Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes - 08/05/2025 (Workshop)MINUTES WORKSHOP MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 5, 2025 — 6:00 p.m. Academy Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Chair Andrew Tapper, Rick Kothenbeutel, Teri Lehner, Rob Stark Commissioners Absent: Melissa Robeck Council Liaison Absent: Councilmember Kip Christianson Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Bob Ferguson, Tyler Bevier 1. Call to Order Chair Andrew Tapper called the workshop meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Discussion on Amendments to 2040 Vision + Plan and Zoning Ordinance for single- family housing goals Community Development Director Angela Schumann presented background to the Commissioners. She referenced the joint workshop meeting in March with City Council and Economic Development Authority (EDA) members present to discuss housing goals and objectives for single-family residential development in Monticello. A key takeaway from the March workshop was that the members were satisfied with the City's R-1 standards and although the market may be moving toward smaller lots, the City generally wanted to see new residential development more in line with the R-1 standards. There was also recognition that the City still has workforce housing goals, which will require balancing the type of housing developed. Ms. Schumann stated that the current workshop will review and discuss any potential amendments to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan: Chapter 3 Land Use, Growth, and Annexation, and the zoning ordinance to better define community goals and clear expectations for residential development. Ms. Schumann outlined the memo presented to Commissioners. Mr. Schumann stated that the first topic of discussion will be the 2040 residential designations, particularly the Low -Density (LDR) designation and then defining gross versus net calculations. Ms. Schumann referenced the goals in the Land Use, Growth, and Orderly Annexation chapter, stating those goals guide the policies and strategies incorporated into the plan. She noted that the first two goals within Land Use, Growth, and Orderly Annexation are the same and should instead be differentiated as related to the city's goals for housing. Ms. Schumann stated that the second goal is intended to relate to Complete Neighborhoods. As a first step, Ms. Schumann recommended discussion for amending this statement to reflect the summary statement that the group developed as part of the March workshop. 1 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes — 08/13/2025 Ms. Schumann reviewed the summary statement from the workshop which was "Residential development will support Monticello's vision for retaining our small-town character and reinforcing a sense of community and belonging. We will plan for measured incremental residential growth which is thoughtfully planned and which creates well -designed neighborhoods which retain their quality and value into the future." She explained that this statement is reflective of wording in the 2040 Vision Statement, as well as the 2040 Plan's preferred growth scenario. The goal was that neighborhoods should connect people to one another and to their community. She inquired whether the statement is reflective of the City's 2040 Plan goals, and what the Commission is trying to accomplish for complete neighborhoods. Teri Lehner noted that the Complete Neighborhoods goal should be high-level. She suggested that what might be missing is the "complete neighborhoods" piece, which is not the same as what a "well -designed" neighborhood might look like. She also indicated that wording on amenities could be stronger to support a complete neighborhood. Ms. Schumann also noted that there is a Value Statement in the 2040 Plan for a range of attainable housing options. Mr. Tapper concurred that Goals 1 and 2 have a relationship to one another but should be unique. Ms. Schumann spoke to incorporating workforce housing goals to connect to the Plan's Economic Development chapter goals. Teri Lehner stated that a "complete neighborhood" should encompass all of the things the City would expect to find, such as parks and walking paths and encourage a variety of housing that retains quality and value to the development. The question is whether "well -designed" encapsulates and is broad enough for those elements to fall underneath it. Andrew Tapper suggested that a single neighborhood may not encompass a full range of housing types, but could encompass other important "neighborhood" elements. The statement would also not specifically exclude workforce housing. Ms. Lehner agreed, as long as the policies and strategies support that variety. Rob Stark concurred that the goal be kept as general as possible to avoid future complications in deciphering through the Strategies and Policies. City Planner Steve Grittman suggested capturing the notion of livability. For example, a well -designed or beautiful place may not always be livable. Mr. Stark also noted that when considering the City as a whole, we would seek to create a variety of neighborhoods with different lot sizes and home types, and being intentional about where they are located. Mr. Grittman also suggested that the Commission review how they would use this goal to make a decision on a land use application. Mr. Tapper responded that the statement "to retain quality and value" would be important in that evaluation. 2 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes — 08/13/2025 Ms. Lehner agreed, suggesting that thoughtfully planned details matter and they all seem to be in this statement. Ms. Schumann noted that those amenities and details speak to the quality of the neighborhood and on -going value. Rick Kothenbuetel noted that when presented with a subdivision development, such as one of the more recent proposals, that package of housing variety and amenities could have been better when viewing it through this statement; it didn't meet what the City was looking for. Ms. Schumann reviewed the revised summary statement based on the discussion: "Residential development will support Monticello's vision for retaining our small-town character and will reinforce a sense of community and belonging. We will plan for measured, incremental residential growth which is thoughtfully planned and designed, and creates livable neighborhoods and will retain their quality and value into the future." Moving to the next topic of discussion, Ms. Schumann referred to the 2040 Plan's single- family designations for Low -Density Residential (LDR), which corresponds directly to the R-1 zoning classification. The interaction between the identified Plan density and lot areas in zoning ordinance is important as it relates to the type of housing the City wants to encourage. She asked Mr. Grittman to explain how the Plan seems to address density and then move into a discussion of individualized standards. Mr. Grittman stated that generally with a comprehensive plan, you are looking at larger future land use areas. He explained that unplanned and open parcels are often reviewed with "gross" calculations. The difference between gross density and net density is what is excluded in the net for purposes of calculation. For example, wetland, slopes or otherwise undevelopable land, or land reserved for open space. Right of way may also be excluded. He stated that it is important to sync the density in the 2040 comp plan with the density you expect to see in zoning or subdivision. For typically single-family development, that is about 2.25 to 2.5 units per acre net density. A rough rule of thumb is that for every gross acre, the noted exclusions account for about 25% of the land in development. He stated that the 2040 Plan seems to suggest a density higher than what the R-1 zoning would allow. Mr. Tapper asked what the zoning rules work from. Mr. Grittman responded that the zoning should work off the density established in the Plan. Mr. Tapper questioned the consideration of density over lot sizes. Mr. Grittman stated that the reason density is important, is that the City wants to establish an expectation of how many units the City expects to see in a given area. Ms. Schumann stated that practically, the units per acre are also used to plan for long-term infrastructure, such as water and sewer lines or other facility upgrades. There was a brief discussion of lot area versus density, and why both are important in planning. Mr. Grittman stated that if only lot area is used to determine how many lots could occur on a given property, it would result in an overestimation of the number of lots that can 3 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes — 08/13/2025 actually be developed, because there is no factoring in of all the other items a neighborhood needs, such as roads or parks or stormwater ponds. Ms. Schumann reiterated Mr. Grittman's point which is that cities use density to help achieve comp plan housing goals. The implementation through zoning ordinances is how you achieve that density via setbacks, lot area, etc. Ms. Lehner stated that it would seem like the City is then not meeting its density goal. Mr. Grittman concurred, stating that the two must work together. Ms. Schumann stated that establishing the density range is important, noting that for example in PUD the lot sizes may be flexible to accommodate conservation or preservation of a feature or range of housing, but overall the density will match the comp plan range. Mr. Tapper stated that by establishing the density, the City is still achieving its desired low -density density for example, but may accommodate a change in the lot standards to meet other parts of the housing goal statement. Mr. Grittman confirmed and stated that right now the 2040 Plan's LDR and R-1 zoning are not consistent. He noted that the 2040 Plan uses gross and net, depending on the designation. Ms. Schumann inquired as to Mr. Grittman's recommendation for using gross or net calculation in the 2040 Plan. He recommended using gross density because the City does not always know what assets might be in the land, but still accommodate the range of units expected, and also recommended dialing down the density. This is because development typically wants to go to the high range. Ms. Schumann also spoke to potential tax base implications that housing density can produce, in terms of valuations per acre and cost of infrastructure. Mr. Grittman suggested that low -density residential is generally considered to be between 2 and 4 units per acre, which is actually what the R-1 zoning allows. The Commission generally agreed 2-4 gross units per acre seemed appropriate for the LDR. Ms. Schumann then introduced the idea that at the March workshop, there was a discussion of only allowing the higher end of the range when the development included more neighborhood and home amenities. She referred to Hunters Crossing and Featherstone as meeting the base code standards while meeting the lower end of density, where Edmonson Ridge was more dense, but had more amenities. Ms. Schumann cited that for example, the lot sizes specified in the R-1 zoning would result in a density of about 2.5 units per acre. So, to achieve the higher end of the density at 4 units per acre, the question would be whether to require more amenities. Rick Kothenbeutel was in favor of requiring more amenities for higher densities, achieving more of the value and character features. Mr. Tapper noted that there could be a balance in that you may also end up with a larger home where there is lower density, but it wouldn't necessarily have as many features. For higher density you would balance that value with more features. 111 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes — 08/13/2025 Ms. Schumann inquired what types of amenities the Commission would be seeking to achieve with higher amenities. Building Official Bob Ferguson said "amenities" could include both amenities for the neighborhood as well as what might be on the individual home. Ms. Schumann stated the LDR purpose statement can include that discussion and that would be brought forward for review. Ms. Schumann stated that given the discussion, the lot areas in the R-1 will also need adjustment. Staff will complete that calculation and bring back a recommendation. Further discussion will proceed at a future workshop including conversations for potential reguidance to incorporate more estate residential land use. 3. Adjournment BY CONSENSUS, THE WORKSHOP ADJOURNED AT 5:55 P.M. Recorded By: Anne Muellerl6v— Date Approved: October 7, 2025 ATTEST: Angela c*munity Development Director 5