HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-01-2016
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
June 1, 2016 -- 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Special Order of Business (none)
4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues
Not Already on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and
address for the record.)
5. Planning Cases
A. Consider Resolution 1052-16, a Resolution recommending approval of an
amendment of City Code, Section 1008.10, Subd 9(c)(2)(b), relating to
colored lights in Dynamic Display Signs.
B. PUBLIC HEARING (continued) Consider Resolution 1050-16, a Resolution
approving/denying a Variance for use of non-amber colors on a Ground Sign
with a Dynamic Display, to be located at 2848 Co Rd H2; Planning Case
MU2016-001 (VR2016-003).
6. Other Planning Activity
A. Presentation; Craig Swalchick, Housing & Code Enforcement Inspector.
B. Discussion; Accessory Dwelling Units
C. Discussion; Brew Pubs
D. Discussion; Demographics
7. Reports
A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity
B. Staff Updates
C. Council Updates
D. Planning Commissioner Reports
8. Approval of Minutes: May 18, 2016
9. Next Planning Commission Meetings:
A. Wednesday, June 15, 2016
B. Wednesday, July 6, 2016
10. Meeting Conclusion
Item No: 6A
Meeting Date: June 1, 2016
Type of Business: Other Planning Activity
City of Mounds View Staff Report
To: Mounds View Planning Commission
From: Jon Sevald, Planner
Item Title/Subject: Presentation of Housing & Code Enforcement
Introduction
As requested by a Commissioner, Craig Swalchick, Housing & Code Enforcement
Inspector will provide a brief presentation of the City’s enforcement program.
Recommendation
The Commission is encouraged to ask questions.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Jon Sevald, AICP
Planner
EstimateEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorTotal:12,412 10,550 (+/- 336)606 (+/- 198)121 (+/- 88)727 (+/- 194)36 (+/- 51)50 (+/- 50)322 (+/- 164)721 (+/- 296)
Male:6,045 5,078 (+/- 262)326 (+/- 118)35 (+/- 28)341 (+/- 126)25 (+/- 36)19 (+/- 22)221 (+/- 118)392 (+/- 170)
Under 18 years:1,564 1,172 (+/- 147)150 (+/- 78)0 (+/- 14)111 (+/- 89)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)131 (+/- 104)201 (+/- 98)
Native 1,506 1,152 (+/- 145)131 (+/- 77)0 (+/- 14)99 (+/- 85)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)124 (+/- 103)201 (+/- 98)
Foreign born:58 20 (+/- 26)19 (+/- 23)0 (+/- 14)12 (+/- 16)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)7 (+/- 12)0 (+/- 14)
Naturalized U.S. citizen 30 20 (+/- 26)8 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)2 (+/- 9)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)
Not a U.S. citizen 28 0 (+/- 14)11 (+/- 18)0 (+/- 14)10 (+/- 12)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)7 (+/- 12)0 (+/- 14)
18 years and over:4,481 3,906 (+/- 224)176 (+/- 77)35 (+/- 28)230 (+/- 83)25 (+/- 36)19 (+/- 22)90 (+/- 49)191 (+/- 95)
Native 4,143 3,783 (+/- 225)101 (+/- 63)35 (+/- 28)117 (+/- 56)25 (+/- 36)0 (+/- 14)82 (+/- 47)81 (+/- 51)
Foreign born:338 123 (+/- 75)75 (+/- 44)0 (+/- 14)113 (+/- 66)0 (+/- 14)19 (+/- 22)8 (+/- 12)110 (+/- 76)
Naturalized U.S. citizen 106 42 (+/- 46)21 (+/- 23)0 (+/- 14)34 (+/- 43)0 (+/- 14)9 (+/- 15)0 (+/- 14)48 (+/- 50)
Not a U.S. citizen 232 81 (+/- 58)54 (+/- 38)0 (+/- 14)79 (+/- 51)0 (+/- 14)10 (+/- 16)8 (+/- 12)62 (+/- 52)
Female:6,367 5,472 (+/- 299)280 (+/- 107)86 (+/- 75)386 (+/- 143)11 (+/- 16)31 (+/- 33)101 (+/- 63)329 (+/- 158)
Under 18 years:1,468 1,135 (+/- 141)65 (+/- 47)48 (+/- 54)148 (+/- 113)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)72 (+/- 57)142 (+/- 89)
Native 1,406 1,123 (+/- 139)37 (+/- 35)48 (+/- 54)126 (+/- 112)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)72 (+/- 57)142 (+/- 89)
Foreign born:62 12 (+/- 14)28 (+/- 34)0 (+/- 14)22 (+/- 21)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)
Naturalized U.S. citizen 20 12 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)8 (+/- 13)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)
Not a U.S. citizen 42 0 (+/- 14)28 (+/- 34)0 (+/- 14)14 (+/- 16)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)
18 years and over:4,899 4,337 (+/- 238)215 (+/- 82)38 (+/- 29)238 (+/- 78)11 (+/- 16)31 (+/- 33)29 (+/- 22)187 (+/- 92)
Native 4,372 4,186 (+/- 234)83 (+/- 53)38 (+/- 29)38 (+/- 33)0 (+/- 14)13 (+/- 18)14 (+/- 16)137 (+/- 77)
Foreign born:527 151 (+/- 54)132 (+/- 70)0 (+/- 14)200 (+/- 68)11 (+/- 16)18 (+/- 27)15 (+/- 16)50 (+/- 39)
Naturalized U.S. citizen 305 74 (+/- 38)57 (+/- 41)0 (+/- 14)155 (+/- 60)11 (+/- 16)0 (+/- 14)8 (+/- 12)10 (+/- 16)
Not a U.S. citizen 222 77 (+/- 40)75 (+/- 52)0 (+/- 14)45 (+/- 31)0 (+/- 14)18 (+/- 27)7 (+/- 11)40 (+/- 38)
Sex by Age By Nativity and Citizenship Status
Mounds View city, Minnesota
Powered by The American Community Survey
Total*:One Race Two or More Races
White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian and
Alaska Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
Some Other
Race
* Margins of Error are not provided for Totals but may be found for those estimates where available in American FactFinder or our FTP server. See Appendix 3 of ‘What General Users Ne
Hispanic or
Latino (any
race) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Except where noted, 'race' refers to people reporting only one race. 'Hispanic' refers to an ethnic category; Hispanics may be of any race.
An entry of '+/-0' in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.
A 'Z' entry in the estimate or margin of error column indicates that the estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.
EstimateEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorEstimateMargin of ErrorTotal:12,412 10,550 (+/- 336)606 (+/- 198)121 (+/- 88)727 (+/- 194)36 (+/- 51)50 (+/- 50)322 (+/- 164)721 (+/- 296)
Born in state of residence 8,817 8,026 (+/- 404)129 (+/- 81)68 (+/- 63)321 (+/- 111)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)273 (+/- 158)418 (+/- 190)
Born in other state in the United States 2,549 2,202 (+/- 283)203 (+/- 106)53 (+/- 34)59 (+/- 60)0 (+/- 14)13 (+/- 18)19 (+/- 21)136 (+/- 100)
Native; born outside the United States 61 16 (+/- 18)20 (+/- 22)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)25 (+/- 36)0 (+/- 14)0 (+/- 14)7 (+/- 11)
Foreign born 985 306 (+/- 96)254 (+/- 120)0 (+/- 14)347 (+/- 133)11 (+/- 16)37 (+/- 46)30 (+/- 36)160 (+/- 95)
Place of Birth in the United States
Mounds View city, Minnesota
Powered by The American Community Survey
Total*:One Race Two or More Races
White
Black or
African
American
American
Indian and
Alaska Native
Asian
Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
Some Other
Race
* Margins of Error are not provided for Totals but may be found for those estimates where available in American FactFinder or our FTP server. See Appendix 3 of ‘What General Users
Need to Know’ for instructions on calculating an approximate MOE for any totals not already provided within the ACS data tables.
Hispanic or
Latino (any
race) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
Except where noted, 'race' refers to people reporting only one race. 'Hispanic' refers to an ethnic category; Hispanics may be of any race.
An entry of '+/-0' in the margin of error column indicates that the estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.
A 'Z' entry in the estimate or margin of error column indicates that the estimate or margin of error is not applicable or not available.
Minnesota State Demographic Center | January 2015 | mn.gov/demography
OSD-15-148
Minnesota On The Move:
Migration Patterns & Implications
Page | 2 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
Purpose
The Commissioner of Administration, as part of strategic planning, is to issue an annual report to the Governor
and chairs and ranking minority members of the State Senate and House of Representatives committees with
jurisdiction on state government finance, that provides demographic information to assist public and elected
officials with long-term management decisions. This report, prepared by the MN State Demographic Center,
focuses upon the increasingly important role that migration will play in population change in Minnesota, and
potential implications, to fulfill the expectations of Minnesota State Statutes 4A.01 and 4A.11.
Page | 3 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
Minnesota On The Move:
Migration Patterns & Implications
Executive Summary
Minnesota is entering a new demographic era, when the three components of population change—births, deaths
and migration—will change in their relative influence. Within the next three decades, the number of births in
Minnesota will be eclipsed by the number of deaths—for the first time in our state’s history. When that occurs,
by the early 2040s, if our state is to experience any population growth at all, it will necessarily be from
migration. Over these same coming decades, the Baby Boomer generation will continue to exit the labor force,
and overall labor force growth will slow nearly to a halt. Thus, our state will experience a heightened need for
migration to grow at all, but especially to shore up its labor force needs.
Given this rising importance of migration to our state, this report examines the patterns and net movement of
people in and out of Minnesota. Importantly, we find that:
Between 1991 and 2001, Minnesota’s domestic (state-to-state) net migration was consistently positive.
However, each year following 2001, Minnesota has lost more people to other U.S. states than it has
gained. Recent estimates put domestic net losses at approximately 7,000 to 12,000 people per year.
Despite these domestic losses, even greater numbers of arriving international residents—including
foreign students and work VISA holders, refugees, and other immigrants—have resulted in sustained
positive overall migration.
Each year of the past two decades, Minnesota has gained more people than it has lost to other places.
However in the 1990s, migration added more than 15,000 people on average each year from migration,
while annual gains have fallen below 9,000 on average each year since 2000.
The likelihood of moving, both in and out of Minnesota, peaks in the late teens and early 20s, and then
tapers gradually into older adulthood. However, net losses to domestic migration are seen among three
segments of Minnesotans: age 18-24 (about 9,300 lost annually), age 35-39 (about 1,500 lost annually),
and age 60-69 (about 2,200 lost annually).
While 21,000 young adults move to Minnesota each year to attend college or graduate school, even
greater numbers of students (29,000) leave the state each year. In fact, two-thirds of Minnesota’s total
annual domestic net loss is due to Minnesota students leaving for higher education, and far fewer return
in the post-college years. Thus, retaining more of our college-bound young adults at in-state institutions
may be a key strategy to long-term population retention and labor force development.
Compared to other Midwestern states (excepting oil-rich outlier North Dakota), Minnesota competes favorably
in terms of overall positive net migration. But considering the reversal of domestic migration to a net outflow
more than a decade ago, and given our state’s near-term labor force challenges with the Boomers’ retirement,
additional attention to our migration situation is warranted. More than 100,000 people come to Minnesota from
other states each year, and an even greater number leave Minnesota for other states. These sizeable flows of
people present an opportunity to change the migration equation to better benefit our state. Minnesota should
work to stem and reverse domestic losses, redouble efforts to attract and integrate new residents, especially
young adults, and seek to retain its current resident population.
Page | 4 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
Introduction
Like others all across the nation, many Minnesotans are on the move. Throughout their lives, they move in and
around the state, throughout the states, and occasionally abroad. They change addresses for job prospects or
educational opportunities, to reunite with family or friends, or to seek out amenities they desire. Some residents
leave and boomerang back. Some leave and never look back. The continuous, dynamic patterns of migration also
brings many new residents, workers, cultures, and influences into our state—people seeking to construct a
better life, however that is personally defined. Minnesota’s population is a composite of home-grown residents
and transplants from other states and destinations around the world. This report examines these many currents
of migration, highlighting implications and suggesting opportunities to retain and attract additional people, to
build our labor force and secure a strong economic future.
Why Does Migration Matter To Minnesota?
Understanding the patterns of people moving in and out of our state is critical for leaders seeking to prepare
Minnesota for its future. Minnesota is entering a new demographic era, where the three components of
population change—births, deaths and migration—will change in their relative influence. Our labor force and
population growth will slow dramatically, and migration’s impact will become far more prominent.
Over the coming decades, the Baby Boomer generation will
continue to exit Minnesota’s labor force, and while the labor
force they leave behind will still grow, that growth will be
very modest. In the 1990s our state’s labor force gained
about 40,000 new net participants each year; however, we
project that through the remainder of the present decade
(the 2010s), our labor force will grow by only about 8,000
people annually.i Between 2020 and 2030, we project further
slowing, with just 4,000 people annually enlarging the labor
force—one-tenth the size of the expansion during the 1990s
(see Figure 1).Minnesota will experience a heightened need
for migration to strengthen our labor force as the largest
birth cohort in history leaves its working years behind. Over
the next 15 years, Minnesota will see more people moving
out of the workforce and into retirement than in the last six
decades combined.
At present, the major driver of Minnesota’s population growth is “natural change,” defined as the number of
births occurring over and above the deaths. Most recently, Minnesota’s population increased by 0.6% from 2013
to 2014, and by 2.9% since the date of the 2010 Census. Since then, Minnesota has added about 153,200
residents. The majority of this growth—about four out of each five people added—is due to natural increase,
while the remaining one is due to positive net migration.
32,000
38,000
25,000
8,000
4,000
13,000
1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s 2030s
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, decennial census. MN State Demographic
Center Projections.
Figure 1: Historical and Projected Growth In
Minnesota's Labor Force, Ages 16+, Annual
Average, 1980-2039
Page | 5 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
As the numerous members of Minnesota’s Baby Boomer generation1 move into the later seasons of their lives,
mortality rates and totals will rise. According to our projectionsii, within the next three decades, the number of
births in Minnesota will be eclipsed by the number of deaths—for the first time in our state’s history (see Figure
2). When that occurs, by the early 2040s, if our state is to experience any population growth at all, it will
necessarily be from migration. Absent positive net migration at that time, the prospect of a declining population
base would mean reduced consumer spending and tax revenues, with the attendant challenges to maintaining
economic growth and fulfilling public priorities. Given this confluence of demographic and economic factors,
migration will be increasingly important to Minnesota’s future.
Figure 2: Minnesota’s Projected Net Migration And Natural Change, 2015-2065
Source: MN State Demographic Center projections.
Does Minnesota Gain Or Lose People Because Of Migration?
Over the past two decades, Minnesota has consistently gained more people than it has lost to other places. In
the 1990s Minnesota gained an average of 15,500 people each year due to migration (See Figure 3). Since 2000,
gains have been much slower, dipping to just 2,000 during the Great Recession2 and the years immediately
following (2008-2010). In the most recent period, net gains from migration have picked up again, averaging about
6,000 people per year between 2011 and 2014, though still much lower gains than those experienced in the
1990s. These overall net figures are the result of considerable volumes of individuals moving both into and out
of the state, and the majority of this movement is offsetting. However, examining the characteristics of these
many currents of migration is revealing.
1 The Baby Boomer generation is defined as individuals born in years 1946 to 1964. In 2015, the Boomers will be between 50 (prior to their birthdays) and
69 years old.
2 According to the U.S. National Bureau of Economic Research, the latest U.S. recession began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009.
-5,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
20152020202520302035204020452050205520602065 Natural Change (Births-Deaths)
Net Migration
Page | 6 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
Domestic and International Migration
It is helpful to break the population figures from migration into its two component parts: domestic migration—
occurring between Minnesota and other U.S. states—and international migration—between Minnesota and
other countries outside the U.S. The impetus for moving may differ in important ways between the two groups,
and each tells a different story for Minnesota’s migration patterns in recent years.
As Figure 4 shows, between 1991 and 2001
Minnesota’s domestic net migration was consistently
positive. During the 1990s, the state experienced low
unemployment rates compared with the U.S. overall,
and this may help explain why it attracted more people
from around the U.S. However, since 2002,
Minnesota’s has consistently lost more people to other
U.S. states than it has gained, despite experiencing
strong relative economic indicators again in the past
several years. (Since 2009, Minnesota’s annual
unemployment rate has been 1.2 to 2.5 percentage
points lower than the U.S. as a whole)iii.
15,500
8,500
2,000
6,000
1990-1999 2000-2007 2008-2010 2011-2014
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program. Note: 2000 data were interpolated.
Figure 3: Total Net Migration for Minnesota, 1990-2014
(Annual Average Within Time Period)
Figure 4: Minnesota's Net Migration, By International And Domestic Components, 1991-2014
-10,000
-5,000
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014International Net Domestic Net Total Net Migration
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program. Note: Data for 2009-2010 was unavailable and so interpolated.
Page | 7 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
International migration tells a different story, with Minnesota being a long sought-after destination for
immigrants of many varying backgrounds. Over the past two and a half decades, Minnesota’s net international
migration has been unfailingly positive. The total number of people the state gained from other countries
averaged about 6,000 annually during the 1990s, and rose considerably during the 2000s and up to the present.
Since 2010, the number of people Minnesota gained, on net, from other countries has averaged 12,000 annually.
The growth in international migration has more than compensated for the recent losses the state has
experienced to other states. However, our domestic losses continue to dampen the overall positive impact of
migration on population growth, and raise many questions about what may be responsible for the trend.
Migration Patterns: Comparison With Other States Since 2010
A net loss of people to other states is not unusual for states located in the Midwest region3 of the U.S. Between
the 2010 Census count and the 2014 population estimate4, North Dakota and South Dakota were the only
Midwestern states to experience positive rates of domestic migration, while Minnesota and the other nine states
in the region saw domestic losses (see Table 1). North Dakota added more than 43,000 residents relocating
from other states, while South Dakota received about 12,000 new domestic migrants. However, due to its
significant off-setting international arrivals, Minnesota ranked second only to oil-rich North Dakota in total net
migration, edging out South Dakota despite its domestic magnetism.
Setting aside the two Dakotas, Minnesota’s
observed pattern of negative domestic
migration, but positive international migration
since 2010 holds for all other states in the
Midwest. Illinois is the most extreme case on
both counts, losing about 319,000 domestic
migrants, while gaining nearly 129,000
residents from international destinations since
the last decennial Census. (Put together, this
resulted in total out-migration from Illinois of
more than 190,000 residents, the greatest
reduction in population from migration
among all states.) In sum, the Midwest states
lost about 729,000 domestic residents during
the past four years, while gaining about
513,000 from international migration, for a
total net loss of 215,000 residents total from
migration.
3 The Census Bureau defines the “Midwest region” as comprising the following 12 states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin. We have adopted this definition throughout this report.
4 The reference date of the 2010 Census is April 1, while the reference date of the 2014 population estimate is July 1.
State Total International Domestic
North Dakota 48,900 5,500 43,300
Minnesota 31,100 56,200 -25,200
South Dakota 18,000 6,000 12,100
Iowa 16,900 21,400 -4,600
Nebraska 10,000 15,500 -5,400
Indiana 8,400 42,000 -33,600
Missouri -8,000 35,500 -43,500
Wisconsin -11,300 26,100 -37,400
Kansas -15,300 24,900 -40,200
Ohio -51,000 71,100 -122,000
Michigan -72,700 80,500 -153,200
Illinois -190,100 128,800 -319,000
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 Population Estimates. Note: Domestic plus international figures may not equal
totals due to rounding and a “residual,” the result of controlling county populations to the national population for
the entire set of estimates.
Table 1: Net Migration, Midwestern States,
April 1, 2010 - July 1, 2014
Page | 8 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
The larger picture of migration throughout the nation shows that states in the South5 were the largest magnets
for domestic migration, tallying 1.4 million new net domestic arrivals since 2010, followed by states in the West6,
which added close to a quarter of a million residents from other states. An equal or greater number of
international migrants also sought out states in those regions.
Since the 2010 Census, existing population behemoths Florida and Texas each have added more than 900,000
new residents from migration, with sizeable shares from both domestic and international populations. (While
North Dakota’s 43,000 domestic migrants led the Midwest, Florida and Texas each added more than 10 times
that figure.) Despite experiencing about 189,000 domestic losses, California proved such a popular destination
for international arrivals that it ranked 3rd in positive overall net migration, adding about 460,000 residents since
2010. Following Texas and Florida—the states most likely to be listed in a domestic mover’s new address—
ranked North Carolina, Colorado, Arizona, and South Carolina. Each attracted 100,000 or more transplants
from other states since 2010 (plus tens of thousands of new international residents). These major shifts in U.S.
population have broad implications—for the economy, politics, and beyond. It is helpful to understand
Minnesota’s place in the larger picture of U.S. migration, and seek to strengthen our hand where possible. If not,
our present ranking of 21st most populous state may be at risk in the years to come. Colorado and South
Carolina, the 22nd and 24th largest states respectively, are both excelling at attracting residents through migration
in far greater numbers than Minnesota.
5 The Census Bureau defines the “South region” as including the following states (and the District of Columbia): Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.
6 The Census Bureau defines the “West region” as including the following states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. The remaining states (not appearing in the Midwest, South, or West regions) make up the
“Northeast region.”
Figure 5: Total Net Migration, By State, April 1, 2010 – July 1, 2014
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 Population Estimates. Note: Domestic plus international figures may not equal totals due to rounding and a “residual,” the result of controlling
county populations to the national population for the entire set of estimates.
For interactive map online, see: http://mn.gov/admin/demography/map-viz-gallery/viz-mn-on-the-move-maps-migration-by-state-2010-2014.jsp
920,000 -200,000
Total Migration (Net)
Page | 9 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
Figure 6: Domestic Net Migration, By State, April 1, 2010 – July 1, 2014
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 Population Estimates. Note: Domestic plus international figures may not equal totals due to rounding and a “residual,” the result of controlling county
populations to the national population for the entire set of estimates.
For interactive map online, see: http://mn.gov/admin/demography/map-viz-gallery/viz-mn-on-the-move-maps-migration-by-state-2010-2014.jsp
565,000 -500,000
Domestic Migration (Net)
Figure 7: International Net Migration, By State, April 1, 2010 – July 1, 2014
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 Population Estimates. Note: Domestic plus international figures may not equal totals due to rounding and a “residual,” the result of controlling
county populations to the national population for the entire set of estimates.
For interactive map online, see: http://mn.gov/admin/demography/map-viz-gallery/viz-mn-on-the-move-maps-migration-by-state-2010-2014.jsp
650,000 2,000
International Migration (Net)
Page | 10 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
Migration In Minnesota: One Hundred Thousand Come And Go Each Year
While the netted-out numbers shed light on how domestic and international migration impact the Minnesota’s
overall population growth, they do not describe the overall volume of people passing through the state in a
typical year. Indeed, the relatively small size of net gains masks a tremendous amount of total migration
occurring into and out of Minnesota each year.
Data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey suggest that between 2008 and 2012, there
were about 101,000 people each year who moved to Minnesota from another state and about 24,000 who
moved to Minnesota from another country. During the same time period, about 113,000 people left Minnesota
each year for other states in the U.S.7 In addition, another group left Minnesota for a country outside the U.S.;
however, estimates of international out-migrants are not available from this data source.8
These sizeable numbers of individuals who are making relocation choices also present Minnesota leaders with an
opportunity to influence their decision-making regarding the costs and benefits of moving. To do so, we would
need to know more about who is choosing to leave Minnesota as well as relocate here, and at what period of
their lives. The next section further explores these questions.
Origins Of Minnesota’s New Arrivals Versus Minnesota’s Recent Leavers
Each year, about 125,000 people move to Minnesota from another state or country. Of all our state’s
newcomers in recent years , 19% moved from another country, 28% moved from one of the four states that
7 The American Community Survey (ACS) data estimates yield a higher net loss from migration (12,000 annual average during the 2008-2012 period) than
the Population Estimates data cited earlier in this pap er (7,000 annual average during those same years) for Minnesota. While the exact figure is unknown,
this section employs the American Community Survey data as it yields additional insights about the characteristics of migrant s.
8 The U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program suggests that the net gain from international migration was about 10,000 people during this time
period, which would suggest an outflow of about 14,000 Minnesota residents to other countries each year.
An average of 101,000
people move to
MN each year
from other states
An average of 113,000
people move out of
MN each year to
other states
Figure 8: Minnesota's Annual Average Domestic Migration Flows, 2008-2012
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center.
Page | 11 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
shares a border with Minnesota (North or South Dakota, Iowa, or Wisconsin), and 53% moved from a state
that does not share a border with Minnesota. More than one-quarter of newcomers (28%) were Minnesota-
born residents, returning after a spell away. Half were born in another state, while just under one-quarter were
born outside of the United States.
At the same time, about 113,000 people left Minnesota for another state in the U.S. (see Figure 8). Many do not
go far: the most common destination for recent leavers is Wisconsin (16% of all out-migrants), followed by
North Dakota (12% of all out-migrants). The next most common destinations include the “Sun Belt” states of
Arizona (6%) and Texas (6%), along with our southern neighbor, Iowa (6%). Recent leavers were almost equally
likely to be Minnesota-born (44%) as born in another U.S. state (46%). In addition, about 1 in 10 individuals
leaving Minnesota for another state was born outside of the U.S.
Minnesota’s
ARRIVALS
at a glance
Each year 101,000 people
move to Minnesota from
another state.
Another 24,000 move to
MN from another country.
Of all known arrivals in
recent years:
19% moved from another country
28% moved from a state that
shares a border with MN
53% moved from another state
not bordering MN
Figure 9: Characteristics Of Minnesota’s Recent Arrivals And Leavers, At A Glance
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center.
Minnesota’s
LEAVERS
at a glance
Each year, 113,000 people
move from Minnesota to
another state in the U.S.
(An unknown amount leave
for other countries.)
Of all known leavers in
recent years:
16% moved to Wisconsin
12% moved to North Dakota
6% moved to Arizona
6% moved to Texas
6% moved to Iowa
Page | 12 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
Migration Patterns By Age: Young Minnesotans Are Most Likely To Be Footloose
A person’s age greatly influences the likelihood that he or she will relocate, both within and outside the state.
One might expect that the ages often associated with two prominent transitions in life, leaving for college and
retirement, would yield a high degree of mobility (moving of any type) and migration (moving across state or
national lines) among Minnesotans. However, this is true of only the former group—the young adults. Among all
age groups, the likelihood of moving within the state is actually the lowest among 65- to 74-year-old residents,
with only about 3% swapping Minnesota homes in the course of a year (see Figure 10). And while this group
does exhibit some degree of domestic migration, the likelihood of moving out of state is low and somewhat
offset by newcomers of the same age. On average, 1.0% of 65- to 74-year-olds leave Minnesota each year for
another state, while an average of 0.8% percent of this age group arrived in Minnesota from another state in the
past year. Curiously, the 60- to 64-year-old cohort exhibits slightly higher out-migration (1.1%) and slightly
lower in-migration (0.6%) than that group. Yet because those early 60-somethings9 contain entirely Baby
Boomers, they are much more numerous than the group following them; consequently these percentages
translate into greater numbers of people coming and going.
Looking across the age spectrum, young adults in their late teens and 20s are the demographic most responsible
for Minnesota’s mobility and migration patterns. As Figure 10 shows, 30 percent or more of Minnesotans age
19-25 makes a change of address inside of Minnesota, generally leaving the home of their parent(s), often in
exchange for a residence and community associated with their pursuit of post-secondary education or training,
or entrance into the labor market. This mobility is to be expected as a natural part of the life course.
9 During years 2008-2012, the years of the dataset used for this analysis.
Figure 10: Percent of Minnesota Residents Moving Within Minnesota, or Migrating In Or Out Of Minnesota,
By Single Year of Age, 2008-2012
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89
AGE
Moved Within MN
Moved To MN From Another State
Left MN For Another State
Moved To MN From Abroad
Page | 13 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
However, it is the interstate migration pattern of these young adults that is particularly interesting and
concerning. Because the gap between out-migrants and in-migrants yawns the widest among our young adult
populations (see Figures 11 and 12), the result is that they are driving more net out-migration than any other
age group.
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
AGE
In-migration
Out-migration
Figure 11: State-to-State Migration By 5-Year Age Groups, Minnesota, 2008-2012
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center.
Note: I-bars indicate a 90% confidence interval around the estimates.
Figure 12: State-to-State Migration Among Young Adults By Single Year Of Age, Minnesota, 2008-2012
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center.
Note: I-bars indicate a 90% confidence interval around the estimates.
Page | 14 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
As we have seen, the likelihood of moving across state lines peaks in the late teens and early 20s, and then
tapers gradually into older adulthood. However, after accounting for all movement in and out, we find
statistically significant net losses of residents
to domestic migration among three segments
of Minnesotans: those age 18-24 (about 9,300
lost annually), age 35-39 (about 1,500 lost
annually), and age 60-69 (about 2,200 lost
annually) (see Figure 13). Over the past five
years then, these losses sum to more than
65,000 Minnesotans who have out-migrated
in these few age groups. If we are to focus
our attention most precisely, the greatest
losses occur among Minnesota’s 18- and 19-
year-olds—more than 3,000 apiece each
year, or half of the total annual net domestic
loss that Minnesota experiences all together.
Among 18- and 19-year-olds, MN has lost a
net of more than 33,000 people in the past
five years. Many, but not all of these migrants,
are college-bound.
The Great Migration Of College Students
Of all the people migrating in and out of Minnesota in any given year, a large segment is made up of students
moving to attend college or graduate school (see Figures 14 and 15). About one-fifth of Minnesota’s new arrivals
and one-fourth of our new leavers are students of higher education. While our data source, the American
Community Survey, does not directly ask respondents why they moved to another state, we can estimate
students by identifying those who moved in the past year and are currently enrolled in post-secondary school. 10
10 “Students” were identified in the data as those who began attending school within the year following their move , who are under age 50. These
individuals are presumed to have moved for the purpose of attending higher education.
Figure 13: Age Groups With Net Losses From Migration To
Other States, By Average Annual Number Of People Lost,
Minnesota, 2008-2012
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN
State Demographic Center.
-3,600
-3,000
-2,600
-1,500
-1,400
-900
18
19
20-24
35-39
60-64
65-69 AGE Figure 14: Annual Leavers From Minnesota, By Age Group And Student Status, 2008-2012
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center.
Page | 15 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
A sizable share of Minnesota’s total net loss of residents to other states is explained by those who move away
for post-secondary school. While about 21,000 people move to Minnesota each year and then attend college or
graduate school, about 29,000 students leave the state for this reason each year (see Figure 16). Thus, fully two-
thirds of the Minnesota’s total net loss of 12,000 residents per year is attributable to college and graduate
students (see Figure 17). While some numbers of
these students return later in their lives as non-
students, the data suggest that the numbers returning
are far less than those exiting Minnesota during their
college years.11
Indeed, the move to college or graduate school may
be temporary, with young people moving back home
after graduation; it may be an interim stop until they
move somewhere new after college; or the state
where students earn their degree may become the
place they remain for many years after graduating.
Higher educational institutions create many
opportunities to “anchor” former students near
them—through connections to internships and the
local job market, the establishment of friendships and
partners in the community, and the exposure to local
amenities or cultural offerings to which students may
grow attached. A share of our out-migrating young
adults return to Minnesota at some point. However,
for the sake of our future labor force, it is important
to understand the important role that higher our
11 Our data source only allows for cross-sectional analysis of age groups at single points in time, not longitudinal analysis of the migration of individual
students in and out of the state over a period of years. Additional research on this topic is warranted to uncover a clearer picture of the likelihood and
timing of young peoples’ return to Minnesota following out-migration.
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center.
Figure 15: Annual Arrivals To Minnesota, By Age Group And Student Status, 2008-2012
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center.
80,000
84,000
21,000
29,000
Arrivals In MN
Leavers From
MN
Not a Student Undergrad or Graduate Student
Figure 16: People Moving To and From Minnesota Each
Year, By Student Status, 2008-2012
Page | 16 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
educational institutions play in retaining young adults
and attracting new residents to the state.
The top destinations of Minnesota’s out-migrating
students can all be reached on one tank of gas. The
majority of all Minnesota-leaving students (55%) are
attending college or graduate school at a state
contiguous with Minnesota (North Dakota, South
Dakota, Iowa or Wisconsin), while 6 in 10 of
Minnesota’s out-bound students attend school one
of these states or Illinois. Wisconsin and North
Dakota receive the lion’s share of our college-bound
exodus, or about 6,000 students annually apiece (see
Figure 18). The high likelihood that students who are
leaving are landing at Midwestern destinations
implies that climate is not likely the chief
consideration of these students and their families
when selecting school. It raises the question of
whether the colleges and universities at our
Midwestern peer states are more favorable than
Minnesota’s higher education institutions on the
basis of cost or financial aid, as well as if selectivity
or other admissions-related factors may be responsible.
Of course, a far greater number of Minnesota’s high school graduates attend in-state colleges and universities
than these numbers who leave. But, because this report is concerned with migration, and Minnesota loses more
college-bound students than it gains from other states, attending to this outflow is necessary, as it is contracting
Minnesota’s labor force pipeline at a time when we need it most.
4,000
8,000
Not a Student Undergrad or Graduate Student
All net
domestic
leavers
=
12,000
annually
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center.
Figure 17: Minnesota's Domestic Net Losses Each Year,
By Student Status, 2008-2012
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center.
Figure 18: Minnesota's Annual Out-Migrating College or Graduate Students,
By Most Common Destination States, 2008-2012
Page | 17 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
This raises the question: Across the U.S.,
which states are magnets for arriving college
students? Figure 19 reveals that, relative to
population size, North Dakota emerges as the
strongest magnet for students raised in other
states (with the exception of the District of
Columbia). For every 1,000 people living in
North Dakota, 13 of them are college
students who graduated high school
elsewhere. For Minnesota, the comparable
figure is 4 students. Thus, improving our
attraction rate for college-bound students
raised outside of Minnesota’s boundaries is
another strategy that holds promise for
improving the eventual number of well-
educated labor force entrants in Minnesota.
To recap, while about 21,000 young adults
move to Minnesota each year to attend
college or graduate school, even greater
numbers of students (29,000) leave the state
each year. In fact, two-thirds of Minnesota’s
total statewide annual domestic net loss is due
to Minnesota students leaving for higher
education, and far fewer return in the post-
college years. Thus, retaining more of our
college-bound young adults at in-state
institutions as well as attracting additional
numbers from outside our borders may be
key strategies for Minnesota’s long-term
population retention and labor force
development.
13.0
12.2
11.8
8.9
8.4
7.4
6.9
6.8
6.6
6.6
6.3
6.0
6.0
5.9
5.6
5.5
5.3
5.3
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.9
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.7
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.6
2.6
2.3
2.3
2.0
1.9
North Dakota
Rhode Island
Vermont
Delaware
Wyoming
Utah
Idaho
Massachusetts
Montana
New Hampshire
Colorado
South Dakota
Alaska
Iowa
West Virginia
Hawaii
Maryland
Virginia
Kansas
Oregon
South Carolina
Maine
Connecticut
Pennsylvania
New Mexico
Nebraska
Arizona
Missouri
Alabama
North Carolina
Minnesota
Mississippi
Indiana
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Nevada
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Washington
New York
Georgia
Kentucky
Illinois
Ohio
Florida
Louisiana
Michigan
Texas
New Jersey
California
Figure 19: Annual Rate Of Students Arriving For College Or
Graduate School, Per 1,000 State Residents, By Receiving State,
2008-2012
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center.
Page | 18 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
In-migration Of International Migrants
Much of this report has focused upon the net domestic losses from migration that Minnesota has experienced
since 2001. However, the international component of the migration equation has been consistently positive for
Minnesota during all the years of our analysis, since 1991. But which foreign sending countries are these new
Minnesotans leaving? And why are these migrants choosing Minnesota above all others as their new home?
While we cannot fully answer these questions
without directly asking our immigrant
populations, the data set does allow us to sketch
out the basic characteristics of these
international in-migrants who relocated to
Minnesota. Approximately 24,000 immigrants
from other countries have arrived in Minnesota
in each of the past five years. These arriving
international residents include foreign students
and work VISA holders, refugees and asylees,
children of international adoption, and other
types of immigrants, broadly defined—although
the data do not allow a precise breakdown of
these groups of arrivals.
While Minnesota receives its new residents
from numerous places around the globe, the limitations of the survey that created our primary data set do not
allow us to examine countries for many of the smaller population groups. Among countries we can examine,
India (2,000 annual arrivals), Mexico (1,600 arrivals), and China (1,500 arrivals) emerge as the most likely sending
countries for new Minnesota residents from foreign destinations—accounting for more than one-fifth of the
total arrivals (see Figure 20).
Countries in both Eastern
and Western Africa were
responsible for sending
Minnesota more than 1,000
arrivals from each region.
About 700 additional
Africans arrived in Minnesota
but didn’t indicate the
country they had left.
Examining all international
arrivals by age, we find that
about 1 in 5 international
arrivals was under age 18,
another 1 in 5 was age 18-24,
while about 3 in 5 were age
25 or older. The high
concentration in the 18- to
Figure 20: Annual Recent International Arrivals To Minnesota,
By Country Or Region Of Prior Residence, 2008-2012
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey.
Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center.
2,000
1,700
1,600
1,500
1,300
700
900
14,500
India
Eastern Africa
Mexico
China
Western Africa
Africa, region not specified
Asia, region not specified
Another country/World Region
Figure 21: Highest Level Of Education Completed By Recent International
Arrivals to Minnesota, Age 25+, 2008-2012
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center.
16%
17%
21%
30%
15%
Less than H.S. Diploma
H.S. Diploma/GED
Associate's Degree or Some College
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate/Professional Degree
Page | 19 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
24-age groups likely reflects many of the foreign students enrolled in Minnesota college and university settings.
Considering the approximately 13,600 annual international arrivals who are age 25 or older, they are most likely
to hold a bachelor’s degree as their highest level of education (30%), while an additional 15% of them hold a
graduate or professional degree (see Figure 21). This likely reflects some of the international workers arriving in
Minnesota via the H-1B VISA program for highly skilled workers in certain occupations, for which a bachelor’s
degree is typically a prerequisiteiv.
Retention Of Out-Bound Residents
Policymakers and other leaders concerned with Minnesota’s migration situation may find it easier to retain
current Minnesota residents than attract additional transplants (although this is a worthwhile pursuit as well).
Figure 22 shows recent leavers by age and by enrollment in college or graduate school (repeated from earlier in
this report), while Figure 23 shows recent leavers (who are not currently students in college or graduate
school) by age and household income (split into three equal groups among the entire Minnesota population). Of
interest, the greatest numbers of leavers who are in the top third of the income distribution are found in their
30s (about 5,400 leavers) and those 0-19 (5,600, presumably including many children of the first group, plus
college-bound teens from higher-income households). As noted before, about 29,000 students leave Minnesota
for higher education (with 8,000 fewer students entering our state for this reason).
Examining the racial background of out-migrants, we find that non-Hispanic Whites represent 79% of all those
leaving, followed by non-Hispanic Asian (7%) and non-Hispanic Black (6%) residents (see Figure 24). These
shares of leavers by race and ethnicity closely approximate the distribution in Minnesota’s general population,
with the exceptions that non-Hispanic Whites are slightly less likely to leave than we might expect (given their
share of the general population, 83%), while non-Hispanic Asians are slightly more likely to leave than we might
expect (given their share of the general population, 4%). Other groups are leaving the state roughly
proportionally.
Figure 22: Annual Leavers From Minnesota, By Age Group And Student Status, 2008-2012
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center.
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
AGE
Undergrad or Graduate Student
Not a Student
Page | 20 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
Strategies to retain these various out-bound Minnesotans should be informed by these data and tailored to the
unique groups of leavers. Stemming the tide of out-migrants may also require additional research into their
motivations for exiting Minnesota—to fashion effective responses based upon what might incent them to stay.
Figure 23: Annual Leavers From Minnesota, By Age And Income Groups, Non-Students Only, 2008-2012
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center.
Note: “Lower,” “MIddle” and “Higher” income groups represent the entire household income distribution in Minnesota distributed into three equal-sized parts.
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
0-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70+
AGE
Lower
Middle
Higher
Source: IPUMS version of U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008-2012 American Community Survey. Tabulations by MN State Demographic Center. Note: “NH” indicates non-Hispanic.
Figure 24: Share Of Leavers From Minnesota, By Race/Ethnicity, Compared to Minnesota Population, 2008-2012
1%
4% 5%
5%
2%
83%
Minnesota Population, By Race/Ethnicity
1%
7%
6%
5%
2%
79%
Leavers From Minnesota, By Race/Ethnicity
American Indian NH
Asian NH
Black NH
Hispanic
Multiracial or other NH
White NH
INCOME
Page | 21 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
Conclusion
The residents of Minnesota today are not the same ones as yesterday, nor tomorrow. The composition of our
state is being continually transformed by demographic changes—births, deaths, and migration. Minnesota is
entering a new demographic era, where migration’s relative influence on our total population will rise.
According to our projections, by the early 2040s, if our state is to experience any population growth at all, it
will necessarily be from migration. Over these same coming decades, the Baby Boomer generation will continue
to exit the labor force, and overall labor force growth will slow nearly to a halt. Thus, our state will experience
a heightened need for migration to grow at all, but especially to shore up its labor force needs. While Minnesota
has experienced decades of continuous net in-migration from international arrivals, net losses from state-to-
state migration have been observed since 2001. More than 100,000 people come to Minnesota from other states
each year, and an even greater number leave Minnesota for other states. These sizeable flows of people present
an opportunity to change the migration equation to better benefit our state. Minnesota leaders should work to
stem and reverse domestic losses, redouble efforts to attract and integrate new residents, especially young
adults, and seek to retain its current resident population. Positive migration is key to fueling our economy and
maintaining a high quality of living in Minnesota in the years to come.
Page | 22 MN STATE DEMOGRAPHIC CENTER JANUARY 2015
Endnotes
i MN State Demographic Center, “Minnesota's labor force participation projections by age and gender from 2010-2045,” available at:
http://mn.gov/admin/demography/data-by-topic/population-data/our-projections/
ii MN State Demographic Center projections featured in “In the shadow of the Boomers: Minnesota’s labor force outlook,” availabl e at:
http://mn.gov/admin/images/in-the-shadow-of-the-boomers-labor-force-outlook-msdc-dec2013.pdf
iii MN Department of Employment and Economic Development, Local Area Unemployment Statistics tool, available at:
https://apps.deed.state.mn.us/lmi/laus/Default.aspx
iv U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, “Understanding H1-B Requirements,” available at: http://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/h-1b-specialty-
occupation/understanding-h-1b-requirements
Note About IPUMS, Our Primary Data Source
Numerous figures in this report cite IPUMS version of the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. IPUMS refers to the Integrated Public Use
Microdata Series. Microdata are anonymous individual record data that allow for custom tabulations such as were necessary to compile this repor t. The
complete citation for IPUMS is: Steven Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B. Schroeder, and Matthew Sobek.
Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2010.
Note About “Snowbirds”
Minnesota is home to some number of “snowbirds,” individuals who leave for all or a portion of the winter months to live in warmer areas, but who
maintain a residence in Minnesota. Typically snowbirds are retired and still spend the majority of their year residing in Min nesota. Furthermore, snowbirds
are not “migrating” in the way we have characterized migration in this report, i.e., taking up new residence in another state with the intent to stay. At this
time, the U.S. Census Bureau does not have a reliable method to estimate the size of Minnesota’s snowbird population. However , our primary data
source, the American Community Survey, asks respondents about their current residence and residence one year ago. Because the American Community
Survey is a year-round survey, the majority of Minnesota snowbirds are likely responding while in Minnesota, while a smaller share who receive the survey
during the winter months while they are away are likely appearing in their temporary state of residence. However, some degree of Minnesota’s in- and
out-migration among older adults may be overstated due to those who left one year but not the previous or the next year, resulting in the appearance of
having migrated.
For Additional Information
Please contact the MN State Demographic Center at demography.helpline@state.mn.us. This report was prepared by Susan Brower and Andi Egbert.
- DRAFT -
PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Regular Meeting
May 18, 2016
Mounds View City Hall
2401 County Road 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
______________________________________________________________________________
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Chair Stevenson at 7:00 p.m. for May 18, 2016.
______________________________________________________________________________
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Commissioners French, Klebsch, Love, Rundle, Schiltgen, and Stevenson.
Absent and Excused: Commissioner Klander
Also Present: Planner Jon Sevald, City Administrator Jim Ericson, and Council Member
Gary Meehlhause.
______________________________________________________________________________
Index to Minutes Page
CU2016-002 Conditional Use Permit for a Dynamic Display Sign 2
VR2016-002 Variance for a ground sign encroaching within the 30’ 2
sight triangle, and less than 15’ setback from a property
line
VR2016-003 Variance for use of non-amber colors on a Ground Sign 3
with a Dynamic Display
VR2011-002 Variance Extension for Reduced Driveway Setback 5
Approval of Minutes 7
_____________________________________________________________________________
3. Special Order of Business
None.
Mounds View Planning Commission May 18, 2016
Regular Meeting Page 2
________________________________________________________________________
4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda
None.
______________________________________________________________________________
5. Planning Cases
A. Resolution 1048-16, Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit
for a Dynamic Display Sign at 2848 County Road H2; Planning Case
MU2016-001 (CU2016-002)
Planner Sevald stated Messiah Lutheran Church would like to replace their existing 8’ X 4’
ground sign at the corner of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Dr. with an 8’ X 5’ multi-colored
Dynamic Display sign at the same location. The existing sign encroaches into the 30’ sight
triangle, and is therefore a non-conforming structure. The Church has applied for three permits;
a CUP for the Dynamic Display Sign; a Variance to setbacks; and a Variance to use non-amber
colored lights on the sign. Each request requires a separate action. Staff reviewed the request in
further detail and recommended the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit
as requested.
Commissioner French questioned if staff had received any inquiries from the public regarding
the sign request. Planner Sevald indicated he had received a call and the resident requested
information on how the church would be changing its sign.
Commissioner Love supported the Planning Commission taking action on the Conditional Use
Permit and setback variance this evening.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Love/Commissioner Rundle. To approve Resolution 1048-
16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a Dynamic Display
Sign at 2848 County Road H2; Planning Case No. MU2016-001 (CU2016-002).
Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
_____________________________________________________________________________
B. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Resolution 1049-16, a Resolution approving a
Variance for a ground sign encroaching within the 30’ sight triangle, and less
than 15’ setback from a property line, to be located at 2848 County Road H2;
Planning Case MU2016-001 (VR2016-002)
Planner Sevald stated Messiah Lutheran Church would like to replace their existing 8’ X 4’
ground sign at the corner of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Drive with an 8’ X 5’ multi-colored
Dynamic Display sign at the same location. The existing sign encroaches into the 30’ sight
triangle, and is less than 15’ setback from a property line (approximately 14’ from Knollwood
Mounds View Planning Commission May 18, 2016
Regular Meeting Page 3
________________________________________________________________________
Drive ROW), and is therefore a non-conforming structure. Staff recommended the Planning
Commission hold a public hearing and approve the variance as requested.
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Schiltgen. To approve Resolution
1049-16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a Variance for a ground sign encroaching
within the 30’ sight triangle, and less than 15’ setback from a property line at 2848 County Road
H2; Planning Case No. MU2016-001 (VR2016-002).
Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
_____________________________________________________________________________
C. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Resolution 1050-16, a Resolution denying a
Variance for use of non-amber colors on a Ground Sign with a Dynamic
Display, to be located at 2848 County Road H2; Planning Case MU2016-001
(VR2016-003)
Planner Sevald stated Messiah Lutheran Church would like to replace their existing 8’ X 4’
ground sign at the corner of Co Rd H2 and Knollwood Dr. with an 8’ X 5’ multi-colored
Dynamic Display sign at the same location. Dynamic Display signs in residential zoned districts
must utilize amber colored lights as per City Code. Staff reviewed the request in detail with the
Commission noting all current dynamic display signs were for businesses along County Road 10.
He recommended the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and deny the variance as the
request lacked hardship. Another option available to the Planning Commission would be to
amend the City Ordinance.
Chair Stevenson asked what colors would be allowed within the dynamic display sign. Planner
Sevald explained Messiah Lutheran Church was requesting a full color sign within a residential
zoning district. Staff reviewed an example of an amber only display sign. He explained how
dynamic display signs were required to have an ambient light monitor to adjust for proper day
and night lighting.
Commissioner Klebsch questioned why the City would want to limit the church to an amber
sign. She believed that these signs have come a long way and wanted to see the church be able
to maximize their investment in a dynamic display sign. Planner Sevald reported the intention of
City Code was to allow only amber colored lights on a dynamic display sign in residential areas
as this was less intrusive.
Commissioner Klebsch inquired if dynamic display signs could be placed on a residential lot.
Planner Sevald explained dynamic display signs were only allowed for businesses, churches and
schools.
Mounds View Planning Commission May 18, 2016
Regular Meeting Page 4
________________________________________________________________________
Commissioner Klebsch believed the proposed sign was a major improvement over the existing
sign.
Chair Stevenson feared that approving this request could lead to additional dynamic display
signs within residential neighborhoods. Planner Sevald commented that if the City Code was
amended, future full-color dynamic display requests would have to be reviewed by the Planning
Commission as a Conditional Use Permit on a case by case basis.
Chair Stevenson stated he would support a full-color sign at this location.
Commissioner Rundle agreed.
Commissioner French believed the sign would be distracting and should not be allowed in a
residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Klebsch also supported the sign at this location given the fact it was not an
extremely busy street. Planner Sevald recommended the Planning Commission not approve a
variance for Messiah Lutheran Church regarding the non-amber colors, but rather that the City
Code be amended. He suggested the matter be tabled in order to allow the City to draft an
Ordinance amendment. He provided further comment on the 60-day approval time limit.
Chair Stevenson opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m.
Kirk Klaus, Pastor at Messiah Lutheran Church, thanked the Commission for their consideration
and noted he was present to take comments or questions.
Chair Stevenson appreciated all of the effort from the applicant that had gone into this request.
Commissioner Love questioned if an amber sign had the same technology as a colored sign.
Pastor Klaus discussed how the technology differed between the two signs.
Chair Stevenson asked if the sign would have a concrete base. Pastor Klaus indicated the sign
would have two yards of concrete as its base.
Commissioner Schiltgen inquired why the church was requesting a full color sign. Pastor Klaus
indicated the existing sign was of poor quality and believed the new sign would be a huge
improvement. The new sign would allow for better communication with the public and all
banners for special events could be eliminated.
City Administrator Ericson commented on how the full-color dynamic display sign would
complement the full-color static sign. For this reason, he recommended the Planning
Commission direct staff to draft an amendment to the City Code in order to allow the full-color
sign.
Chair Stevenson was in favor of tabling action on this item versus denying the variance request.
Mounds View Planning Commission May 18, 2016
Regular Meeting Page 5
________________________________________________________________________
Commissioner Klebsch agreed and asked how this would impact the church. Pastor Klaus stated
this would simply delay the churches order of the sign.
Chair Stevenson closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m.
Chair Stevenson requested further information on how long it would take to amend City Code in
order to allow for a full-color sign at the church. Planner Sevald reviewed the timeline noting if
all goes accordingly, the project could be approved by the end of June.
Further discussion ensued regarding the criteria that must be met in order to approve a variance.
City Administrator Ericson recommended that the item not be tabled but that staff be directed to
draft a City Code amendment.
Chair Stevenson still supported tabling action on the request in order to receive feedback from
the City Council.
Commissioner Klebsch was in agreement. Planner Sevald reported if the Commission were to
direct staff to prepare a code amendment, this would come back to the Planning Commission on
June 1st.
MOTION/SECOND: Chair Stevenson/Commissioner Klebsch. To table action on the Variance
for the use of non-amber colors on a Dynamic Display Sign at 2848 County Road H2 to the June
1, 2016 Planning Commission meeting; Planning Case No. MU2016-001 (VR2016-003).
Ayes – 5 Nay – 1 (French opposed) Motion carried.
Chair Stevenson recommended the Planning Commission direct staff to draft an Ordinance
amendment to allow non-amber signs on church property within a residential neighborhood.
MOTION/SECOND: Chair Stevenson/Commissioner Rundle. To direct staff to draft an
Ordinance amendment to allow non-amber signs on church property within a residential
neighborhood.
Ayes – 5 Nay – 1 (French opposed) Motion carried.
____________________________________________________________________________
D. Consider Resolution 1051-16, a Resolution approving an extension of a
Variance for reduced driveway setbacks at 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue;
Planning Case VR2011-002
Planner Sevald stated in 2011, the applicant, Michael Kinyon was granted a variance for a 1’ side
yard setback for two driveways at a duplex. A condition of the variance is that the driveways be
completed within one year. The applicant received a one-year extension in 2012, 2013, 2014, and
Mounds View Planning Commission May 18, 2016
Regular Meeting Page 6
________________________________________________________________________
2015. The applicant is requesting an additional one-year extension to the variance. He reported
the applicant owns a number of duplexes on Raymond Avenue that included gravel driveways.
During a 2011 street reconstruction project, the property owner had the driveways widened,
requiring variances to the side yard setbacks. These properties include:
5330 & 5332 Raymond Avenue (Res. 938-11)
5338 & 5340 Raymond Avenue (Res. 939-11)
5344 & 5346 Raymond Avenue (Res. 940-11)
5372 & 5374 Raymond Avenue (Res. 941-11)
5380 & 5382 Raymond Avenue (Res. 942-11)
Planner Sevald explained these properties are narrow and had no garages. The owner has made
improvements to each property (except the subject property), including constructing attached
single car garages, and two-car wide driveways. The subject property; 5338 & 5340 Raymond
Ave., received a variance for 1’ side yard setbacks for both driveways. Staff reviewed the
request in further detail and recommended the Planning Commission approve the variance
extension as requested.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Schiltgen/Chair Stevenson. To approve Resolution 1051-
16, a Resolution Recommending Approval of a One-Year Extension for the reduced driveway
setback Variance at 5338-5340 Raymond Avenue; Planning Case No. VR2011-002.
Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
_____________________________________________________________________________
6. Other Planning Activity
None.
______________________________________________________________________________
7. Reports
A. Upcoming Planning Cases & Activity
Planner Sevald discussed upcoming planning cases, noting the Commission would be discussing
brew pubs, micro-distilleries and micro-breweries.
B. Staff Updates
Planner Sevald provided the Commission with an update from staff.
C. Council Updates
Mounds View Planning Commission May 18, 2016
Regular Meeting Page 7
________________________________________________________________________
Council Member Meehlhause provided the Planning Commission with an update from the City
Council. He discussed the number of beekeeping licenses that had been approved by the
Council. He commented on the City’s 2015 audit and explained the Council approved the 2017
budget timeline. He noted he was able to attend Fire Chief Nyle Zikmund’s retirement party and
noted Chief Zikmund would be running for Anoka County Commissioner. He reviewed the
plans for the new public works facility and the grant received from Twin Cities Gateway.
D. Planning Commissioner Reports
Commissioner Love suggested the Commission discuss the City’s population at their next
meeting.
8. Approval of Minutes
April 20, 2016.
MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Rundle/Commissioner Love. To approve the Minutes of
the April 20, 2016 regular Planning Commission meetings as presented.
Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried.
9. Next Planning Commission Meeting:
A. Wednesday, June 1, 2016
B. Wednesday, June 15, 2016
______________________________________________________________________________
10. Adjournment
There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the
meeting at 8:12 p.m.
______________________________________________________________________________
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Sevald
Planner
Transcribed by:
Heidi Guenther
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.