Planning Commission Agenda 05-16-2013 (Special Meeting)Memorandum
To: Planning Commission
From: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
Date: 5/16/2013
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
As requested, please find enclosed the draft versions of the Comprehensive Plan
amendments to be considered at the regular June Planning Commission meeting. They are
being provided in advance in order to allow additional review time by the Commission and
have been posted accordingly online.
The entirety of Chapter 2 — Community Context is proposed for amendment due to
updated information from the 2012 Census and American Community Survey.
There are minor text amendments to Chapter 3 to reflect the amendments proposed in
Chapter 4.
Chapter 4 — Economic Development is proposed to be amended in its entirety to
include the text and graphics as proposed.
For ease of reference, I have included the previous version of the Economic Development
chapter. The new version notes "Updated 2013" at the bottom.
I did not include the existing Chapters 2 and 3, but both are available online at
www.ci.monticello.mn.us, if you would like to view the existing chapter language.
A full staff report reviewing the proposed amendments and the process leading to the draft
amendments will be provided with the June agenda.
.fl O v v¢ O ri U 46 O ��+ v Cd Q)
.. U i".
cz 1-4
o� a�
2 a� 3 o v cu a`ni
O h 40 ° q. 0. c°n L: U 3 N cdN y �" ° �: U
w U a) C,N tn
CtS •U ° E � ^d 3 oN � W `>' .� N o cd, O. �' ti a)
U N � � L00� � r>O4 L � C'sNSGJi p
U L. s.
° cd U w°Q) . 4 B O O cz U U
M bA
p .O "" U U cC y N f� >� `n O ° y O y y p f� CU
by
�, y O y r 3 U 3 y p O 0 z m� y O Z 4+ 41 f4
cn U C. 0 O Ep W s. 4. C> °> O O m "" O Cl ti �i U N U h
+1 4, O 4U U 0 s. O N« S cC 'v� U v R O CU a) a�
-wu Ln
0 U � v h v cif "" O .. c� t4G � M 0 � � ° '" M SIA � ami -C �
^G O�..I 14 axi w +�- y ^C cid to >' N - vii t cd O r�. O
03 0
jJ Q O N ° Cd ° .i 0i L 4 �i Cd M — •- �i S -I Q;•�y rCSQ) d
Co
14Z u
4- o o w a� N O oA ° o Z o o o �°
w> a) ° N ° o U M o° M o x. M¢
o w ° w ': �'.� o U o .2 �w > �. o a
. w w pz O X � O z O VQ.Zcn 'z co O uOa N O
U (v O .O hO cn y U
y--
a° 3 crU��
Uy O .�O
-d NU ;-4ov > ON UO $ O O
d cd 3 3 ° 0 0
M
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.
► Thousands of cars travel through Monticello every
day. These vehicles increase the potential market
for local business. On the downside, these trips
add to traffic congestion in Monticello.
The Comprehensive Plan seeks ways to seize the
opportunities and to mitigate the threats created by
Monticello's location.
Planning Context
The map in Figure 2 -2 is a composite of key physical
factors influencing future growth and development:
► Existing land use.
► Potential future street corridors, highway
interchanges and highway bridges.
► Planned expansion of the sanitary sewer system.
► Existing powerline corridors.
► Watershed breaklines.
► Public waters and wetlands.
This map illustrates the location and type of physical
factors that will shape future development of Monticello.
This map was used to form and evaluate land use
alternatives during the planning process.
The section that follows explains these physical factors
in greater detail.
Existing Land Use
The planning process began with the investigation and
analysis of existing land use. Monticello is constantly
changing. Development converts vacant land to built
uses. Redevelopment changes the character and,
at times, the use of land. The map in Figure 2 -2 is
a snapshot of Monticello in 2007. This information
forms the foundation of the Comprehensive Plan by
describing:
► The nature and diversity of land uses in Monticello.
► The relationships between built and natural
features of the community.
► Areas with potential capacity to accommodate
future growth.
The map of existing land uses divides Monticello into
a series of residential, commercial, industrial and
public use types. A brief description of each category
of existing land use follows.
Single Family Residential - Traditional single family
neighborhoods where housing units are "unattached"
to one another.
2 to 8 Units - Forms of housing with two to eight units
attached to one another or in a common structure, most
commonly duplexes, twin homes and townhouses.
8+ Units - Higher density residential land uses with
structures containing multiple housing units including
apartments and condominiums.
Manufactured Home Park — Areas that are exclusively
designed for manufactured housing units.
Commercial — Primarily retail and service businesses.
The map shows properties that are currently planned
for commercial use, but have not yet developed.
Industrial - All forms of businesses with manufacturing,
distribution, warehousing or other industrial use. The
2 -2 1 Community Context City of Monticello
N
00
^.�. —+. `
CD
r
K404, Zak* r
3 4
� — • s � ;� �� rL ,1-
rid + 7
T
iii Iii Eapi k-n y is a
eb
{
a *� x _
O 10 •+ t lid ILI
First �FlIII z
Lake
PfTram
Lake ang
oko R
1 I I
s
i Y rl_ 1s
AL
# A
f �
111111111 ' • _, `� .
,c 0 U.25 GS 1
G
-4-
Mites •
ANiGdA Ld � 4
to,nn. -dVIB 40.4 —M— +lct r + ,
l P I IL +� I �� � f� �.
Kb
N
W
map shows properties that are currently planned for
industrial use, but have not yet developed.
K -12 School — Elementary, middle and high schools.
Institutional — Churches, cemeteries, hospitals and
other quasi - public land uses.
Public — Property owned by local (not school), state
and federal governments.
Park - Property in the public park system.
Private Recreation Facility — Golf courses and the
YMCA camp.
Railroad — Rail right -of -way.
Utility — Power plant.
Agricultural - Land outside of the city limits and not
occupied by some other land use.
Natural Features
The natural environment has shaped Monticello's past
and will influence its future. The original community
grew along the Mississippi River. As Monticello grew
away from the River, flat land and reasonable soils
facilitated suburban growth. Looking to the future,
natural features will continue to influence development:
► Much of the prime farm land (as classified by the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and
Wright County) is located in the southeastern
sections of the community.
► Abundant aggregate resources create the potential
for mining in future growth areas.
► Lakes, wetlands and wooded areas offer amenities
to attract development and also to be protected.
In 2008, the City of Monticello adopted a Natural
Resource Inventory and Assessment (NRI /A). The
NRI /A is a set of maps and analysis information on
land, water and air resources. Monticello's NRI /A
also prioritized these resources based on their quality,
character and community value.
The map in Figure 2 -4 shows natural features in
and around Monticello, including sites of Ecological
Significance /Community Importance and High Quality
Natural Areas from the NRI /A.
Street System
The street system continues to play a key role in the
form and function of the community. Streets provide
access to property and the ability for land to develop.
Commercial and industrial land uses rely on this
access to conduct business. Streets allow people
to move throughout the community. The physical
design of streets influences the character of residential
neighborhoods and commercial districts.
The best way to describe the street system is in terms
of its functional classification (see Figure 2 -5). Each
street serves a specific function. The pieces of the
street system must fit together to achieve the desired
functional outcomes. Monticello's street system
consists of five functional classifications: Major
Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector, and Local Streets.
► Major Arterial streets represent regional
transportation corridors that connect Monticello
with other cities. Only I -94 is in this classification.
► Minor Arterials are roadways connect Monticello
with the surrounding region. Within Monticello,
Minor Arterials connect districts and other
destinations. The safe and efficient movement of
vehicles is the most important function of these
streets. State Highway 25 and Broadway /County
75 east of Highway 25 are minor arterials.
► Collector streets form the link between arterials and
local streets. As the name suggests, these streets
are intended to "collect" traffic from an area and
channel it into the arterial system. Collector streets
are typically limited in distance to discourage use
for longer trips. Their design typically places equal
emphasis on mobility and access.
► All other streets in Monticello are local streets.
These streets emphasize access to property. They
are typically designed for shorter distances and
lower speeds.
Orderly Annexation
In 2005, the City of Monticello and Monticello Township
entered into an orderly annexation agreement covering
the property surrounding the City (see Figure 2 -6).
2 -4 1 Community Context City of Monticello
N
O
O
DO
n
0
-�a
ID
C
CD
rD7
N
7
c
c
c/
eb
rL
N
0
w
n
O
0
X_
N
�n
L hM
l�yl
• ~ _r k ����fi�
�i�
— rI Ms
hbma-
_
1 I 1 F•r ,� ,k.. -_• ••:� .. � Mai
I I 1 ti Pl1311�
1
b."a
k I 1 1 I i r.E
ftwnw
— I a
ti.A I -
- .L
•1 f L-
Fa�
II J t
_ � I _ � _ Ir •fir r} ' �•� 1 . 'F I
• � - f -fir l , I
_ _ _ �• 1 a•' I I �� _ I �. �I I
•' 1
1
%i
fl
q •' I li I I �, I I- J •
•,� o I 1 1
I
u f �_
0
N
W
H
UZI
r
a
a
N
N
0
0
.N
N
0
n
0
a
0
A A
nmm ■ � � ,
Ih'tFi {�i -
.,nom
I=�r
■
INN
i� @ 9k1ow WIN .� . ��.sb rd r� ��ii� Miles
0.5 025
N
fl
a
N
O
R
ro
N
N
O
O
cc
e'1
ID
CD
rDO
S
7
i
C
>z
ro
CL
N
C
w
a
(o
N
V
L�
I
I
J
First
• Lake
i
C
Am
'r
0 0.25 0.5 1
w +t Miles
Data Source: MaDNR, Sherburne County, Wright
County, and WSB &Associates. November 1, 201 I 1
13
Legend
Principal Arterial
4'%Wo Minor Arterial
i
^fir Major Collector
'^* Minor Collector
Monticello City Boundary
Or Annexation Area
11 \P
0
`ate
.r
i� rim
lil!1 .
�►r
p1
ilot I
= -M
T
C
m
N
m
m
m
nd
N
00
3
n
0
rc
'X•I
P1
r•F
0
0
�o
0
I r
ti • •V L
1 1 •1
I �.k1.1 �.• .•��• I frr
P 1 •I '� •~ L � 1° rf
m I I y
5 f
-. I• •x 11j1 � k
11: Y I e11j1 � k r'
t 'Ie' ' � � —fir' ' � � •1 Ir ti r ti •1 •1 ' I
1 I •I I. .., •1 ti 1 ;
1-
I'•
1 1 rti
.r �r !�• I � 1 , -J I
1 iP 1
t��Rr- Fi ■:� f -
r r L
Sr
N
NJ
a.
t0
a
k
a
O'
3
a
0
a
This agreement provides a means for the orderly
development of the community without contentious
annexations. It also protects rural portions of the
Township from urbanization. All of the development
shown in the Comprehensive Plan occurs within the
orderly annexation area.
Growth
Monticello celebrated its 150th birthday in 2006. For
most of this time, Monticello was a small town on
the banks of the Mississippi River. Over the past 30
years, the suburban expansion of the Twin Cities has
brought new growth in Monticello. In 1970, the City's
population totalled 1,636. By 2010, the population had
grown to 12,759 (see Figure 2 -7). Between 2000 and
2010, the community grew by 62 %.
Figure 2 -7. Population Trends 1970 -2010
As shown in Figure 2 -8, most of the community's
growth came in the first half of the decade. From 2000
to 2005, the City issued an average of 219 new housing
permits per year. In 2006, the overall slowdown in
the housing market dropped new growth to just 77
new units. This growth trend continued with only 47
permits issued in 2007 and 18 in 2008. After dropping to
only 2 permits each in 2010 and 2011, housing growth
started to rebound in 2012 with 22 permits.
Prior to the housing slowdown Monticello was seeing
a shift from traditional single - family detached housing
to single- family attached housing. In 2004 and 2005,
there were more single- family attached homes built.
Figure 2 -8: Building Permits for New Housing
250
224
200 184
156
150 145 147
1230
100
8 67
8
50
1
22 8 22
0 12 6 9
0 2a za o
a
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
■Single - family detached ■Single - family attached
However, attached housing development seems to have
stopped with the slowdown and not yet recovered as the
City has not seen any new attached housing since 2008.
Housing
Housing is a critical part of the context of planning for
the future of Monticello. It is the single largest form of
built land use. Housing shapes the form and character
of the community. It influences who lives in Monticello
today and in the future.
Housing Type
Figure 2 -9 shows the growth in Monticello's housing
stock. Between the 2000 Census and the 2007 -2011
ACS, Monticello added 1,933 new units, a 64% increase
in the total number of units. Single - family detached
housing remains the most prevalent housing type at
55% of all units.
Figure 2 -9: Housing Type
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Community Context 1 2 -9
Also seen in Figure 2 -8, the fastest
growing housing type between
2000 and the 2007 -2011 ACS was
1 -unit attached housing units.
The proportion of these units of
all units rose from 7% in 1990 to
16% in the 2007 -2011 ACS. Single -
family attached units are defined
as 1 -unit structure that has one or
more walls extending from ground
to roof separating it from adjoining
structures. Common forms are
twinhomes, townhomes, or row
houses.
A comparison of Monticello to
Wright County and the Twin Cities
SMSA in Figure 2 -10 shows that the
community has generally the same
mix of housing units as the Twin
Cities SMSA. The mix is different
than Wright County, which is to be
expected given its rural nature.
The 2007 -2011 ACS identifies
20% of the population as living in
rental housing units. Over half of
all renters live in structures with
more than 5 units, while one -third
live in single - family structures. The
distribution of renters in Monticello
is similar to the Twin Cities SMSA.
Age of Housing
Given the growth of Monticello,
it is not surprising to find that the
housing stock is relatively new,
especially when compared to the
Twin Cities SMSA. One -third of
the housing stock in the 2007 -2011
ACS was built in 2000 or later (see
Figure 2 -12). Only 24% of all units
were built before 1970. Rental
units tend to be older with 40% of
all rental units being built before
1970 as compared to only 18% of
owned units.
Figure 2 -10: Regional Housing Type Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS)
90%
o
0
80%
80%
70%
70%
0
0
�
50%
m
40%
c 60%
u�
'o
30%
x
R
20%
c 50%
ae m
40%
lo%
30%
O
O O
e
0%
20%
Renter SF Owner 2 to 4
�
■Monticello
ti
°
0%
1 -unit,
1 -unit,
2 units
3 or 4 units 5 to 9 units
10 to 19 units
20 or more Mobile home
detached
attached
units
■Monticello
■Wright YTwin Cities
SMSA
Figure 2 -11: Regional Housing Type and Tenure Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS)
2 -10 1 Community Context City of Monticello
90%
0
80%
o
70%
0
0
�
50%
m
40%
'o
30%
x
R
20%
ae m
lo%
O
O O
0%
Owner SF
Renter SF Owner 2 to 4
Renter 2 to 4 Owner 5 or more Renter 5 or more
■Monticello
■Wright W Twin Cities SMSA
2 -10 1 Community Context City of Monticello
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Figure 2 -12: Regional Year Built Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS)
■ Monticello ■ Wright County o Twin Cities SMSA
Built 2005 Built 2000 Built 1990 Built 1980 Built 1970 Built 1960 Built 1950 Built 1940 Built 1939
or later to 2004 to 1999 to 1989 to 1979 to 1969 to 1959 to 1949 or earlier
Year Built
Figure 2 -13: Year Built/Tenure /Age of Householder (2007 -2011 ACS)
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013
Age of Householder
Figure 2 -13 connects the age of
the housing with the age of the
householder and status as renter
or owner across all households in
Monticello. Analysis of this data
shows:
► 25% of all households are
headed by owners aged 35 -64
who are living in homes built
between 1980 and 1999.
► Of households headed by
individuals aged 15 to 34, 40%
are owners who live in a home
built since 2000, while 21% were
renters who live in a home built
before 1980.
► 57% of all households are
headed by those aged 35 to 64,
82% of those in that age bracket
are homeowners.
► 61% of senior households
(householder age 65 and older)
lived in owned housing. Of
renters, 59% live in units built
between 1980 and 1999.
► 41% of rental units are occupied
by households headed by
persons age 34 or younger,
while 21% are occupied by
seniors.
Community Context 1 2 -11
Households
A household includes all the people
who occupy a housing unit as
their usual place of residence.
Household characteristics offer
another perspective on the people
living in Monticello:
► 67% of Monticello households
are family households (see
Figure 2 -14). This compares
with 74% for the entire County
and 64% for the region.
► 49% of all Monticello family
households include a married
couple. This is down from 53%
in 2000 and 56% in 1990.
► 43% of all households included
children under the age of 18.
Only 33% of all households in
the region contained children.
► Of the 1,749 households added
from 2000 to 2010, 63% were
family households. Of these
new family households, 69%
were married couple families.
Monticello has a smaller proportion
of nonfamily households than the
region as a whole (33% to 36 %), but
more than Wright County (26 %).
Monticello's nonfamily households
consist largely of the householder
living alone (78% of nonfamily
households).
Marital status provides another view
of the general family orientation of
Monticello. The 2007 -2011 ACS
indicates that 55% of the population
(age 15 and older) is currently
married. This is a lower level than
reported for the County, but above
the regional average (see Figure
2 -16).
Figure 2 -14: Regional Comparison of Household Type
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Figure 2 -15: Household Type (1990 and 2000)
Total households Family households Married - couple family Nonfamily households Householder living alone
(families)
01990 ■ 2000 (12010
A Family Household includes a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are related
to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. A family household may contain people not related to the
householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder's family in census tabulations. This
means that the population living in family household may exceed the population of families.
Nonfamiliy Households contain a group of unrelated people or one person living alone.
The Householder is the person in whose name the home is owned or rented.
2 -12 1 Community Context City of Monticello
Figure 2 -16: Regional Marital Status Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS)
70% e
60% o
0
50%
40% 9
0 30% - v
c 20% o
0
� o
lo%
0%
Never married Now married, except Separated Widowed Divorced
separated
■ Monticello o Wright County 6A Twin Cities SMSA
Figure 2 -17: Household Size (1990 to 20 10)
3.50
3.04
3.00 2.90 2.85
2.73 2.64 2.68
2.50 2.26 2.25
1.97
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
All households Owned housing Rental housing
■ 1990 ■ 2000 W2010
Figure 2 -18: Regional Household Size Comparison (20 10)
3.50 3.26
3.13 3.15
2.90 2.98
3.00 2.83 2.75
2.64 2.56
2.50
1.97 2.04 2.04
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Average household size Average family size Average household size -own Average household size - rent
■ Monticello ■ Wright County UTwin Cities SMSA
2008 Comprehensive Plan - Updated 2013
The Census shows several trends
about the size of each household:
► The economy has slightly
reversed the historical trend
of households getting smaller.
While the average size of a
household dropped from 2.73
in 1990 to 2.64 in 2000, it
increased to 2.68 in 2010. (see
Figure 2 -17).
► The rebound of household size
is due to renters where the
household size rose from 1.97
in 2000 to 2.25 in 2010. The size
of owner households continued
to drop between 2000 and 2010.
► The average household living in
owned housing is larger (2.85
people per household) than
the typical household in rental
housing (2.25 people).
► For each household and family
type in Figure 2 -18, Monticello
has fewer people per household/
family than for Wright County
as a whole. However, it is larger
than the Twin Cities SMSA.
Community Context 1 2 -13
Mobility
Mobility is an important
characteristic of Monticello's
population. Unfortunately, between
the 2000 Census and the 2007 -2011
ACS the question changed from
residence in previous five years to
residence previous year. While this
change helps with understanding
mobility moving forward, it does
prevent historical comparisons at
this time.
In the 2007 -2011 ACS, 83% of the
population lived in the same house
the previous year. This compares
to 90% for Wright County and
85% for the region. The Census
does not report movement within
Monticello (the population that
moved to a different house in
Monticello) during this period.
However, it does note that 7% of the
population came from elsewhere
in Wright County. Monticello had
a higher percentage than both the
county or region of people who had
moved from a different Minnesota
county (7 %) or a different state (3 %)
Another measure of mobility is
the year moved into their current
residence. In the 2007 -2011 ACS,
74% of Monticello's population had
moved into their current house
2000 or later. This compares to 62%
in Wright County and 60% in the
region.
These mobility statistics suggest
that Monticello's population is
relatively new to the community.
These residents have had limited
time to form connections to
the community. The sense of
community history has a short time
horizon.
Figure 2 -19: Regional Comparison of Residence Previous Year
Figure 2 -20: Year Moved Into House (2000)
50%
46%
45%
40%
3S%
35%
35%
30%
28% 28%
25%
21%
21% 21%
20%
18%
15%
1% 10%
10%
5% 5% 5% %
3% 4
5%
2yo l0
0%
2005 or later
2000 to 2004
1990 to 1999
1980 to 1989 1970 to 1979 1969 or earlier
■ Monticello
■ Wright County
V Twin Cities SMSA
2 -14 1 Community Context City of Monticello
Figure 2 -21: Age of Population
6,000
4,977
5,000
4,000
3,333
3,000 2,893
2,390
2,000 1,846 1,915
1,292 1,303 1,192 1,207
1,000 507 799 697 519 698
0
Under 5 years 5 to 19/20 years 19/20 years to 44 45 to 64 Over 65 years
■ 1990 ■ 2000 X12010
Figure 2 -22: Age Distribution City /County /Region (2000)
100%
90% f
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10% _
0%
Monticello Wright County Twin Cities SMSA
1165 and older ■ 35 to 64 ■ 20 to 34 115 to 19 u Under 5
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013
Demographics
A comprehensive plan focuses
most closely on the physical aspects
of community - land use, parks,
streets, and utilities. Planning
must recognize that the physical
and social aspects of community
are intertwined. It is impossible to
plan for the future without a careful
examination of the demographic,
social and economic characteristics
of the community.
Age
Monticello's population increased
from 4,941 in 1990 to 12,759 in
2010, a 158% increase. As shown in
Figure 2 -21, the population grew in
all age brackets.
An issue raised at community
meetings was that Monticello is
a "starter" community. Young
families buy their first home in
Monticello, but move away later
in life. A comparison with Wright
County and the Twin Cities SMSA
does show that Monticello has a
larger percentage of families with
children (72 %) than the Twin Cities
SMSA (63 %).
Monticello has a smaller population
of older residents. Only 9% of the
2010 population was age 65 or
older. The senior population is
slightly smaller than for Wright
County (10 %) or the Twin Cities
region (11 %).
Monticello is a relatively young
community. The 2000 median age
of Monticello's population was 32.4
years. This compares with 35 years
for the county and 37 years for the
region.
Community Context 1 2 -15
Race
It is important to understand how
the Census addresses racial issues.
The Census allows people to select
the race or races with which they
most closely identify. The standards
for collecting and presenting data
on race and ethnicity were revised
for the 2000 Census. The new
guidelines are intended to reflect
"the increasing diversity of our
Nation's population, stemming from
growth in interracial marriages and
immigration" As a result, race data
from prior to 2000 is not directly
comparable.
An examination of Census data
shows diversity in Monticello did
increase from 3% in 2000 to 7%
in 2010. The racial diversity of
Monticello's population is similar
to Wright County, but less than the
region as a whole (see Figure 2 -24).
Another factor in understanding
race data is the reporting of the
Hispanic population. People who
identify their origin as Spanish,
Hispanic, or Latino are not classified
as a separate racial category. They
may be of any race. The number
of people reported as Hispanic or
Latino (of any race) rose from 160 in
2000 to 686 in 2010. Monticello's 5%
proportion is notably greater than
Wright County's 2% and the same
as the region.
School enrollment data collected
and reported by the Minnesota
Department of Education provides
a more current look at the racial
composition of Monticello's
population. For the 2012/2013
school year, the four schools in
2 -16 1 Community Context
Figure 2 -23: Race (1990 to 20 10)
14,000
12,000
I
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
m
0
White Black or African American Indian or Asian Some other race Two or more races
American Native Alaskan
0 2000 , 2010
Figure 2 -24: Regional Comparison of Race (2010)
Figure 2 -25: Race of Elementary School Population (2006107)
MONTICELLO SENIOR HIGH
MONTICELLO MIDDLE
PINEWOOD ELEMENTARY
LITTLE MOUNTAIN ELEMENTARY
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 00oh
O American Indian ■Asian 0Hispanic ■Black OWhite
City of Monticello
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 2 -26: Regional Place of Birth Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS)
e a o 0
o �
Native - born in MN Native - born in other Native - born outside US Foreign born - naturalized Foreign born - not a citizen
State citizen
■Monticello ■Wright County W Twin Cities SMSA
Figure 2 -27: Regional Place of Birth Foreign Born Population - Comparison
(2007 -2011 ACS)
80%
0
60%
o ;\
40%
o e m
ry
20% ry
m
0%
Europe Asia Africa Oceania Latin America Northern America
■ Monticello ■ Wright County WTwin Cities SMSA
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013
Monticello School District reported
that 9% of total enrollment was a
race other than white. (In this data,
Hispanic is classified as a category
of race) This is up from 7% in the
2006/2007 school year. The chart
in Figure 2 -25 shows the racial
composition for each school. Little
Mountain Elementary has the most
diverse student population.
Another way of looking at the ethnic
characteristics of the population
is place of birth. Only 1.7% of
Monticello's population was foreign
born in the 2007 -2011 ACS. As
with race, the ratio of foreign born
residents is similar to county and
well below regional levels (see
Figure 2 -26). Of note, the percent of
foreign born dropped slightly from
the 2000 Census.
The chart in Figure 2 -27 compares
the place of birth for the foreign born
population. Latin America was the
most common place of birth for all
Jurisdictions. 55% of Monticello's
foreign born population was born
in Latin America.
Community Context 1 2 -17
Income
Income influences many aspects of
community. Income provides the
capacity to acquire housing (own
or rent) and to purchase goods
and services from local businesses.
Income influences the demand for
and the capacity to support public
services.
Census data shows that Monticello
has more households earning less
than $35,000 than the county. In
addition, the community has a
lower percentage of high income
households than either the county
or region. (see Figure 2 -28).
Figure 2 -29 compares Monticello
with other cities in the northwest
sector of the Twin Cities region.
For both measures of income,
Monticello falls below all
communities except Big Lake,
Becker, and Buffalo.
Data about the characteristics of
children enrolled in the public
school system provide some
insights about current economic
conditions. In the 20012/13 school
year, Monticello elementary schools
reported that 26% of the student
population was eligible for free
and reduced price lunches. This is
an increase from the 21% eligible
in 2006/2007 school year. For
individual schools, this segment of
the student population ranges from
less than 22% to 29% (see Figure
2 -30).
2 -18 1 Community Context
Figure 2 -28: Regional Income Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS)
Figure 2 -29: City Comparison Incomes (2007 -2011 ACS)
120,000
m
m o
100,000
v o 0 o m n
80,000 ° o^ _ n n
e m
60,000
40,000
20,000
Median household Median family
■Monticello ■Albertville MBecker ■Big Lake
• Buffalo ■ Elk River W Otsego O Rogers
Figure 2 -30: Socio- Economic Indicators Monticello Schools (20012113)
City of Monticello
3,000
d 2,500
9
O
2,000
r 1,500
a
1,000
500
0
Figure 2 -31: Educational Attainment
Less than 9th 9th to 12th High school Some college, no Associate degree Bachelor's degree Graduate or
grade grade, no graduate degree professional
diploma (includes degree
equivalency)
.1990 u 2000 _ 2007 -2011
Figure 2 -32: Regional Educational Attainment Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS)
Educational Attainment
The Census shows an increase
in college education among
Monticello residents. From 1990 to
the 2007 -2011 ACS, the percentage
of the population age 25 and older
who was a college graduate of
some type (associate, bachelor, or
graduate) rose from 21% to 38 %. In
the 2007 -2011 ACS, only 5% of the
population did not graduate from
high school.
The chart in Figure 2 -32 compares
educational attainment in
Monticello with Wright County
and the region. Monticello has a
noticeably lower level of residents
with bachelors or graduate degrees
than the region.
Employment
Employment touches many aspects
of community life. Jobs provide
the income to pay for housing and
to purchase goods and services.
The location of jobs influences
the amount of time Monticello
residents are in the community each
day. Commuting decisions impact
transportation systems.
Labor Force
The Census looks at the potential
working population as persons
age 16 and older. The Labor Force
includes all people classified in the
civilian labor force, plus members
of the U.S. Armed Forces. The
Civilian Labor Force consists of
people classified as employed or
unemployed.
Monticello's labor force grew with
the population from 1990 to the
2007 -2011 ACS (see Figure 2 -33).
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Community Context 1 2 -19
The share of the working age
population employed in the labor
force grew from 67% to 75 %. It is
important to note, however, that
unemployment during the same
period also rose from 3.8% to 5.3 %.
The increase in the employed
population primarily came from the
transition of folks not in the labor
force. This would include students,
stay at home parents, or seniors,
into the labor force. The percentage
of those classifying themselves as
not in the labor force dropped from
29% in 1990 to 20% in the 2007-
2011 ACS.
Occupation
Figure 2 -34 compares the occupation
of Monticello's population with the
county and region. Monticello
stands out with a lower percentage
of the working population employed
in managerial and professional
occupations. Unfortunately due
to changes in occupation coding,
historical comparisons of this data
is unavailable.
An examination of Quarterly
Census of Employment and Wages
shows that between the 1st quarter
of 2002 to the 1st quarter of 2012,
Monticello did have an increase in
the number of establishments and
employees. Monticello's 24% growth
in the number of employees was
greater than either Wright County
(18 %) or the state (2 %). Note that
given a change in data collection
methods, not all industries are
represented in the table. This data
shows a better overall growth than
was found in Table 2 -5 of the 2010
Business Retention and Expansion
Research Report. That report looked
Figure 2 -33: Population in the Labor Force
Figure 2 -34: Regional Occupation Comparison
45% v
40%
0
M
35% e e
30% m o e
N
0 25%
20% o 0
a
15%
U 10% ~
%
0
o% -
Management, business, Service occupations Sales and office Natural resources, Production,
science, and arts occupations construction, and transportation, and
occupations maintenance material moving
occupations occupations
■ Monticello Y Wright County V Twin Cities SMSA
Figure 2 -35: Monticello Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
2 -20 1 Community Context City of Monticello
Number of Establishments
Number
of Employees
2002
2012
% Change
2002
2012
% Change
Total, All Industries
338
374
11%
5,992
7,427
24%
Manufacturing
26
23
-12%
780
1,041
33%
Retail Trade
57
60
5%
1,058
1,273
20%
Information
7
8
14%
83
87
5%
Finance and Insurance
28
22
-21%
149
129
-13%
Real Estate and Rental
and Leasing
14
18
29%
36
32
-11%
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation
6
4
-33%
88
93
6%
Accommodation and
Food Services
25
38
52%
562
720
28%
Other Services (except
Public Administration)
17
34
100%
152
166
9%
Public Administration
2
4
100%
113
155
37%
2 -20 1 Community Context City of Monticello
Figure 2 -36: Means of Travel to Work
Figure 2 -37. Regional Means of Travel to Work Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS)
100%
a°
90% °m
0' 80%
70%
60%
a 50%
1_
40%
0
3 30%
20%
0%
Drove alone Carpool Public transportation Walk Other Work at home
■ Monticello ■ Wright County W Twin Cities SMSA
Figure 2 -38: Regional Comparison of Number of Vehicles (2007 -2011 ACS)
specifically at the change from 2008
to 2010 where there were losses
in retail trade, manufacturing,
accommodation and food service,
public administration, finance and
insurance, and arts, entertainment
and recreation.
Commuting
Travel to work data shows a very
automobile dependent pattern
(see Figures 2 -36 and 2 -37). The
percent of Monticello workers
driving alone to work increased
from 1990 (78 %) to 2007 -2011
ACS (86 %). Less than 1 percent
of the labor force in Monticello
uses public transportation. More
people walked or worked at home
than used public transportation.
The share of workers that walked or
worked at home remained the same
at 5 %. These commuting patterns
are reflective of other exurban
settings in the Twin Cities regions.
The employment and commuting
patterns contribute to the necessity
of owning an automobile in
Monticello. Only 7% of occupied
housing units did not have a vehicle
(see Figure 2 -37). The percentage
of housing units with two or more
vehicles rose from 58% in 1990 to
65% in the 2007 -2011 ACS.
The Census also collects data on
the average travel time to work.
The 2000 Census reported a mean
commute time of 24 minutes. In the
2007 -2011 ACS, the mean travel
times to work were 28.5 minutes
for Monticello, 29.7 minutes for
Wright County, and 24.5 minutes
for the region.
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Community Context 1 2 -21
100%
90%
83% 86%
78%
p
80%
c
70%
60%
a
50%
40%
`0
30%
'?
20%
15% 12%
10.1
6%
5% 4% 5%
1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%
0%
Drove alone
Carpool Public transportation Other means
Walked or worked at
home
■ 1990 ■ 2000 W 2007 -2011
Figure 2 -37. Regional Means of Travel to Work Comparison (2007 -2011 ACS)
100%
a°
90% °m
0' 80%
70%
60%
a 50%
1_
40%
0
3 30%
20%
0%
Drove alone Carpool Public transportation Walk Other Work at home
■ Monticello ■ Wright County W Twin Cities SMSA
Figure 2 -38: Regional Comparison of Number of Vehicles (2007 -2011 ACS)
specifically at the change from 2008
to 2010 where there were losses
in retail trade, manufacturing,
accommodation and food service,
public administration, finance and
insurance, and arts, entertainment
and recreation.
Commuting
Travel to work data shows a very
automobile dependent pattern
(see Figures 2 -36 and 2 -37). The
percent of Monticello workers
driving alone to work increased
from 1990 (78 %) to 2007 -2011
ACS (86 %). Less than 1 percent
of the labor force in Monticello
uses public transportation. More
people walked or worked at home
than used public transportation.
The share of workers that walked or
worked at home remained the same
at 5 %. These commuting patterns
are reflective of other exurban
settings in the Twin Cities regions.
The employment and commuting
patterns contribute to the necessity
of owning an automobile in
Monticello. Only 7% of occupied
housing units did not have a vehicle
(see Figure 2 -37). The percentage
of housing units with two or more
vehicles rose from 58% in 1990 to
65% in the 2007 -2011 ACS.
The Census also collects data on
the average travel time to work.
The 2000 Census reported a mean
commute time of 24 minutes. In the
2007 -2011 ACS, the mean travel
times to work were 28.5 minutes
for Monticello, 29.7 minutes for
Wright County, and 24.5 minutes
for the region.
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Community Context 1 2 -21
Employment
The U.S. Census Center for
Economic Studies now provides
local employment dynamic data
on its OntheMap website. 2010
data from that website shows that
Monticello provided employment
for 4,684 workers and had 5,432
residents in the workforce (see
Figure 2 -39). Of those employed in
Monticello, only 17% also lived in
the community. Similarly, of those
who reside in Monticello, only 15%
work in the community. This means
that only 835 people both live and
work in the community. Figure 2 -40
provides a snapshot of the inflow/
outflow for 2002 to 2010.
Figure 2 -41 shows that Monticello
how well Monticello is able to
keep workers residing in the
community and residents working
in the community. While Monticello
has noticeably higher retention
rates than Becker, Big Lake and
Monticello, it has a lower rate than
Buffalo.
Figure 2 -40 shows the place of
residence for people traveling to
Monticello for work. The bulk
of the work force continues to
comes from the area surrounding
Monticello. 30% of people working
in the community live elsewhere in
Wright County, including Buffalo
and St. Michael. Another 26% of
the workforce lives in Sherburne
County, including Becker and Big
Lake.
Nearly 40% of Monticello residents
work in Hennepin County, with the
largest percentages in Minneapolis,
Plymouth, and Maple Grove.
Another 15% work elsewhere in
Figure 2 -39: OntheMap 20101nflow /0utflow Job Counts
Employed and Live
? In Selection Area
Employed In Selection Area,
Live Outside
�} Live In Selection Area,
V Employed Outside
Figure 2 -40: OntheMap 2002- 20701nflow /0utflow Job Counts
Figure 2 -41: OntheMap 20101nflow /0utflow Regional Comparison
2002
2006
2010
Employees
3,906
4,239
4,684
Workers Living in Monticello
20.5%
20%
17.8%
Residents Employed
4,400
4,835
1 5,432
Residents Employed in Monticello
18.5%
17.5%
1 15.4%
Figure 2 -41: OntheMap 20101nflow /0utflow Regional Comparison
2 -22 1 Community Context City of Monticello
25%
22% 22%
20%
18%
16%
15%
15%
12%
10%
10%
7%
6% 6%
5%
0%
Resident Employed in City Employee Living in City
Id Monticello o Buffalo a Becker a Big Lake 4 St. Michael
2 -22 1 Community Context City of Monticello
Figure 2 -42: OntheMap 2010 Where Employees Live
Other Place,
Monticello,
12.4%
Monticello,
Anoka County,l
17.8%
3.2% \
Stearns County,
e��o
Minneapolis,
5.0%
Big Lake, 5.9
Hennepin
County, 5.3 %�
Plymouth, 4.6%
Other Wright
Buffalo, 4.0
County, 9.8%
St. Michael
3.5%
Other
Becker, 3.0%
Sherburne
County, 17.7%
Other Wright
County, 22.2%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
Figure 2 -43: OntheMap 2010 Where Residents Work
Other Place,
Monticello,
Anoka County, 9.0%
15.4%
5.0%
Ramsey County,
5.0%
e��o
Minneapolis,
Other
7.8%
Sherburne-
:aunty, 7.7%
Plymouth, 4.6%
Other Wright
Buffalo, 4.5%
County, 9.8%
Maple Grove,
4.3%
St. Cloud, 3.9%
Other Hennepin
r•n nr% -):z no/
Figure 2 -44: OntheMap 2010Income Comparison
0%
No
�e
e��o
ago
sec
a
\•
ae�
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
W More than $3,333 per
month
51 $1,251 to $3,333 per
month
o $1,250 per month or less
Figure 2 -45: OntheMap 2010 Education Attainment by Worker
0%
�e
e��o
ago
sec
a
\•
ae�
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013
o Bachelor's degree or
advanced degree
u Some college or Associate
degree
o High school or equivalent,
no college
W Less than high school
Wright County, including Buffalo
and St. Michael.
OntheMap provides an ability
compare the wages earned by
residents and workers (see Figure
2 -44). The 2010 data shows that
a larger percentage of residents
are able to earn a higher wage
working outside the community
than within the community. It also
shows that the spread of incomes
for jobs within the community held
by non - residents has a generally
equal spread amongst all income
brackets.
Figure 2 -45 compares the reported
educational attainment of
Monticello workers when provided.
This figure indicates that workers in
Big Lake (64 %) and Becker (66 %)
are slightly more educated than in
Monticello (63 %). Buffalo has the
same mix as Monticello. At 60% St.
Michael has slightly lower higher
education levels than in Monticello.
Community Context 1 2 -23
Figure 2 -46: OntheMop 2010 Jobs by NAICS Industry Sector
Retail Trade
Monticello
Count
868
Share
18.5%
Buffalo
Count
889
Share
15.1%
Becker
Count
357
Share
25.0%
Big
Count
296
Lake
Share
13.7%
St. MichaeM
Count Sha
317 11.3%
Educational Services
807
17.2%
510
8.7%
437
30.6%
341
15.8%
183
6.5%
Health Care and Social
Assistance
804
17.2%
1,943
33.0%
111
7.8%
200
9.3%
160
5.7%
Manufacturing
545
11.6%
308
5.2%
224
15.7%
568
26.4%
279
10.000
Accommodation and Food
Services
327
7.0%
490
8.3%
63
4.4%
162
7.5%
494
17.7%
Wholesale Trade
264
5.6%
81
1.4%
79
5.5%
60
2.8%
457
16.3%
Construction
222
4.7%
235
4.0%
15
1.0%
26
1.2%
426
15.2%
Transportation and Warehousing
161
3.4%
34
0.6%
68
4.8%
56
2.6%
36
1.3%
Public Administration
139
3.0%
606
10.3%
0
0.0%
65
3.0%
28
1.0%
Other Services (excluding Public
Administration)
120
2.6%
195
3.3%
9
0.6%
60
2.8%
71
2.5%
Finance and Insurance
96
2.0%
110
1.9%
31
2.2%
28
1.3%
60
2.1%
Professional, Scientific, and
Technical Services
83
1.8%
158
2.7%
18
1.3%
37
1.7%
67
2.4%
Administration & Support, Waste
Management and Remediation
69
1.5%
89
1.5%
4
0.3%
17
0.8%
70
2.5%
Management of Companies and
Enterprises
70
1.5%
20
0.3%
0
0.0%
2
0.1%
68
2.4%
Real Estate and Rental and
Leasing
32
0.7%
43
0.7%
4
0.3%
12
0.6%
30
1.1%
Arts, Entertainment, and
Recreation
30
0.6%
54
0.9%
4
0.3%
32
1.5%
32
1.1%
Information
28
0.6%
79
1.3%
5
0.3%
57
2.6%
6
0.2%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and
Hunting
19
0.4%
51
0.9%
0
0.0%
6
0.3%
13
0.5%
Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and
Gas Extraction
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Utilities
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
130
6.0%
0
0.0%
Total
1 4,684
1 100%
1 5,625
1 100%
1 1,429
1 100%
1 2,155
100%
12,797
1 100%
OntheMap also enables a comparison of jobs by NAICS Industry Sector across communities for 2010. As shown
in Figure 2 -43, the highest percentage of Monticello's jobs are in the Retail Trade, Educational Services, and Health
Care and Social Assistance sectors. Monticello's 11.6% of manufacturing jobs is less than Becker and Big Lake
but larger than St. Michael and Buffalo. When analyzing this table it is important to remember that Monticello
has 4,684 jobs while Buffalo has 5,625, Becker has 1,429, Big Lake has 2,155, and St. Michael has 2,797. This is
particularly important when comparing the communities as some communities may have a higher percentage
of workers in an industry, but yet the total number of employees in that sector may be less as they have a smaller
total workforce in that community. For example, while Big Lake has 26% of its workers in manufacturing compared
to Monticello's 12 %, Big Lake only has about 20 more workers in manufacturing than Monticello.
2 -24 1 Community Context City of Monticello
w In v w W v ^C an ° o) to
41 4
x+ s~ v W G>~ G4� Cd ^C y 30 w p
C14 Q)
,S .- .--i Cd O `+'�
O
^" O cCt a am
ti em
U a)
+ ai O O CCC Q , s.
°
G � O w .� '� O y u v
o 3 a 3 O Cd a. o o ° 75 �rA a s v� o cd
a)
b th (U 00 04r i1 1 �J
co co
.r(:)�r
° ° Sr. O CC O4 :t. O Q -1:1'Z" co�O .fir � cd w y .— Q. 4-+ a) CCS � 44-.1
`� 3 > Q) w o ca cu ° In 4 04 v o
14
U •O'� S]. U 0 wSr O.U O aO V}O U4FW y : Q) sy Z �iO 0 O Cl
Q tz cu ' U O �d UC �C�
z O +
° °
: O 4-'N Q>
Cd 0
Ri y`4- •� ^O i]ww 4,1
41 yU �j0. O
4�'C�
• w4 -Ji V -I E0O i +�Q0 4J C- U >
co
Q °
r. ° t'CQ .Q UCo W
a4 X *z "O cCS a) 'n r'Q0. ~ U i In Op VU)
W rA CZ CU N S� ^U" O � ._ y .- v1 U .cd x N N 4-0 �' z h O rn �. �' d z
N U 'C bA O N > O U s4 �p O to .� cd U 4-1 y "a U $ U C z to
U w �n °. d 4� a a Cd 0 4- 0) w Cdw
M
Future Growth
In looking to the future, Monticello must not just
consider the qualities of the future community, but also
the nature of growth. Assumptions about the amount
and pace of future growth are important parts of the
foundation for the Comprehensive Plan. Growth has
several important implications for the Comprehensive
Plan:
► Growth projections are used to plan for the capacity
of municipal utility systems.
► Growth projections are used to create and manage
finance plans for capital improvements.
► The school system uses growth projections to
forecast enrollments and to plan for programs and
facilities.
► Market studies use growth projections to analyze
the potential for locating or expanding businesses
in Monticello.
► The characteristics of growth influence the amount
of land needed to support this development.
► Growth adds trips to the local street system.
► Assumptions about growth influence the
policies and actions needed to implement the
Comprehensive Plan.
For these reasons, it is essential that the Comprehensive
Plan state assumptions of the nature of future growth. A
challenge in forecasting future residential development
is that the Comprehensive Plan influences, but does not
control, the factors that determine where people live.
These factors include:
► Quality of life.
► Access to employment.
► Availability of desired housing and neighborhood
options.
► Affordability.
► Competition from other places in the region.
Given these uncertainties, the Comprehensive Plan
seeks a balance between optimism and prudence.
For many reasons, the Plan should not significantly
understate the growth potential of Monticello. The
balancing force lies with the implications of assuming
Figure 3 -1: Growth Trends and Projections
300
242
22
223 2
208
6] 1
150 150 150 150 150 150 150
130
710
90
�� 70
50
250
p 30
200
+Actual
150
t projected
100
50
0
'LOp'L
'Ledo
.LO�ro
'LO.�'L 'LD.�A 'LOyO
.LO,LO
LOpO
LQO�`
L0.�0
Lo,�O
256
242
22
223 2
208
6] 1
150 150 150 150 150 150 150
130
710
90
�� 70
50
p 30
more growth than is reasonable. The chart in Figure
3 -1 shows the projection of future residential growth
assumed in the Comprehensive Plan.
The projections assumes that the rate of growth slowly
rises over the next five years and continues at a level
of 190 units per year from 2012 to 2020. This amount
falls below the 229 units /year average for 2001 through
2005. This rate of growth is intended to reflect several
factors. Monticello will remain a desirable place to
live, attracting both builders and residents. Housing
market conditions will improve from the weaknesses
experienced in 2006 and 2007. A combination
of market conditions, local policy objectives, and
changing demographics may reduce the potential for
achieving and sustaining higher rates of residential
growth. Slower future growth reflects the belief that
achieving the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, in
particular seeking more move up housing, will result
in less development than in previous years.
Growth Policies
1. The City will consistently review recent development
trends and update growth projections to serve as a
basis for public and private planning.
2. Over the life of this Comprehensive Plan, growth
will occur within the boundaries of the current
municipal boundaries and the Orderly Annexation
Area.
3. Future development should be guided to locations
that utilize existing infrastructure and locations
Land Use City of Monticello
that facilitate the construction of street and
utility systems that meet the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate
action by Monticello to annex or extend utility
systems to property immediately north of the
Mississippi River. Development in this area will
place additional traffic on STH 25 (particularly
in the Downtown area) and channel investment
away from other parts of the City, especially the
Downtown.
Land Use Plan Map
The Land Use Plan Map (shown in Figure 3 -2) shows the
desired land use for all property in Monticello and the
Orderly Annexation Area The land use plan depicted
in this map builds on the previous community planning
in Monticello.
The Comprehensive Plan uses the Land Use Plan to
define the broad land use patterns in Monticello. The
Land Use Plan seeks to:
► Organize the community in a sustainable
manner.
► Make efficient use of municipal utility systems
and facilitate the orderly and financially feasible
expansion of these systems.
► Provide the capacity for the type of growth desired
by the community.
The Land Use Plan Map is only one piece of the land
use plan for Monticello. The other parts of the Land
Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan work with this
map to explain the intent and objectives for future land
use. Further, this map lays the foundation for land use
controls that are used by the City to implement the
Comprehensive Plan.
Land Use Categories
The Land Use Plan Map uses a set of specific categories
to guide land use in Monticello. One element missing
from the 1996 Comprehensive Plan was a description
of the land use categories shown in the Land Use
Plan. The ability to use the Comprehensive Plan as
an effective land use management tool requires a
definition of each land use. These definitions provide
a common understanding of the basic characteristics
of each category used in the Land Use Plan.
The 1996 Plan relies on three basic categories of private
land use: residential, commercial and industrial.
Each of these categories is further divided into
subcategories that distinguish between the character,
type and intensity of development desired in different
locations.
The 2008 update of the Comprehensive Plan uses a
different approach to achieve similar land use patterns.
The Land Use Plan map depicts series of "places" for
private development: Places to Live, Places to Shop,
Places to Work, and Downtown. This approach is based
on the following rationale:
► These broad categories more clearly illustrate the
pattern of development and the plan for future
growth.
► Although residential land uses vary by type and
density, they share many public objectives.
► This approach makes a more enduring
comprehensive plan. The Plan can guide an area
for the appropriate land use without the need
to predict future community needs and market
forces.
► The Plan relies on policies, land use regulations,
performance standards and public actions to
provide a more detailed guide for land use and
development. This approach conveys more
flexibility and control to the City Council and the
Planning Commission.
Role of Zoning Regulations
Zoning regulations play a critical role in implementing land use plans in
Monticello. State Law gives zoning regulations priority over the Comprehensive
Plan. If land uses are different, zoning regulations control the use of land.
Zoning regulations are particularly important in the application of the land
use categories in the Monticello Comprehensive Plan. The "places to" land
use categories set forth a broad and flexible land use pattern for Monticello.
Zoning regulations (and other land use controls) will be used to determine the
appropriate location for each form of development and other regulations on
the use of land, consistent with policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -3
Figure 3 -2: Land Use Plan Map
N s �" ■ I
;i �� rv. p,. o� r■ ' 4 I *mow
a � I\ ♦
� s
F
I
—$ f '
i
4 � �
�ro i ♦ -
ro
� J �
L �
I1 � om
3 -4 1 Land Use City of Monticello
0
a.
0
0
cC
C
U
v
Ib
wq
I
■
ED
,� -
o EY
o
T
r ,
71—
m
Q o
CO
a a a a a o E
o
5 a' 3 a
a ii w a;
O
c SO❑�"
`l7,�
5
N s �" ■ I
;i �� rv. p,. o� r■ ' 4 I *mow
a � I\ ♦
� s
F
I
—$ f '
i
4 � �
�ro i ♦ -
ro
� J �
L �
I1 � om
3 -4 1 Land Use City of Monticello
0
a.
0
0
cC
C
U
v
Figure 3 -3: Land Use Plan - Places to Live
The remainder of this section describes the categories
used in the Comprehensive Plan in greater detail.
Places to Live
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create and sustain
quality places for people to live in Monticello (see Figure
3 -3). This category designates areas where housing is
the primary use of land. The emphasis behind Places to
Live is to help ensure that Monticello offers a full range
of housing choices, while preserving and enhancing the
quality of neighborhoods. Although a single land use
category, Places to Live does not suggest housing is a
homogenous commodity or that any type of housing is
desirable or allowed in any location.
When someone says "house" the most common image
is a single family detached dwelling. This housing style
is characterized by several features. There is a one -to-
one relationship between house and parcel of land - the
housing unit is located on a single parcel. The house is
not physically attached to another housing unit. The
housing is designed for occupancy by a single family
unit. The typical neighborhood in Monticello is made
up exclusively of single family detached homes.
The primary variables become the design of the
subdivision, the size of the lot and the size and style of
the dwelling. Many older neighborhoods in Monticello
(north of Interstate 94) were built on a traditional grid
street system. Over the past thirty years, development
patterns have moved to a new suburban curvilinear
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -5
2,q
0
10
`
` ♦
\♦
o
Keller Lake
F
-
.°
�--
25
oil
♦.
First
■ ■' •■�
■
- - ♦\
—
Lake
Mudy
■j�I�_
♦,
_
� AMss --
Lake
L—
I
Bertram -
Lake on9
\1
I
-
`�♦ I ''I
_
—
v
i
■ _ I �
,..
1
•
North
- Lake
_106
�.
♦.... -.....
.�s o osa "1
Mlles •......
♦
►ate•
�`
Dah Sown. ?hnD \R, Shabwne Camtr,Wr�ht
Ctv¢t♦= ,arviR38 &.4ssaoata.. —h S, 2003
1
_ +
' ey1
� \�
\
The remainder of this section describes the categories
used in the Comprehensive Plan in greater detail.
Places to Live
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create and sustain
quality places for people to live in Monticello (see Figure
3 -3). This category designates areas where housing is
the primary use of land. The emphasis behind Places to
Live is to help ensure that Monticello offers a full range
of housing choices, while preserving and enhancing the
quality of neighborhoods. Although a single land use
category, Places to Live does not suggest housing is a
homogenous commodity or that any type of housing is
desirable or allowed in any location.
When someone says "house" the most common image
is a single family detached dwelling. This housing style
is characterized by several features. There is a one -to-
one relationship between house and parcel of land - the
housing unit is located on a single parcel. The house is
not physically attached to another housing unit. The
housing is designed for occupancy by a single family
unit. The typical neighborhood in Monticello is made
up exclusively of single family detached homes.
The primary variables become the design of the
subdivision, the size of the lot and the size and style of
the dwelling. Many older neighborhoods in Monticello
(north of Interstate 94) were built on a traditional grid
street system. Over the past thirty years, development
patterns have moved to a new suburban curvilinear
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -5
pattern, characterized by curvilinear street layout with
the use of cul -de -sacs.
A variety of factors, including consumer preference
and housing cost, have increased the construction
of attached housing in recent years. Duplexes, twin
homes quads and townhomes are common examples
of this housing style. Although the specific form
changes, there are several common characteristics.
Each housing unit is designed for occupancy by a single
family. The housing units are physically attached to
each other in a horizontal orientation.
Places to Live will include some neighborhoods designed
to offer a mixture of housing types and densities.
Mixed residential neighborhoods create a pattern of
that combines single- family detached housing with a
mixture of attached housing types. Using good design
and planning, these mixed residential neighborhoods
can achieve a higher density without compromising
the overall integrity of the low- density residential
pattern.
This integration strengthens neighborhoods by
increasing housing choice and affordability beyond what
is possible by today's rules and regulations. It also avoids
large and separate concentrations of attached housing.
It enhances opportunities to organize development in
a manner that preserves natural features.
A complete housing stock includes higher density
residential areas that consist of multi- family housing
types such as apartments and condominiums. In the
near term, the Comprehensive Plan does not anticipate
expanding the existing supply of higher density housing.
It is likely that Monticello will need additional higher
density housing to:
► Provide housing suited to the needs of an aging
population.
► Facilitate redevelopment in the Downtown or in
other appropriate locations of the community.
► Provide housing needed to attract the work force
required to achieve economic development goals
of the City.
Higher density residential land uses should be located
where the setting can accommodate the taller buildings
and additional traffic.
Policies - Places to Live
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the following
objectives for residential land use in Monticello:
1. Provide a range of housing choices that fit all stages
of a person's life -cycle (see below).
2. Support development in areas that best matches the
overall objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
3. Develop quality neighborhoods that create a
sense of connection to the community and inspire
sustained investment. The Comprehensive
Plan seeks to maintain the quality and integrity
of existing neighborhoods by encouraging the
maintenance of property and reinvestment into
the existing housing stock. Changes in housing
type should be allowed only to facilitate necessary
redevelopment.
4. Create neighborhoods that allow residents to
maintain a connection to the natural environment
and open spaces.
5. Seek quality over quantity in residential growth.
Achieving the objectives for quality housing and
neighborhoods may reduce the overall rate of
growth.
6. Reserve areas with high amenities for "move up"
housing as desired in the vision statement. These
amenities may include forested areas, wetland
complexes, adjacency to parks and greenways.
Some of the City's policy objectives require further
explanation.
Life Cycle Housing
Housing is not a simple "one size fits all" commodity.
Monticello's housing stock varies by type, age, style
and price. The Community Context chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan describes the characteristics of
the housing stock based on the 2000 Census and recent
building permit trends.
The concept of life cycle housing recognizes that
housing needs change over the course of a person's
life (see Figure 3 -4). Young adults may not have the
3 -6 1 Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3 -4: Life Cycle of Housing Supply
11;l
-
f
t._
VIII!' OEM n
FE
'e
r,
�h
3.
r
,r
income capacity to own the typical single family
home. This segment of the population often seeks
rental housing. Families move through different sizes,
styles and prices of housing as family size and income
changes over time. With aging, people may desire
smaller homes with less maintenance. Eventually, the
elderly transition to housing associated with options
for direct care. As noted in the Vision Statement,
Monticello's population will continue to become more
diverse. This diversity will be seen in age, race, culture
and wealth. These factors will influence the housing
needs of Monticello.
The Comprehensive Plan recognizes these differences
and seeks to create a balanced housing supply that
encourages people to move to and stay in Monticello.
This balance may not be achieved solely by market
forces guided by this Land Use Plan. Actions by the
City may be needed to promote the creation of housing
in underserved segments of the market.
Neighborhood Design
A priority for the community is diversification of the
housing stock by providing more "move up" housing.
In this context, the term "move up" housing refers to
larger homes with more amenities in structure and
setting. This type of housing may not be exclusively
single - family detached or low density. Attached forms
of housing with medium or high densities may meet
the objectives for move up housing in the appropriate
locations. In this way, the objectives for move up
housing and life cycle housing are compatible and
supportive.
While every community wants a high quality housing
stock, this issue has particular importance in Monticello.
It is a key to retaining population. Without a broader
variety of housing options, families may encouraged to
leave Monticello to meet their need for a larger home.
It is a factor in economic development. One facet of
attracting and retaining professional jobs is to provide
desirable housing alternatives.
It must be recognized that creating move up housing
requires more than policies in the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan provides a guide for achieving
the desired results. The desired outcomes require
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -7
private investment. This investment occurs when
demand exists or the City can provide an incentive to
attract investment.
Part of attracting move up housing comes from
creating great neighborhoods — places that will attract
and sustain the housing options sought by the City.
Neighborhoods are the building block of Places to Live
in Monticello. The goal of the Comprehensive Plan is
to create and maintain attractive, safe and functional
neighborhoods. The following policies help to achieve
this objective:
1. Neighborhoods should incorporate the natural
characteristics of the setting. Trees, terrain,
drainageways, and other natural features provide
character to neighborhoods.
2. Housing should be oriented to the local street,
minimizing access and noise conflicts with collector
streets.
3. The City will use public improvements to enhance
the appearance and character of a neighborhood.
Some examples of improvements that define an
area include streets with curb and gutter, trees in
the public boulevard, street lighting systems, and
storm water ponding.
4. Sidewalks, trails, and bikeways will connect the
neighborhood to other parts of the community.
5. Every neighborhood should have reasonable access
to a public park as a place for residents to gather
and play.
All of these elements work together to create a desirable
and sustainable place to live.
Balancing the Built and Natural Environments
The natural amenities of the growth areas (west and
south) in Monticello should serve as a catalyst for
residential development. The proposed regional park
(YMCA property) offers the dual assets of natural
features and recreational opportunities. Lakes,
wetlands and other natural amenities exist throughout
the orderly annexation area.
Studies have shown that parks and open space have a
positive economic effect on adjacent development. An
article published by the National Park and Recreation
Figure 3 -5: Relationship Between Development and
Natural Features - Parkway
Figure 3 -6: Relationship Between Development and
Natural Features - Trail Corridor
•
Association states that "recent analyses suggest that
open spaces may have substantial positive impacts
on surrounding property values and hence, the
property tax base, providing open space advocates
with convincing arguments in favor of open space
designation and preservation." Balancing the built and
natural environments should provide a catalyst to the
types of development desired by the City and in the
expansion of the property tax base.
In attempting to meet residential development
objectives, the City should not lose sight of long -term
public benefit from access to these same natural areas.
The original development of Monticello provides an
excellent illustration. The majority of the riverfront
in Monticello is controlled by private property. Public
3 -8 1 Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3 -7: Example of Conservation Design Development
access to the River comes at points provided by public
parks.
A well known example of balancing public use with
private development is the Minneapolis chain of lakes
and Minnehaha Creek. Public streets (parkways)
and trails separate neighborhoods from the natural
features, preserving public use and access. These
neighborhoods are some of the most desirable in the
region, demonstrating that public use and private
benefit are not mutually exclusive.
The figures below show two options for integrating
housing, natural features and public use. Figure 3 -5
is the parkway concept. An attractive street forms
the edge between the park (or natural area) and the
housing. A multi -use trail follows the street while
homes face the street and draw on the attractiveness
of both the parkway and the natural amenities.
The alternative is to use a trail corridor to provide public
access to these areas (see Figure 3 -6). The trail follows
the edge of the natural area. Access to the trail between
lots should come at reasonable intervals.
There are a variety of real world examples of how
Minnesota cities have used conservation design
strategies to promote high quality development and
preserve the natural environment. The illustrations in
Figure 3 -7 shows elements of the Chevalle development
in Chaska. Using open space design and rural
residential cluster development techniques, HKGi's
concept plan provides for a variety of housing options
while preserving a majority of the area as permanent
open space, including public and common open
spaces. Amenities would include access to protected
open spaces (lakeshore, woods, meadows, pastures,
wetlands), walking /biking trails, equestrian trails
and facilities, common outdoor structures and an
environmental learning center. The experience of other
2008 Comprehensive Plan - Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -9
cities and developments can guide future planning and
decision making in Monticello.
Attractive Places
Attractive physical appearance is one of the most
common attributes of Places to Live in Monticello.
Attractiveness is a combination of design, construction
and maintenance. These characteristics apply to
buildings and sites. Attractiveness is relevant for both
private and public property. Attractiveness reflects
individual pride in property as well as an overall sense
of community quality.
The City may use a variety of regulatory tools to
influence the potential for attractive neighborhoods:
► Building codes and additional regulations to
promote quality construction.
► Subdivision regulations control the initial
configuration of lots.
► Zoning regulations establish limitations on the size
of lots, placement of the house on a lot, relationship
of structure size to lot area, and building height.
► Nuisance ordinances enable the City to prevent and
correct undesirable uses of property.
► Other City regulations control other ancillary uses
of residential property.
Maintenance of property is a factor in sustaining
quality neighborhoods. The tenure (form of ownership)
influences the responsibility for housing maintenance.
The owner- occupant of a single family detached home
is solely responsible for the maintenance of building
and grounds. If this same home is rented, maintenance
responsibilities are often shared between tenant and
owner. This relationship may include a third party
property manager retained by the owner to perform
maintenance duties. Owners of attached housing may
act collectively through a homeowner's association.
In multiple family rental housing, the tenants have no
direct responsibility for property maintenance. This
discussion does not imply a preference, but is intended
solely to highlight the differences. This understanding
becomes relevant when public action is needed to
address a failure of the private maintenance approach.
Nuisance ordinances are one tool used by the City
to address failures in private maintenance and use of
property.
Economics also influences property maintenance. The
greater the portion of income devoted to basic housing
costs (mortgage /rent, taxes, utilities), the less money
available for maintenance activities. Maintenance
can be deferred, but not avoided. If left unchecked,
this cycle of avoided maintenance produces negative
effects.
Safe Places
Safety is frequently identified as the most desired
characteristic of Places to Live. Several aspects of the
Comprehensive Plan and city government influence
safe neighborhoods.
1. The City will encourage existing neighborhoods
and develop new neighborhoods where people
are involved in the community, interact with their
neighbors and support each other.
2. The City will design, build and maintain a system
of streets that collects traffic from neighborhoods,
allows movement within Monticello to jobs,
shopping and other destinations and minimizes
traffic that "cuts through" neighborhoods on local
streets seeking other destinations.
3. The City will provide, directly or by contract,
services needed to protect people and property.
4. The City will support the Land Use Plan with a
water supply that provides clean water at pressures
needed to support fire suppression.
5. The City will protect the natural environment
by requiring new development to connect to the
sanitary sewer system and by adequately treating
all municipal wastewater.
6. The City will provide water that is safe to drink by
protecting water supply sources.
Places to Work
This land use is primarily intended for industrial
development. Places to Work seeks to provide
locations for the retention, expansion and creation of
businesses that provide jobs for Monticello residents
and expansion and diversification of the property tax
base. In order to be a center of employment with a wide
3 -10 1 Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3 -8: Land Use Plan - Places to Work
Sig Lake L,.
Y �
KeNer lake
e®
Mud. 0
Lake .z '",�� -►�� - -'� f - -I ��
arch -
` Bertram tea;,_.""
Lake org I 6.'. i.. s �~ e=..a•.._ aMl
ake
t
'•I � �,� i � V w..� ' II i
.�' T North 106 ` e
- - - -� f
J ,
Lake ♦r. ■�.. ■. i_� I& ...
0 ',.0.25 0.5
.a Miles .. -�'r' r ^.
- art ■ -.■ ■ �
Data Source: M DNR, Sherb— County, Wright M • `�
County, and W SR & Associates. November I, 201
range of job opportunities, it is critical that Monticello
preserve sufficient land for Places to Work over the
next twenty-five years. These land uses can be one of
the most challenging to locate because of its need for
convenient transportation access and influence on
surrounding land uses. In planning for future Places to
Work, the Comprehensive Plan considers the goals of
the community; what type of industrial development
is sought; and what factors should be considered when
locating an industrial land use.
In planning for sustaining existing businesses and
attracting new development, it is necessary to
understand why Places to Work are important to
Monticello. The objectives for this land use include:
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013
► Expanding and diversifying the property tax base.
► Providing jobs with an increasing opportunity for
people to work and live in Monticello.
► Promoting wage levels that provide incomes
needed to purchase decent housing, support
local businesses and support local government
services.
► Take advantage of opportunities to attract
companies that have a synergy with existing
companies in the community, including suppliers,
customers and collaborative partners.
► Encouraging the retention and expansion of
existing businesses in Monticello.
Land Use 1 3 -11
Figure 3 -9: Land Use Plan - Places to Shop
o
` Kalfer Lake
ft
■ 25
9 �
First. ;�+ .• � `, �9 s ' �m.� ..�, -
Lake ■ ►� All-
Mu d ■ + I . - s « .,- _� �
WC
_ Lakes -
r s
Bertram
Lake Ong
LF ake 4 ;
s +I I 1
LI— I
awl
_ _ o
. -..', + �. ♦ r 3 1 a `� e v e
— 11011h 106
J �
0 0.25 0.5 1 0
•
� Miles
Data S NR, NR, Sherburne County, Wrlght _
Counry,.dWS6 &Assoc . November 1, 2011 * .y^
1 °1
Policies - Places to Work
1. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to
designate and preserve a supply of land for Places
to Work that meets current and future needs.
2. Consistent with the vision for the future of
Monticello, the Land Use Plan promotes the
establishment of business campus settings that
provide a high level of amenities, including
architectural controls, landscaping, preservation of
natural features, storage enclosed within buildings,
and other features. The zoning ordinance,
subdivision regulations and other land use controls
will also be used to create and maintain the desired
business campus settings.
3. Places to Work supports the City's desire to attract
businesses that complement existing businesses
or benefit from the community's infrastructure,
including power and telecommunications.
4. The Comprehensive Plan also recognizes that
Places to Work should provide locations for
other general industrial development in the areas
of manufacturing, processing, warehousing,
distribution and related businesses.
5. Places to Work may include non - industrial
businesses that provide necessary support to the
underlying development objectives of this land use.
Examples of supporting land uses include lodging,
office supplies and repair services.
Additional public objectives and strategies for Places
to Work can be found in the Economic Development
chapter.
3 -12 1 Land Use City of Monticello
Places to Shop
Places to Shop designate locations that are or can be
developed with businesses involved with the sale of
goods and services. Places to Shop may include offices
for service businesses. Places to Shop guides land uses
that are both local and regional in nature.
Policies - Places to Shop
In guiding land uses for Places to Shop, the
Comprehensive Plan seeks to:
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
G'll
7
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to attract and retain
businesses that provide goods and services needed
by Monticello residents.
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to capture the
opportunity for commercial development that
serves a broader region. Places to Shop with a
regional orientation should be located where
the traffic does not disadvantage travel within
Monticello.
Commercial development will be used to expand
and diversify the local property tax base and as an
element of a diverse supply of local jobs.
Places to Shop will be located on property with
access to the street capacity needed to support
traffic from these businesses.
Each parcel should supply an adequate supply of
parking that makes it convenient to obtain the
goods and services.
Building materials, facades and signage should
combine with public improvements to create an
attractive setting.
Site design must give consideration to defining edges
and providing buffering or separation between the
commercial parcel and adjacent residential uses.
These policies help to create sustainable locations for
Places to Shop in a manner that enhances Monticello.
Downtown
The Embracing Downtown Plan was adopted by City
Council resolution 2012 -011 on January 9, 2012
and is herein incorporated as an appendix of the
Comprehensive Plan.
�r
The Comprehensive Plan describes issues, plans and policies related to the Downtown in several sections
of the Plan.
Downtown is a unique commercial district that is part
of Monticello's heritage and identity. It is, however,
no longer possible for Downtown to be Monticello's
central business district. The mass of current and
future commercial development south of Interstate 94
along TH 25 and in east Monticello along interstate 94
have replaced the downtown area as primary shopping
districts. The future success of downtown requires it
to be a place unlike any other in Monticello.
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to achieve the Vision,
Guiding Principles and Goals described in the
Embracing Downtown Plan. Downtown is intended to
be a mix of inter - related and mutually supportive land
uses. Businesses involved with the sale of goods and
services should be the focus of Downtown land use.
Residential development facilitates reinvestment and
places potential customers in the Downtown area. Civic
uses draw in people from across the community.
During the planning process, the potential for
allowing commercial activity to extend easterly out of
the Downtown along Broadway was discussed. The
Comprehensive Plan consciously defines Cedar Street
as the eastern edge of Downtown for two basic reasons:
(1) Downtown should be successful and sustainable
before new areas of competition are created; and
(2) The Comprehensive Plan seeks to maintain and
enhance the integrity of residential neighborhoods
east of Downtown.
More than any other land use category, Downtown has
strong connections to other parts of the Comprehensive
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -13
Plan. Therefore the City has adopted the Embracing
Downtown Plan as its guiding planning document
for the Downtown. The following parts of the
Comprehensive Plan also address community desires
and plans for the Downtown area:
The Land Use chapter contains a specific focus
area on Downtown. The focus area contains a
more detailed discussion of the issues facing the
Downtown and potential public actions needed to
address these issues.
The operation of the street system is a critical
factor for the future of Downtown. The
Transportation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
and the Transportation chapter of the Embracing
Downtown Plan influence the ability of residents to
travel to Downtown and the options for mitigating
the impacts of traffic on Highway 25 and other
Downtown streets.
The Parks chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
provides for parks in the Downtown and the trail
systems that allow people to reach Downtown on
foot or bicycle.
The Economic Development chapter of
the Comprehensive Plan and the Financial
Implementation chapter of the Embracing
Downtown Plan lay the foundation for public
actions and investments that will be needed to
achieve the desired outcomes.
Policies /Guiding Principles - Downtown
1
2.
3.
4.
Downtown is a special and unique part of
Monticello. It merits particular attention in the
Comprehensive Plan and in future efforts to achieve
community plans and objectives.
Downtown is intended to be an inter - connected
and supportive collection of land uses. The primary
function of Downtown is as a commercial district.
Other land uses should support and enhance the
overall objectives for Downtown.
The City will build on core assets of greater
Downtown Monticello as identified in the
Embracing Downtown Plan.
A shared vision among property owners, business
owners and the City is the foundation for effective
team work and long term success.
5. A shared understanding of realistic market potential
is the foundation for design and generation of a
healthy business mix.
6. A safe, attractive human scale environment and
entrepreneurial businesses that actively emphasize
personal customer service will differentiate
Downtown from other shopping districts.
7. Property values can be enhanced if property
owners and the City share a vision for Downtown
and actively seek to cultivate a safe, appealing
environment and attractive business mix.
8. Housing in the Downtown can facilitate necessary
redevelopment and bring potential customers
directly into the area. Housing may be free-
standing or in shared buildings with street level
commercial uses.
9. Downtown is the civic center of Monticello. To
the degree possible, unique public facilities (such
as the Community Center, the Library and the Post
Office) should be located in the Downtown area as
a means to bring people into the Downtown.
10. Downtown should emphasize connections with
the Mississippi River that are accessible by the
public.
11. Downtown should be a pedestrian- oriented place
in a manner that cannot be matched by other
commercial districts.
12. Downtown should have an adequate supply of free
parking for customers distributed throughout the
area.
13. The City and business community must work
actively with MnDOT to ensure safe local access
to business districts.
All of these policies work together to attract people to
Downtown and to enhance the potential for a successful
business environment.
Amendment to Comprehensive Plan/1997 Downtown
Revitalization Plan
Resolution 2010 -049, adopted 7/12/10:
At the intersection of Broadway and Pine Streets,
parking lots may be constructed only when all of the
following conditions exist:
3 -14 1 Land Use City of Monticello
► Applicable traffic safety and access requirements
limit the ability to comply with building location
standards of this Plan.
► At least fifty (50) percent of either the Broadway
or Pine Street frontage is occupied by a building
(non - parking area).
► An alternative vertical element is located at
the street corner which, as determined by City
Officials, establishes an architecturally compatible
corner presence. Such elements may include, but
not be limited to public art, interpretive signage,
architectural business signs and architecturally
appropriate lighting.
Mixed Use
The Mixed Use is a transition area between the
Downtown and the hospital campus. It has been
created in recognition of the unique nature of this area.
The area serves two functions. It is the edge between
long -term residential neighborhoods and a major
transportation corridor (Broadway Street). It is also a
link between the Downtown, the hospital campus and
the east interchange retail area.
The primary goal of this land use is to preserve and
enhance housing in this part of Monticello. Any
non - residential development should be designed to
minimize the impacts on and conflicts with adjacent
neighborhoods.
Policies - Mixed Use
1. Development should not have direct access to
Broadway street. Access should come from side
street.
2. Non - residential development should be limited to
small retail, service and office businesses. The scale,
character and site design should be compatible with
the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
3. All non - residential development will be oriented
to Broadway Street and not to 3rd Street or River
Street.
4. Commercial development compatible with the
Downtown should be encouraged to locate there.
5. More intense housing and commercial uses maybe
allowed if directly related to the hospital.
Places to Recreate
Places to Recreate consist of public parks and private
recreation facilities. The land uses are essential
elements of the quality of life in Monticello. The Parks
and Trails chapter of the Comprehensive describes the
current park and trail system and the future plan to
maintain and enhance this system.
The Comprehensive Plan is only one aspect of managing
the land use for public parks and private recreation
facilities. The City's zoning regulations place these
locations into a zoning district. Often, the purpose
of the zoning district is to guide private development,
such as housing. Under current State Law, zoning
regulations "trump" the Land Use Plan and govern the
use of land. With the potential for the redevelopment
of golf courses, it is important the Comprehensive Plan
and other land use controls work in concert to achieve
the desired outcomes.
The City's plans and policies for parks, trails and
open space can be found in the Parks chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan
Places for Community
Places for Community consist of public and semi-
public land uses. Public uses include all governmental
facilities (city, county, state and federal) and schools.
This category also applies to churches, cemeteries,
hospitals, and other institutional uses.
It is important to note that these land uses relate only
to existing land uses. The Comprehensive Plan does
not guide the location of new churches, schools, public
buildings and other institutional land uses. Places for
Community will be needed in the Northwest area as
it develops.
These uses are typically allowed in residential areas and
governed by zoning regulations. These institutional
uses (such as schools and churches) are important parts
of the fabric of the community, but require guidance
to ensure a proper fit with its residential surroundings.
New institutional use should be allowed in residential
areas under certain conditions. These conditions
should address the aspects of the use that conflict with
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -15
desired characteristics of residential neighborhood.
Criteria for locating an institutional use in a residential
land use area include:
Size. Large buildings and site areas can disrupt
neighborhood cohesiveness. Use in lower density
residential areas should not be more than [to be
determined] square feet in lot area.
2. Parking. Parking may spill on to neighborhood
streets without adequate on -site facilities. The
parking needs will vary with the use of the facility.
Each facility should provide adequate on -site or
reasonable off -site shared parking based on the use
of the facility.
3. Traffic. Institutional uses should be oriented to
designated collector or arterial streets.
4. Lighting and signage. Site lighting and signage
needs may resemble commercial uses. These site
factors should be managed to fit the character of
the surrounding residential development.
Urban Reserve
The Urban Reserve contains all property in the Orderly
Annexation Area that it not shown for development
in the near term in this Plan. The objective is to
encourage rural and agricultural uses, preventing
barriers to future development opportunities. It is
anticipated that the City will grow into portions of the
Urban Reserve as planned land use areas become fully
developed and capacity for future growth in needed.
The Urban Reserve is not simply a holding area for
future development. Parts of the Urban Reserve are
likely to be preserved as natural resource areas or for
agricultural purposes. Future planning will consider
the locations in the Urban Reserve best suited for
development.
Interchange Planning Area
The Interchange Planning Area encompasses
undeveloped land in the northwest part of Monticello
around the site of a potential west interchange with
Interstate 94. The purpose of this land use is to
preserve the area for future development and prevent
the creation of development barriers.
If built, the area should be planned to support a mixture
of commercial, employment and residential land uses.
The interchange location and the routes of future
connecting roads are solely for illustration. Future land
use issues in this area are discussed in the Focus Area
for Northwest Monticello.
Private Infrastructure
This category applies to Xcel Energy's power plant and
railroad right -of -way. This category recognizes the
unique role of the power plant in Monticello.
Greenway
The Land Use Plan Map shows a "potential greenway"
ringing the western and southern edges of Monticello.
The Greenway is intended to provide an environmental
corridor that connects large community parks and open
spaces to neighborhoods, schools, shopping areas and
places to work. They serve to protect environmentally
sensitive areas such as natural habitat, wetlands,
tree canopy, and drainage ways. Land within this
corridor could be comprised of a combination of
public and private open space. Development would
not be prohibited within the greenway but would be
reasonably restricted to ensure that development is
carefully integrated with the natural environment.
The Greenway is intended to shape development
patterns in a manner that is sensitive to the existing
environment and harmonious with the landscape. The
Greenway creates opportunities for a continuous trail
corridor connecting neighborhoods with large parks
and open spaces. A trail within this corridor is intended
to be fully accessible to the general public.
The following are the City's goals for the Greenway:
1. To provide (where possible) a continuous green
corridor connecting large community parks and
open spaces to neighborhoods, shopping areas,
schools and places to work.
2. To connect people to significant places.
3. To protect the community's natural resources
(trees, ponds, wetlands, slopes, etc).
4. To create environmentally sensitive development
and design.
3 -16 1 Land Use City of Monticello
5. To provide opportunities for corridors for wildlife
movement and ecological connections between
natural areas.
Focus Areas
For certain parts of Monticello, the intentions of the
Comprehensive Plan cannot be adequately described
solely with the land use map and the related category
descriptions. The following Focus Areas provide a more
detailed examination of the plans and issues in key
locations that will shape the future of Monticello.
Northwest Monticello
This focus area includes the entire northwest corner
of the community. The land use objectives in this area
include:
Encourage development in this part of the
community to utilize infrastructure investments
and to provide the capacity to develop in high
amenity areas.
2. Provide for a variety of housing alternatives based
on the natural features and the surrounding
land uses. Areas with high natural amenities or
proximity to the planned regional park should be
reserved for move up housing.
3. Expansion of existing Places to Work in a manner
that creates more "head of household" jobs.
4. Preserve and promote public use of natural
areas, including the establishment of greenway
corridors.
5. Identify and preserve key street corridors.
6. Preserve areas for future Places to Shop and Places
to Work around a future highway interchange, if
such an interchange proves viable.
The Comprehensive Plan envisions that growth will
extend westward from existing development. The
initial high amenity residential development is expected
to occur along the eastern perimeter of the new regional
park (YMCA Camp Manitou). No Places to Live are
planned with the boundaries of this park. Future
development will be influenced by the capacity of the
street system, including plans for the construction of
a highway interchange.
Figure 3 -10: Land Use Plan -Northwest Monticello
The remainder of this section describes the land use
issues and objectives for northwest Monticello in
greater detail.
West Interchange
A new interchange with Interstate 94 is a critical
variable in the future development of this area. While
the Comprehensive Plan recognizes the potential for
a future interchange, in 2008 it is only a concept. It
is not part of the State's plans for future highway
improvements for this district.
This interchange could be a valuable part of the long-
term transportation plan for Monticello if it is part of
a new river crossing that removes traffic from Highway
25. Without the bridge, the primary benefit is to
provide access to this area and expand the development
opportunities.
The Land Use Plan assumes that the interchange is a
future possibility. For this reason, property adjacent
to the interstate has been placed into a combination
of Places to Live, Work and Shop. The Plan seeks
to prevent development from limiting the location
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -17
of the interchange (or block it) and to preserve the
area around the interchange for future commercial,
industrial and residential development. Without
the access provided by the interchange, commercial,
industrial and residential development should not be
anticipated in this area.
Ideally, the City will pursue additional investigations
following the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
These investigations should be designed to resolve some
of the unanswered questions related to the interchange.
These questions include:
► Where should the interchange be located?
► What is the potential for a new river bridge
connection?
► How would the interchange be funded and what
are the financial and land use implications for the
City?
► What time frame should be used in planning for
the improvements?
The answers to these questions provide invaluable
guidance to future land use and transportation in
Monticello. The area included in future planning
should not be limited to the property in the Interchange
Planning Area land use category. An interchange
and the supporting street system has future land use
implications for a broader area.
Regional Park
Another critical factor in the future of the Northwest
Area is the future of the YMCA camp. The City and
Wright County are in negotiations with the Minneapolis
YMCA to acquire the 1,200 -acre Camp Manitou. The
Comprehensive Plan anticipates that the Camp will be
converted into a regional park.
The area around this park is guided for future Places to
Live. No residential development should be allowed
within the park. The amenity of this land and the
regional park provide an excellent setting (around
the perimeter of the park) for some of the "upscale"
neighborhoods and housing desired by the City.
In planning for this park, it is important to look
beyond the boundaries of the park and to its context
in the broader community. The illustration in Figure
3 -11 highlights several key community development
opportunities:
► The City must create connections between the park
and other sections of Monticello.
► Building streets in a "parkway" design emphasizes
the desired qualities of a regional park and of the
surrounding Places to Live and Work.
► The park is a critical piece in creating a "greenway"
system that links to the Mississippi River and may,
over time, ring the community.
Industrial Growth
The Northwest area is a critical location for current and
future industrial development. The Monticello Business
Center, located south of Chelsea Road and west of 90th
Street, has already started to be developed as a high
amenity environment with protective covenants that
address building materials, loading docks, outdoor
storage, and landscaping. In order to provide sufficient
land for Business Campus uses over the next 25 years,
the Comprehensive Plan extends this land use south to
the planned expansion of School Boulevard.
It is important to recognize that activity generated
by business development can create conflicts with
residential development. The Comprehensive Plan
seeks to create both high quality business parks and
residential neighborhoods in this area. Careful site
planning and development management will be needed
to meet these objectives.
School Boulevard Extension
The Northwest Area serves as a good example of the
need to coordination land use and transportation
planning. An extension of School Boulevard is
needed to provide access to the area and to connect
development to the rest of the community. The route
of this roadway should be identified and preserved as
development occurs.
School Boulevard has several other Comprehensive
Plan implications:
► 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
3 -18 1 Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3 -11: Community Connections to Regional Park
Existing
Natural To Mississippi River Potential Parkways
Land T ♦�/
Potential /
Greenway
Corridor
i
{
39 7To Mississippi River
i
YMCA
Regional
Park
Existing
Green
Corridor
i
Potential
Greenway
Corridor 25
Existing /
Natural
and
as a gateway to the regional park and to new
neighborhoods.
The street is a means for bringing trail connections
to the park.
Golf Course
In 2006, the Silver Springs Golf Course was part of a
development proposal (Jefferson at Monticello) that
would have redeveloped this property mixing golf and
housing. The development did not proceed beyond the
environmental review.
The Comprehensive Plan shows the area as Places to
Recreate based on the continued use as a golf course.
This designation does not preclude a future proposal
and Comprehensive Plan amendment for residential
development. It is likely, however, that this scale of new
development will require the access provided by a new
highway interchange. The Comprehensive Plan seeks to
fill in other development areas and make effective use
of other infrastructure investments before extending
utilities for redevelopment of the golf course.
Downtown Focus Area
The Embracing Downtown Plan was adopted by City
Council resolution 2012 -011 on January 9, 2012
and is herein incorporated as an appendix of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Downtown Monticello needs special attention
in the Comprehensive Plan. Following the 2008
Comprehensive Plan update, the community undertook
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -19
a separate downtown planning process. This process
resulted in the Embracing Downtown Plan. This Plan
emphasizes the importance that the community places
on Downtown. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
relies on the Embracing Downtown Plan as a guide for
public and private actions in the Downtown area.
Revitalizing and sustaining Downtown Monticello
requires a collaborative effort of the City, businesses,
property owners and other stakeholders. Planning
for the future of the Downtown must recognize the
practical realities facing commercial development in
Downtown:
► The configuration and traffic volumes of Highway
25 significantly reduce opportunities for direct
access from the Highway to adjacent properties.
► Traffic volumes on Highway 25 will continue to
increase. Greater volumes and congestion act as an
impediment for people living south of I -94 coming
to Downtown.
► There is no controlled intersection on Highway
25 between Broadway and 7th Street. The lack
of a controlled intersection combined with traffic
volumes make pedestrian connections between
Downtown and residential areas to the east very
difficult.
► "Big box" and retail development continue to occur
in other parts of Monticello. These businesses
directly compete with the Downtown and attract
smaller businesses (that might otherwise consider
a Downtown location) to adjacent parcels.
Downtown Goals
Given current plans and conditions, the Embracing
Downtown Plan and the Comprehensive Plan
recommends the following goals for Downtown.
Concepts for Downtown redevelopment should
provide solutions to problems and issues identified
in the research and analysis of Downtown conditions
that are directed by the stated goals for Land Use,
Transportation and Design and Image. The preferred
solutions should be those that best meet these goals.
Land Use
► Diversify land use in the Downtown; supplement
retail and service uses with other activities that
generate traffic.
► Encourage redevelopment of old and obsolete
structures; encourage consolidation of small
parcels with multiple ownerships.
► Balance parking and land use to ensure availability
of adequate parking at all times.
► Encourage mixed use but do not make it a
requirement or prerequisite for development or
redevelopment.
► Discourage residential as a free - standing land use
within the core downtown area.
► Establish physical connections between the core
Downtown area and the riverfront and park.
► Encourage land uses that serve as evening and
weekend attractions to the Downtown area.
► Expand facilities and parking adjacent to Westbridge
Park to help create an anchor attraction at the north
end of Walnut Street.
Transportation
► Acknowledge that Highway 25 will be limited in
terms of providing direct property access.
► Develop circulation patterns that utilize local
streets for individual site access.
► Recognize Highway 25 as a barrier between the
east and west parts of the historic Downtown core
areas extending to either side of the Highway 25
corridor.
► Consider developing in districts to reduce the need
or desire to cross Highway 25 between 7th street
and the river crossing.
► Strengthen pedestrian ties throughout Downtown
including connections to other parts of the City to
the south, west, and east. Downplay Highway 25
as a corridor for pedestrian movement.
► Improve pedestrian connections between Broadway
Street and the riverfront Park area to allow the park
to serve as an attraction that brings people into the
downtown area.
► Improve access to the Mississippi River to expand
on recreational opportunities.
► Explore creation of a fourth signalized intersection
on Highway 25 between 7th Street and Broadway
Street to improve access to areas with development
and redevelopment potential on either side of the
Highway 25 corridor.
3 -20 1 Land Use City of Monticello
Figure 3 -12: Framework Plan from the Embracing Downtown Plan
Public
LU w Public Public
w Parking
Lid ~
X
U3 g iver
o Oriented Convenience
_ o 0 hoppin Services
J J
d
'` B C}ADWAY STREE i
Q
C
.� d1 Q IL
Shopping u?
V3 0
_ w
Public o 4TH STREET
Parking Q
4
Cargill o
mauy, Li _ erg
o etail i f—
Civic W W
W W
Pub cc � ac
� V7
6TH STREET v W
Public
'4^JALhIUT
STREET..��1
p
4
Ex. Retail
rzxisting Detail tom —
1_94
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -21
Downtown Design and Image
► Encourage design standards that elevate the quality
of Downtown development without creating undue
hardships for property and building owners.
► Acknowledge that the historic "Main Street"
buildings and developments along Broadway
Street are functionally obsolete for many tenants
and users in today's automobile and convenience -
driven marketplace.
► The public realm of streets, boulevards and
sidewalks represents the best opportunity to create
an interim image for downtown as it redevelops.
► The Highway 25 and Broadway corridors should be
softened with streetscape and landscape features to
offset the effects of high traffic volumes, and to help
establish an identity for the Central Community
District (CCD).
► Development should orient toward the intersection
of Highway 25 with Broadway to take advantage of
high traffic volumes in the Highway 25 corridor.
► New development in the Highway 25 corridor
should be scaled to allow visibility to development
up to a block or more away from Highway 25.
► New buildings in the Highway 25 and Broadway
corridors should be located to allow for eventual
widening of the corridor right -of -way and
roadway.
► To the extent possible, buildings should occupy
street frontages and should front on public
sidewalks with connections to a continuous
"Downtown" sidewalk pedestrian system.
► Proposed uses should have adequate parking
(private or public) within easy and convenient
walking distance.
► The Downtown plan should provide strategically
located public gathering spaces to bring people
together to experience a sense of community that
is associated with downtown.
South Central Focus Area
Continued residential growth to the south is an
important element of the Comprehensive Plan. This
growth achieves several objectives:
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to enhance the existing commercial core along Broadway by building
strong connections with the riverfront and the cividretail district on the south end of Walnut Street.
The current end of Walnut Street is a barrier to improving connections between Downtown and the
riverfront.
► 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.
► These areas encourage growth in areas that could
use the new eastern interchange with I -94 rather
than Highway 25.
3 -22 1 Land Use City of Monticello
► These areas provide appropriate locations for
continued growth in entry -level single family homes
and medium density housing types. These Places
to Live are important elements of maintaining an
adequately diverse housing stock.
► Orderly expansion to the south moves development
towards area of higher natural amenity. Areas along
the southern edge of the Orderly Annexation Area
provide another location for potential "move up"
housing.
A key to development in this focus area is the
construction of the Fallon Avenue bridge. The bridge
leads to the reconstruction of Fallon Avenue and the
related expansion of municipal sanitary sewer and
water systems. Future development will be limited
without additional utility capacity.
East Focus Area
The Comprehensive Plan places greater priority on
growth to the west and south. Development should
be directed to areas that most effectively achieve the
objectives of this Plan.
Several factors could cause the City to encourage future
residential development in the East Focus Area:
► 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.
Figure 3 -13: Land Use Plan - South Central
i
Pelic
► The need to solve stormwater and drainage
management issues (Ditch 33) in this area. Solving
drainage issues allows eastward expansion along
County Road 18.
Future growth in the east should continue to fill in the
development area within the Orderly Annexation Area
on the east side of Monticello. The natural features in
these areas allow for higher amenity neighborhoods.
This growth can occur with new collector/ arterial
street corridors.
Figure 3 -14: Land Use Plan - East Focus Area
l
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Land Use 1 3 -23
tsl
� V "O vim, sU.
c�, .. > UO +, cd
� U G .O O
O O. +�- Q 04 i., Cd V ¢ O> U
O co �O+ V O N
N > O U > '"
o
4' o u o w U
° i
�, -o a� aoi ¢ " o
w Cd � � � Cd W
0 0 o y o °' 3 +� ,� �-0
O o 0 3 81 ° w y °c. >. w: d o
0 C .0 ca O 0o Cd0 v
O O CC O o -> O O 0 00 U bp
y O. w O > O V y CU G. v�
.. v�V O OU y ++ ^C
> oCo 0 04 4a r
> 4- ._ `o n on bn o M 0 � o Z 0..0
-d 4' V` Ln � O `d y a) co 4� >> cu Z' W W cOa
V V Q `i' O � 'C U � O Vi w Sti O •�
cd co
Cd
> O d W W W G. O -- V �- bAN- O r.
Ocq
O p p
CD 0
ON U
V O W
^U W
wcaa
0. � t 51 ;
a°i -d o y
a w
C) as v
O 4
o O
U 41
u to
o as f-.
0 0
� U W u
Ln 0as rA
ai
� N s.
o O U X O
W
° 0x
OV
ay c a O _u
V U
�. 0 4+Cl V O
Cq 4O � OL
A
d
Q
0
0
0
0
M
► The U.S. Census Bureau, Center for Economic
Studies' OntheMap website shows that in 2010
4,597 people leave the community each day to
work, while 3,849 people come into the community
to work. Only 835 both live and work in the
community.
► Approximately 15% of residents in 2010 are
employed within the community. This has dropped
from 18% in 2002.
► As shown in Figure 4.1, 2012 data from the
Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED) on their
mnprospector.com website shows that Monticello
is made up of a wide range of small to medium
sized employers. Only 10 employers have more
than 100 employees. Over half have fewer than
four (4) employees.
► Workers for Monticello businesses come primarily
from Monticello and the surrounding region.
Nearly 75% of people working in Monticello live in
Monticello, adjacent townships, or other places in
Wright and Sherburne counties (2010 OntheMap).
Nearly 40% of Monticello residents work in
Hennepin County, with the largest percentage in
Minneapolis, Plymouth and Maple Grove. Another
15% work elsewhere in Wright County, including
Buffalo and St. Michael.
The 2007 -2011 American Community Survey
(ACS) Census reported a mean travel time to work
of 28.5 minutes. This is up from the 2000 Census
travel time of 24 minutes. The mean travel time in
the 2007 -2011 ACS was 29.7 minutes for Wright
County and 24.5 minutes for the region overall.
Figure 4-1:2072 Total Establishments by Size
Number of
Establlishmo_ts by Size_
1-4 Employees
Numb r
254
Percent
52.05
5 -9 Employees
97
19.88
10 -19 Employees
64
13.11
20 -49 Employees
42
8.61
50 -99 Employees
21
4.30
100 -249 Employees
7
1.43
250 -499 Employees
2
0.41
500 -999 Employees
1
0.20
4 -2 1 Economic Development
Background Reports
The City of Monticello conducts studies and assessments
as needed to help guide its economic development
efforts. The findings and recommendations of these
studies are summarized below with the most recent
provided first.
2010 Business Retention and Expansion Research (BR &E)
Report
Monticello's Business Retention and Expansion (BR &E)
program was initiated by the City of Monticello, the
Monticello Chamber of Commerce and Industry,
DEED, and the University of Minnesota Extension. It
was also sponsored by over a dozen local businesses.
Through the BR &E program, 60 businesses were visited.
Findings from the visits and data analysis found:
► 78% of the visited businesses were locally owned
and operated.
► 20% of businesses were in manufacturing, 18% in
retail trade, and 13% in other services.
► The businesses employed over 1,600 full -time and
975 part -time employees, with a trimmed average
(an average where the low and high were discarded
to prevent skewing) of 15.38 full -time employees,
slightly down from 15.52 three years ago. The firms
also had a trimmed average of 7.76, up from 6.96
three years ago.
► Most full -time employees are in manufacturing,
food and beverage, retail trade and medical, while
part -time employees are in medical, retail trade,
and tourism /recreational services.
► Survey results indicated that the medical industry
is the highest employer in Monticello, followed by
retail trade and manufacturing.
► Businesses in the community are fairly stable with
about half expecting some type of change.
The BR &E identified four strategies aimed at helping
businesses become more profitable. Each strategy
was accompanied by a list of potential projects
intended to be ideas for the community to explore.
The implementation of the projects is intended to be
a collaborative effort among the various sectors of the
community. The four strategies identified included:
City of Monticello
► Improve Business Retention and Expansion
Through Technical and Development Assistance.
► Improve Labor Force Availability and Productivity.
► Improve Infrastructure to Help Move Goods,
Customers, and the Labor Force More Efficiently.
► Improve and Promote the Quality of Life in
Monticello.
During the 2013 comprehensive plan economic
development update process, it was noted that the 2010
Business Retention and Expansion Research strategies
were similar to the 2008 Development Strategies. The
review process identified the need to continue similar
strategies into the future.
Preceding the development of the 2008 Comprehensive
Plan an assessment was conducted by St. Cloud State
University to determine whether a bioscience park
should be established in Monticello. At that time the
bioscience industry was an economic development
focus statewide. While the attraction of a bioscience
business is not a particular focus of Monticello today,
there are findings of that study that can be useful to
consider in the overall development of economic
development strategies for the community.
Some of the Monticello's strengths for attracting
businesses included:
► Land availability (compared to Metro Area).
► Access to major highways (I -94, U.S. 10 and STH
25).
► Regional growth of employment base.
► Development of local fiber optic system.
► Proximity to universities.
► Overall location.
► Expansive park system.
► Monticello Community Center.
Recommended business development activities that
apply to the attraction and retention of all businesses
include ensuring that there are sites suitable and
attractive to potential businesses available and ready
for development. The community should continue to
explore and establish partnerships with a variety of
stakeholders that can work, together to support business
attraction and retention. This includes the identification
of funding sources which may be an incentive for
businesses locating in Monticello. When available the
City should participate in special tax zones that have
been made available at the state and federal level to
support business development and retention.
Expanding the Tax Base
A traditional objective of local economic development
planning is the expansion of the property tax base.
Under the current system of local government finance,
property taxes are the largest source of city revenue.
For this reason, it is an important aspect of economic
development planning in Monticello.
Understanding the Property Tax System
Effective strategies to promote the growth of the tax
base require a clear understanding of the property tax
system.
Property Valuation
There are three forms of property valuation. The
foundation of the property tax system is Estimated
Market Value. This amount is the value of a parcel
of property as set by the County Assessor. In some
circumstances, the State Legislature limits the amount
of Estimated Market Value that can be used for taxation.
These adjustments result in the Taxable Market Value.
The value used to calculate property taxes is Tax
Capacity. Tax Capacity Value is a percentage of Taxable
Market Value. The percentage factors are set by the
State Legislature and vary by class of property.
Changes in the Tax System
Traditional economic development theory seeks
commercial and industrial development as a means of
building tax base. Historically, the system supported
this approach. A dollar of estimated market value of
commercial - industrial property carried a higher tax
capacity value than residential property. Over the past
twelve years, tax "reforms" by the State Legislature have
changed this situation.
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Economic Development 1 4 -3
Figure 4 -2: Changes in Tax Capacity Value - Commercial /Industrial
300,000
250,000
200,000
Z"
M 150,000
CL
ti
x
100,000
50,000
0
Figure 4 -3: Tax Capacity Comparison
Industrial Retail
450,00
400,000
Single Townhorne
350,000
300,000
Retail
> 250,000
a
2Nk
a
v 200,000
Apt
150,000
10
100,000
10
50,000
10
0
Coverage
30%
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 to 2012
300,000
250,000
200,000
Z"
M 150,000
CL
ti
x
100,000
50,000
0
Figure 4 -3: Tax Capacity Comparison
Industrial Retail
office
Single Townhorne
Apt
Industrial
Retail
Office
2Nk
Townhome
Apt
Acres
10
10
10
10
10
10
Coverage
30%
30%
30%
3
6
12
Development (SF or Units)
130,680
130,680
130,680
30
60
120
EMV per SF or Unit
65
80
100
400,000
250,000
150,000
EMV
8,494,200
10,454,400
13,068,000
12,000,000
15,000,000
18,000,000
Tax Capacity
169,134
208,338
260,610
120,000
150,000
225,000
4 -4 1 Economic Development City of Monticello
The chart in Figure 4 -2 shows how legislative changes
have reduced the tax base created by commercial -
industrial development. This chart is based on the
tax capacity value for $3,000,000 of Taxable Market
Value. The legislative changes in the rates used to set
tax capacity mean that this property produced 56% less
tax base in 2012 than in 1997.
This trend takes on additional meaning when compared
to other classifications of property. Figure 4 -3
compares the tax capacity value for the primary forms
of development in Monticello. The valuations in this
chart are based on assumptions about the density
of development and estimated market value of new
development. Changes in these assumptions will alter
the results.
This chart clearly illustrates the current reality for
economic development strategies. All forms of
development contribute tax base to the community.
It is risky placing too much weight on one type of
development for tax base growth. In addition, cities
do not control the critical elements of the tax system.
Changes in the system lead to unanticipated results at
the local level.
Tax base growth has implications that are unique
to Monticello. The chart in Figure 4 -4 shows the
distribution of taxes payable in 2011. Utilities, likely
largely Xcel Energy, contributes about one -third of
the City's taxes, while both commercial /industrial and
residential uses contribute 28% each.
Enhancing Downtown
Maintaining a successful Downtown is an important
element of the economic development plan for
Monticello. Downtown is a key business district
providing goods, services and jobs for the community.
Downtown is unlike any other business district because
of its unique role in Monticello's identity and heritage.
The Land Use chapter describes plans, policies and
strategies related to Downtown Monticello. Downtown
is part of the Economic Development chapter because
of the likelihood that city actions and investments
Figure 4 -4: Distribution of 2011 Taxes Payable
All Other
lic utility
310,074
34%
sidential
mestead
v,886,235
28%
will be needed to achieve community objectives for
Downtown. This intervention may include:
► Public improvements to provide services or to
enhance the Downtown environment.
► Provision of adequate parking supply.
► Acquisition of land.
► Preparation of sites for development.
► Removal of other physical and economic barriers
to achieve community objectives.
These actions may require the use of tax increment
financing, tax abatement or other finance tools available
to the City.
In 2011 the City of Monticello conducted a retail market
study for Downtown Monticello. The report, Embracing
Downtown Monticello, has been incorporated in the
Comprehensive Plan as an appendix and serves as a
resource for the implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan. The study included many components including
an identification and analysis of existing businesses,
evaluation of shopping areas that are competition for
Downtown, a survey of customers, delineation of the
trade area, and the establishment of market demand
for various businesses.
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Economic Development 1 4 -5
Some findings of the study included:
► Downtown Monticello enjoys a strategic location
between the Mississippi River and I -94. This
focuses traffic on TH -25 resulting in traffic counts
higher than south of I -94
► Due to physical barriers created by the Mississippi
River and I -94, about one -third of Downtown and
secondary trade area shoppers must pass through
Downtown Monticello to reach the shopping areas
south of I -94.
► Downtown has the largest concentration of
shopping goods stores and restaurants.
► Downtown's trade area population was estimated at
93,500 in 2010 and is projected to have an annual
growth rate of 2.2 %.
► Monticello's large anchor stores (Cub Foods,
SuperTarget, Walmart and Home Depot) create
a secondary trade area. The population of the
combined Downtown and secondary trade areas
was 127,190 in 2010.
► CentraCare Health System, with 25 beds and 600
employees has established Monticello as a regional
medical center.
► Increased residential development stimulates
increased commercial development. The recent
economic conditions have slowed residential
development, thus resulting in reduced tenant
demand for retail space.
► Additional retail space in Downtown Monticello
can be supported by the trade area population. A
range of store types can be considered including
shopping goods, convenience goods, and food
establishments. Downtown's existing wide variety
of services limits potential future opportunities.
However, market research indicates that Monticello
could support additional medical practices.
Figure 4 -5: Embracing Downtown Monticello Primary and Secondary Trade Areas
0 Copyright 2011 McComb Group, Ltd. 02110111
4 -6 1 Economic Development City of Monticello
Facilitating Redevelopment
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create a place where
land use plans, policies and controls work together with
private investment to properly maintain all properties
in Monticello. It is recognized that this approach may
not succeed in all locations. Despite the best plans
and intentions, properties may become physically
deteriorated and /or economically inviable. In such
places, city intervention may be need to facilitate
redevelopment and prevent the spread of blight. This
intervention may include:
► Acquisition of land.
► Preparation of sites for development.
► Construction or reconstruction of public
improvements.
► Provision of adequate parking supply.
► Remediation of polluted land as needed.
► Removal of other physical and economic barriers
to achieve community objectives.
These actions may require the use of tax increment
financing, tax abatement or other finance tools available
to the City.
Development Strategies
The following strategies will be used to implement
the Comprehensive Plan in the area of Economic
Development:
1. The City must use the Comprehensive Plan
to provide adequate locations for future job -
producing development (Places to Work).
2. The City should adhere to the Comprehensive Plan
to encourage stable business setting and promote
investment and expansion of facilities.
3. The City should coordinate utility planning
and manage other development to ensure that
expansion areas are capable of supporting new
development in a timely manner.
4. The City will continue to work with existing
businesses to maintain an excellent business
environment, retain jobs and facilitate expansions.
5. In addition to assisting business seeking to locate
in Monticello, the City should actively target and
market to businesses which will be a supplier,
customer or collaborative partner to existing
businesses within the community.
6. The City should target and market to businesses
which would benefit from Monticello's utility and
communications infrastructure.
7. The City will work with the CentraCare Health
System to ensure the retention and to promote the
expansion of health care services in Monticello.
8. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to
maintain and enhance the quality of life in
Monticello as a tool for attracting businesses and
jobs.
2008 Comprehensive Plan — Updated 2013 Economic Development 1 4 -7
k
Ideally, the Comprehensive Plan does not have an Economic Develop-
ment chapter. The Land Use Plan would be sufficient to channel market
forces to meet the development objectives of the community. In reality,
certain development needs cannot be met without public intervention.
The Economic Development chapter of the Plan focuses on the aspects
of Monticello's future that require particular attention and action by the
City. These actions include:
► Attracting jobs
► Expanding the tax base
► Enhancing the economic vitality of Downtown
► Facilitating redevelopment
Attracting Jobs
The creation and retention of jobs is one of the most important objec-
tives for Monticello. Jobs, particularly jobs with income levels capable of
supporting a family, are key to achieving many elements of Monticello's
vision for the future.
► Jobs attract residents to the community. Jobs will pay a critical role in
creating the type of "move up" housing sought by the City.
► Jobs provide the income needed to support local business and govern-
ment services.
► Retention of businesses promote community stability by keeping jobs
and residents in Monticello
The Community Context chapter of the Comprehensive Plan contains a
section on Employment. This section contains data about employment
in Monticello and of its residents. Among the key findings in this section
are:
► Monticello has been a net importer of employment - there are more
jobs in Monticello than workers living in the community. According
to the 2000 Census, 5,111 people reported working in Monticello while
4,262 Monticello residents were part of the civilian labor force.
2008 Comprehensive Plan Economic Development 1 4 -1
► The job base in Monticello is made up of a wide
range of small to medium sized employers. In 2007,
Only five employers report more than 100 employ-
ees, Monticello Public Schools, Xcel Energy, Cargill
Kitchen Solutions, Monticello -Big Lake Hospital,
and Ultra Machining Company (according to listing
of major employers from Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development).
► Workers for Monticello businesses come primar-
ily from Monticello and the surrounding region.
Over 80% of people working in Monticello lived
in Monticello, adjacent townships, Big Lake, or
other places in Wright and Sherburne counties
(2000 Census).
► The 2000 Census found that only 26% of people
working Monticello also lived in the city.
► 69% of working Monticello residents held jobs in
other places (2000 Census). More than one -third
worked in Hennepin County.
► The 2000 Census reported a mean travel time to
work of 26 minutes. 45% of Monticello workers
indicated travel time to work of 30 minutes or
more.
In 2007, St. Cloud State University conducted an as-
sessment of establishing a bioscience park in Mon-
ticello. The results of this study provide important
insights on future job growth. The study identified
a series "strengths" for attracting bioscience firms to
Monticello:
► Land availability (compared to Metro Area).
► Access to major highways (I -94, U.S. 10 and STH
25).
► Regional growth of employment base.
► Development of local fiber optic system.
► Proximity to universities.
► Overall location.
► Expansive park system.
► Monticello Community Center.
Many of these factors would also apply to attracting
other types of businesses.
The St. Cloud State study also made note of several
weaknesses in attracting these business to the com-
munity. The list included:
► Lack of hotels and lodging.
► No defined plan.
► Small community.
► Low tax base.
The recommendations of this Study apply to efforts to
establishing a bioscience park and to overall develop-
ment of Places to Work:
► Site Location - Need to have site that are suitable
and attractive to potential businesses available and
ready for development.
► Funding - Funding is essential to provide sites and
for incentives to attract and retain the appropriate
businesses. Local, state and private funding sources
should be explored.
► Tax treatment - The City gains important tools
from special tax zones that have been made avail-
able at state and federal level.
► Partnerships - Attracting jobs to Monticello re-
quires partnerships with other stakeholders.
Expanding the Tax Base
A traditional objective of local economic development
planning is the expansion of the property tax base.
Under the current system of local government finance,
property taxes are the largest source of city revenue.
For this reason, it is an important aspect of economic
development planning in Monticello.
Understanding the Property Tax System
Effective strategies to promote the growth of the tax
base require a clear understanding of the property tax
system.
Property Valuation
There are three forms of property valuation. The foun-
dation of the property tax system is Estimated Market
Value. This amount is the value of a parcel of property
as set by the County Assessor. In some circumstances,
the State Legislature limits the amount of Estimated
4 -2 1 Economic Development City of Monticello
Market Value that can be used for taxation. These adjustments result in
the Taxable Market Value. The value used to calculate property taxes is
Tax Capacity. Tax Capacity Value is a percentage of Taxable Market Value.
The percentage factors are set by the State Legislature and vary by class
of property.
Figure 4 -1: Changes in Tax Capacity Value - Commercial /Industrial
450,000
-
400,000
350,000
300,000
v
250,000
T
Q
v 200,000
FR
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 to 2007
Changes in the Tax System
Traditional economic development theory seeks commercial and in-
dustrial development as a means of building tax base. Historically, the
system supported this approach. A dollar of estimated market value of
commercial - industrial property carried a higher tax capacity value than
residential property. Over the past twelve years, tax "reforms" by the State
Legislature have changed this situation.
The chart in Figure 4 -1 shows how legislative changes have reduced the
tax base created by commercial - industrial development. This chart is
based on the tax capacity value for $3,000,000 of Taxable Market Value.
The legislative changes in the rates used to set tax capacity mean that this
property produced 56% less tax base in 2007 than in 1997.
This trend takes on additional meaning when compared to other classi-
fications of property. Figure 4 -2 compares the tax capacity value for the
primary forms of development in Monticello. The valuations in this chart
are based on assumptions about the density of development and estimated
market value of new development. Changes in these assumptions will
alter the results.
2008 Comprehensive Plan Economic Development 1 4 -3
300,000
250,000
200,000
v
a
150,000
a
v
x
F
100,000
50,000
0
Figure 4 -2: Tax Capacity Comparison
Industrial Retail
Office
Single Townhome
Apt
Industrial
Retail
Office
Single
Townhome
Amt
Acres
10
10
10
10
10
10
Coverage
30%
30%
30%
3
6
12
Development (SF or Units)
130,680
130,680
130,680
30
60
120
EMV per SF or Unit
65
80
100
400,000
250,000
150,000
EMV
8,494,200
10,454,400
13,068,000
12,000,000
15,000,000
18,000,000
Tax Capacity
169,134
208,338
260,610
120,000
150,000
225,000
All Other T.
55
Figure 4 -3: Tax Capacity Comparison
Xcel Energy
39%
rger"
4 -4 1 Economic Development City of Monticello
This chart clearly illustrates the current reality for eco-
nomic development strategies. All forms of develop-
ment contribute tax base to the community. It is risky
placing too much weight on one type of development
for tax base growth. In addition, cities do not control
the critical elements of the tax system. Changes in the
system lead to unanticipated results at the local level.
Tax base growth has implications that are unique to
Monticello. The chart in Figure 4 -3 shows the distribu-
tion of taxable (Tax Capacity) value in Monticello. Xcel
Energy creates almost 40% of the City's tax base. While
it has provided a unique asset for the community, it
is essential that the tax base become more diversified.
Enhancing Downtown
Maintaining a successful Downtown is an important
element of the economic development plan for Mon-
ticello. Downtown is a key business district providing
goods, services and jobs for the community. Down-
town is unlike any other business district because of its
unique role in Monticello's identity and heritage.
The Land Use chapter describes plans, policies and
strategies related to Downtown Monticello. Downtown
is part of the Economic Development chapter because
of the likelihood that city actions and investments will
be needed to achieve community objectives for Down-
town. This intervention may include:
► Public improvements to provide services or to
enhance the Downtown environment.
► Provision of adequate parking supply.
► Acquisition of land.
► Preparation of sites for development.
► Removal of other physical and economic barriers
to achieve community objectives.
These actions may require the use of tax increment
financing, tax abatement or other finance tools avail-
able to the City.
Facilitating Redevelopment
The Comprehensive Plan seeks to create a place where
land use plans, policies and controls work together with
private investment to properly maintain all properties
in Monticello. It is recognized that this approach may
not succeed in all locations. Despite the best plans and
intentions, properties may become physically deterio-
rated and /or economically inviable. In such places, city
intervention may be need to facilitate redevelopment
and prevent the spread of blight. This intervention
may include:
► Acquisition of land.
► Preparation of sites for development.
► Remediation of polluted land.
► Construction or reconstruction of public improve-
ments.
► Provision of adequate parking supply.
► Removal of other physical and economic barriers
to achieve community objectives.
These actions may require the use of tax increment
financing, tax abatement or other finance tools avail-
able to the City.
Development Strategies
The following strategies will be used to implement the
Comprehensive Plan in the area of Economic Develop-
ment:
1. The City must use the Comprehensive Plan to pro-
vide adequate locations for future job - producing
development (Places to Work).
2. The City should adhere to the Comprehensive Plan
to encourage stable business setting and promote
investment and expansion of facilities.
3. The City should coordinate utility planning and
manage other development to ensure that expan-
sion areas are capable of supporting new develop-
ment in a timely manner.
4. The City should evaluate the need and feasibility
of additional city-owned business parks as a means
attracting the desired businesses.
2008 Comprehensive Plan Economic Development 1 4 -5
5. The City should establish a plan to evaluate the
feasibility of implementing the recommendation
of the St. Cloud State study and if feasible to take
necessary action to attract bioscience businesses
to Monticello.
6. The City will continue to work with existing busi-
nesses to maintain an excellent business environ-
ment, retain jobs and facilitate expansions.
7. The City will work with the Monticello -Big Lake
Hospital to ensure the retention and to promote the
expansion of health care services in Monticello.
8. The City will use the Comprehensive Plan to main-
tain and enhance the quality of life in Monticello as
a tool for attracting businesses and jobs.
4 -6 1 Economic Development City of Monticello