City’s Home page.
MOAA Activity
During its November meeting, the MOAA Board approved a conditional use permit
allowing for a flea market use at the Golf driving range located off of Highway 25 south
of the City limits. The CUP was approved under very narrow conditions, including the
prohibition of any permanent structures for the use. Final minutes for the meeting are
attached.
Zoning Ordinance Revision
Community Development staff have completed a thorough review of the last version of
the draft since the time of the December meeting and have provided those comments to
MFRA.
MFRA will be presenting the code update process to a joint meeting of the Economic
Development Commission and Industrial Development Commission at 7:00 a.m. on
January 5, 2010. The meeting will be held at the Monticello Community Center and the
public is welcome to attend. Later that month, the steering committee will reconvene to
review draft language on zoning districts and uses on Tuesday, January 19th (tentatively
set for 5:00 p.m. at the Community Center).
Off-Street Parking Ordinance: Public Information
The off-street parking ordinance summary was published twice in the Monticello Times
legal section in satisfaction of Statutory requirements. That code is now in full effect.
The amendment information has also been provided to MFRA for code update purposes.
Planning Commission Agenda – 1/5/10
2
The City Council has also set up an interim parking space for these large vehicles in the
I-1 zoned old bowling alley parking lot. Interim parking for large commercial vehicles
will be allowed on this site until May 1, 2009 to Monticello residents only.
The City Council also requested that staff research additional means of publicizing the
new code. An advertisement in the Shopper and/or a flyer in the upcoming utility bills
will be completed in that regard.
Additionally, links to the new ordinance will be placed in a Home page website item.
Kjellberg CUP
Mr. Kjellberg has paid his fees and fine in full. He has indicated that it is his intent to
install a screening fence as directed by the City Council in the spring of 2010.
CGI Productions – Monticello Web Site Video
The City of Monticello is excited to announce the launch of a new program that we feel
will have a significant impact on the promotion of the community. We have entered into
a three year agreement with CGI Communications to produce a series of streaming online
videos highlighting all our community has to offer its residents, visitors, and businesses.
With an easily viewable interface on the official city website (www.ci.monticello.mn.us),
the video showcase will engage viewers in learning more about area attractions,
economic development opportunities, quality of life, and so much more. The City of
Monticello is dedicated to highlighting the advantages of living and working in our
community, and we feel that this program can do just that! The videos will rely on local
testimonials to help the final product feel more authentic rather than just an
“infomercial”.
The first draft of the script to be used in conjunction with the City’s promotional material
has been prepared and is in the review stage.
2010 Street Reconstruction Project
A feasibility study for reconstruction of west River Street from Chestnut to Hwy 25,
associated side streets, and Walnut Street Parking lot is anticipated to be presented to the
City Council in January. Staff will begin holding public meetings and communication
efforts to affected businesses and residents in early January.
Joint EDA/City Council Meeting – TIF and Redevelopment
The EDA and Cit y Council will be holding a joint workshop on January 13th at 6:00 PM
to review current TIF district fund balances and outline priorities for these funds. If you
are interested in how TIF funds can be used to help further the City’s development and
infrastructure goals, particularly in relationship to downtown, you are welcome to attend.
0
T�
0
N
W
C�
D
In
i
w
J
x
a
C�
�-+
U)
• E
Ll'
_�
CCS
O
J
i
(n
r)
O�
N
cn
�
-�
�
0
N
CLS
Q_
O
Q_
�--
L
O
O
Q_
L
�
>
Q
R5
Q
�
_
N
Q
N
•U
U
•�
•U
O
N
CLS
cm
J
co
U
U�
Uma
u -
C)
_0
co
tet-
O
u
co
04
QU)
�
Q
O
OcoQ
C
C/)
C`7
r
00
U
-E-a
00
,.-
p
=
00>
ti
. _
d=
CO
N
O
o
pp
4-a
L6
CN�I
cN
p
00
000
00
N
�
M
..
m
U)
O
m
O
00
.(D
o
O
L
-0
O
:3
LO
m
o
c
w
N
N
O
N
L
�
�
�
X
W
�
N
ry
N
N
o
x
o
_
0
W
o
W cu
o " U)
(3) cu�
CU
cu 4-a
_ U
C� L- 0) p >
om N E•-
-0 -o E H- N U)
r- . c o c:M
(� �o :3° o
0 U- Lo U- Q �
—� o N J p U
N
(D 69- - z
CD��ry•E
� I-
c
O
co
U)
N
0
U
O
C
N
LO
4-
O
m
F--
`°T
O
o
ti
O
_
O
o
O
O
pO
�
Q
p
N
m
O
O
O
NCN
LL
W
Q
-0
2
-0
O
U
U
U
N
C:
-0
-0
E
-0
0�
W
Of
c
O
co
U)
N
0
U
O
C
N
LO
4-
O
m
F--
`°T
LL
O
T—
C)
N
C`7
ti
O
04O
a
QL
W
rm
iff
I%
4-0
W
0
M�
W
M
H
^L
W
4-0
W
1
M_ J
�-
.E
m
E
E
O
U
O
O
N
N
4--
O
U)
N
L
a
w
TIA
(D
t'J
LO
(Y)
N
0)
O
m
i
N
O
o
�
N
N
°?
N
4-0
O
Q�
00
N
cn
�
.�
�
U)
ea
4-
0
O
U
>
W
N
4-j
O
-
4-a
O
�
p
o
CD
O
O
o
-
O
U-
.�
LL
O
C`7
�
--'
U
a
O
°
_
CN
N
4-a :
p
N
C6
x
o
a�
a
c:
a�
cn
I—
D
0
U
N
co
ti
O
N
p
O
L6Nt
U)o
00
m
o
00
.
L6
Cfl
C0
—
O
O
>
I`
O
to
Mme-
O
v
Ul
0
It
Q
x
Nc
a)
O
(1)
N.�
cu
6q
0)
a)
z
U)
r
V
.>
Q�
C
(1)
:3
O
V)
L-
C/)
(3)
�
N
X
-1
`�
O
o
OT-
z
L
O
c-
O
LO
O
N
L40--
cc
N
O
Op
>
-in
QJ
Co
4-00
O
U)_N
O
to
.C:
�
X
4-
O
N
C
O
N
4-,.0
c-
E
�
(ll
c
Co
(ll
(n
U
U)
0
(D
Q
O
a
�
N
}'
O
O
4-0
O
O
(D
s=
o
O
Q
C
`
•�
dj
O
j
O
:
N
C:
LL
Q -CZ
Q
(3)C:
�a�
aOo
=3
�
W
0
0�
O
.cr
-D
U
6
Cfl
U
Q
N
LO
E
u
O
O
N
(Y)
CM
U
�-
co
M
CN
CO
�
N
�>'
U
C�
L-
0
(n
:�-�
Eft
6
4-a
70
00
d-
-0
Cy)
00
U)
L-
Q�O
>00X
�=
N
_I
N
mU)
U
oCo
X
C:
—
c6
LOa�
CL
>>
ku
>
0U
U
-�
6q
—
a�
>
m
co
4.,
0-
—
N
.�
N
N
U
>
L
L,
L
CCS
X
:3�
O
I�
I
U
0
U=
a)
LL
I�
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
00
O
O
N
ti
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
LO
O
O
N
d
O
O
N
M
O
O
N
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
00
O
O
N
A
u
OO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
LO
O
In
O
LO
Eft
N
N
I
r-
Eft
EFt
Eft
U:?
O
Eft
O
0
O
0
O
M
O
O
O
L
N
O
O
O
O N
Ln d
N
� f0
O
O 6.
O
o �
O
N
fft
O
O
O
U')
ti
T -
Eft
O
0
O
LO
M
T -
Eft
0
0
N
O
O
O
N
00
O
O
N
O
O
N
m
0
0
N
LO
O
O
N
O
O
N
M
O
O
N
N
O
O
N
M
v -
c
.0
4—a
m
E
0
4—
0)
C=
O
0
U
O
WE
0
00
m
O
O
O
(3')
N
O
O
O
06
O
ti
(9
W
LO
64>
6p.�
6C.)-
6c>
Q
U
.m
m
C
O
(� E
—
LO co
0 oi N
U O
(13 �+—
a� (D • j
U O ccO
� G
C _o 0S
G M ()
O (D c
LO (D •C:
c
U
C9
>,
N
c
O
N
OU
O
O
00
�O
Q
U
O
EC
N
O
C:Ca
OU
(�
N
OU
V
�
U
N
U
N
U
a..,
O
cn
CU
a)
N
Cc/)
U_
co
E
c�
U
C`7
r
r
00
00
Ni
C`7
60-
0-
4-
4-
0
0
--
N
C=
N
U
:3
4-0,
o
C`-
m
(D
C)
� :
ti
r* --C`-
U
oLo
�
0-
�.
.�...,
CD
�
o
�-
o
-.
U)
a
�
c
m
J
Ca
O
�
U)
X
O
�-j
Organization and regular monthly meeting of Monticello Joint Planning Board
Wednesday, November 18, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. at the Monticello Township Hall at
8550 Edmonson Avenue NE, Monticello, Minnesota.
Board members present were Brian Stumpf, Pat Sawatzke, Franklin Denn and Clint
Herbst. Brett Holker was absent. Others Present: Tom Salkowski, Nancy Kopff, Harlan
Peterson and daughter.
Sawatzke called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Stumpf moved to accept the agenda as
presented for November 18, 2009; Herbst seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Minutes of October 14, 2009: Stumpf moved to approve the minutes of September 9,
2009 as presented; Denn seconded and motion passed unanimously.
Salkowski reviewed the proposal for the Peterson property. An outdoor flea market is
allowable as a conditional use under the Outdoor Recreation, General Agricultural zoning
district. The Monticello Joint Planning Board reviewed the proposal at the October 14`x'
meeting and identified 12 conditions that members felt should be addressed in the final
motion. As such, a motion approving the proposed
flea market has been drafted and was presented to the board.
Stumpf questioned if signage on Highway 25 was needed. Salkowski said that the
applicant will have to work with MNDot, but the state department has not requested no
parking signs yet. Denn stated that he is extremely concerned with safety at this
intersection; turning on and off of Highway 25 here is very difficult. Stumpf pointed out
that on weekends there is less traffic, and said that really no matter what this property is
used for, the road hazards exist here.
Mr. Peterson was asked if he had any additional information to provide. He said, no.
Salkowski asked if the existing driveway will be used, and Peterson said it would be,
although some improvements will need to be made on it. Hersbst said that he can support
the plans with the proposed conditions; he wants to see a low investment in the business
so that there is no pressure to continue the CUP if there are problems with the operation.
Sawatzke said that it should be pointed out that food sales would be limited on this site —
a tavern or restaurant is not allowed. Peterson said that only vendor food sales would be
used. Herbst said alcoholic beverages should also be prohibited; Peterson agreed. Denn
thought this should be included in the motion. Sawatzke asked that Condition #13 be
added, stating that no alcohol consumption or sales will be allowed on site. Sawatzke
asked if there were any other public comments. There being none, the public hearing was
formally closed at 7:50 p.m. Herbst stated that he felt that the discussion and conditions
make it clear that this permit will not be renewed if there are problems with the operation.
Board also agreed that MNDot should be notified of the conditions of this permit and
notified that if no parking signs are needed on Highway 25 the applicant will be
responsible for the cost.
Herbst moved to accept the motion as follows:
The Board finds that the proposed use by this applicant can qualify as a Conditional
Use in the Agricultural Zoning District as "Commercial Outdoor Recreation" if
certain conditions and operating terms are met. However, based on the limited
plans and narratives submitted by the applicant, the unique nature of the proposal
and the inability to fully predict the potential impacts, the Board finds that it is
necessary to review the operation after one year to determine if new or expanded
terms and conditions are needed, or it there prove to be significant impacts to public
safety or welfare, or violations of the terms of this permit, it may be revoked.
Pending a review at the first meeting of the Board after September 15, 2010, the
permit is issued subject to the following conditions.
1) Advertising and signage shall comply with County zoning regulations. 2) No
earthmoving shall take place until drainage/excavation plans have been approved
by the zoning office. 3) Garbage and any waste materials on site must be disposed of
properly, with an appropriate number of receptacles on site at all times. 4) The
permit is for a series of "one -day" markets and the items/materials to be sold must
be in accord with usual items found at a flea market or farm market, including
items such as antiques, used household items, curios and secondhand goods, farm
and garden products, and other wares which can be displayed on tabletops. No
vehicle sales, carnival rides, live entertainment, loud music or any other uses not
specifically allowed herein is granted approval by this permit. Under no condition
shall any camping, overnight -stays, or the overnight storage of materials on site he
allowed. 5) Hours of operation shall be limited to between 9 am and 6pm on
Saturdays and Sundays and legal holidays which fall on a Friday or Monday, April
0 to October 1St. 6) All sales areas must be set up in the morning and removed the
same evening, in accord with the plan on file. No permanent structures are
approved, with the exception of a screening fence which is required to surround the
area used for temporary bathroom facilities. Solid fencing, such as wood, will be
required around the portable toilets. Toilet facilities will be required on-site in
accord with the guidelines discussed and held on file. .
7) The existing access will be used, no new access the the Township Road or State
Highway will be allowed. "No Parking" signs shall be posted along State Highway
25 and 85t" Street, at the expense of the applicant/owner, in accord with MnDOT
and Township standards. 8) The Board reserves the right to require an upgrade of
the parking lot surface to comply with County standards at the annual review. At
no time may any parking take place on any public road right-of-way. 12) At least
one employee or representative of the applicant must be on site at any time the
operation is active. The applicant shall be responsible to provide the township with
a phone number of a responsible person who will be available in case of any
problem or emergency while the operation is active. 9) No alcohol consumption or
sales will be allowed on site.
Stump seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.
Peterson thanked the Board.
Bills: Salkowski presented the Monticello Joint Planning Board Expenses for 2009 to the
board. Denn moved to approve the bills for 2009 as presented; Herbst seconded and
motion passed unanimously.
Motion to adjourn was made 8:05 p.m.