Loading...
Planning Commission Agenda 02-02-2021AGENDA REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 2nd, 2021 - 6:15 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners: John Alstad, Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, Alison Zimpfer, and Eric Hagen Council Liaison: Charlotte Gabler Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order B. Appointment of Officers for 2021 C. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes — January 5th, 2021 D. Citizen Comments E. Consideration of adding items to the agenda F. Consideration to approve agenda 2. Public Hearings A. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Ordinance Amendment relating to R-1 Zoning District standards Applicant: Capstone Homes 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of amendment to regular monthly Planning Commission meeting time. B. Monticello Capital Improvement Plan Update C. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report 4. Added Items 5. Adjournment MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 5th, 2021- 6:15 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: John Alstad, Andrew Tapper, and Alison Zimpfer Commissioners Absent: Paul Konsor Council Liaison Present: Lloyd Hilgart Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order John Alstad called the Regular Meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:15 p.m. B. Appointment of Officers for 2021 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS FOR 2021 TO THE FEBRUARY 2021 REGULAR MEETING. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. C. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes — December 1st, 2020 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — DECEMBER 1 sT, 2020. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. b. Special Meeting Minutes — December 29th, 2020 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES — DECEMBER 29TH, 2020. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. D. Citizen Comments None. E. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None. F. Consideration to approve agenda ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO REVIEW ITEM 2D. (CAPSTONE HOMES) FIRST FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing — Consideration for adoption of the 2021 Monticello Official Zoning Map Applicant: City of Monticello Angela Schumann noted that each year the Planning Commission is asked to Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 1 110 review the official Zoning Map for adoption. The zoning map is the record of all the rezoning actions that have been approved by the City over the past year. She provided a summary of those changes per the staff report. In addition to the Zoning Map, the Planning Commission considers adopting the corresponding Floodplain and Shoreland Overlay maps and are unchanged from last year. John Alstad opened the public hearing. Schumann pointed out the location of each rezoning change on the map. An error was noted with Exhibit A of the staff report and would be revised for City Council consideration. Andrew Tapper asked for the purpose of the Shoreland Overlay District and Floodplain maps. Schumann noted that the City of Monticello is responsible for regulations relating to the floodplain of the Mississippi River as well as Shoreland regulations for the River, its' tributaries, and other public waters. The limits for the Shoreland and Floodplain are mostly regulated by State Statute, other mapping, and the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. By adopting the overlay map, the Planning Commission would recognize both of those boundaries. Tapper asked if those maps are new for this year. Schumann declined that they are the same as 2020 and these maps are approved each year. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed. Alstad asked for clarification on the process for updating a zoning map. Schumann explained that each of the rezoning actions were previously considered at public hearings and recommended actions were taken. The City Council has approved the noted rezoning actions identified in the report. Schumann noted that the City Attorney recommended that the City annually approve the Zoning Map. JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-001 RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 7XX FOR THE 2021 CITY OF MONTICELLO OFFICIAL ZONING MAP, INCLUDING SHORELAND/FLOODPLAIN COMPANION MAP, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. B. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Office Use in the CCD (Central Community District), Walnut & Cedar Sub -District Applicant: Laestadian Lutheran Church (Phil Jurmu, Facilities Manager) Steve Grittman introduced the item for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a Commercial Office on the ground floor of the Central Community District (CCD), Walnut & Cedar Subdistrict. The purpose of this subdistrict was to encourage as Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 2 110 much retail and hospitality in the core portion of downtown. As a result, it was thought that some offices may interfere with retail interplay along the block. Commercial Offices are allowed on second floors of the district, but require a CUP on ground floor levels. Grittman described the proposed location of the facility at 212 West 3rd Street, a previous hardware store. He also reviewed the submitted items by the applicant including their narrative and a proposed rendering of the renovated building. Grittman noted that the available on -site parking was adequate for office uses. Further noted, an occasional meeting would occur at the facility and there may be some overflow parking that the street or public parking lots would need to accommodate. Grittman reassured that the CCD District was capable of handling extra parking. He also added that the applicants may be able to reach agreements with neighboring property owners for overflow parking as well. Staff recommended approval of the application. John Alstad confirmed that there was no Exhibit Z for this application. Grittman confirmed. Alstad opened the public hearing. Phil Jurmu, Laestadian Lutheran Church/the applicant, noted that their current office space in Loretto, Minnesota is no longer useful for the Church's office needs. He explained that this approval is the last step towards moving their office operations to Monticello. Jurmu provided the background of the organization and the proposed improvements that would be made to the building. He noted that 12 employees would be utilizing this office on any given day. He noted that on occasion workshops or volunteer committees (8-20 people) would occur, notably in the evenings or on weekends. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-002, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GROUND FLOOR OFFICE SPACE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IDENTIFIED IN SAID RESOLUTION. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. C. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Map Amendment (Rezoning) to Planned Unit Development, Development & Final State Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary and Final Plat for the Construction of a Machinery & Truck Repair & Sales Use Applicant: Nuss Truck & Equipment (Phil Watkins) Steve Grittman introduced the land use requests and provided the location site plan. He noted that the site is located along Chelsea Road West. The development area is two parcels and is zoned Highway Business District (B-3) and Industrial and Business Campus District (IBC). Grittman noted there is some confusion in Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 3 1 10 the record with what the existing zoning is, however approved, a Planned Unit Development (PUD) would be set up as the zoning district. Grittman explained that the applicants were seeking to construct a building in the center, east portion of the site. The building would consist of sales, floor area, office space, mezzanine storage, and a shop. The use of the site would be for truck and machinery sales, repair, and service. Grittman displayed the applicant's proposal for employee and visitor parking and display area. A mixed surface area (unpaved) was proposed for storage of other equipment on the west portion of the site. Grittman added that the applicants proposed three access points onto Chelsea Road West. The site would be surrounded by fencing and gates, but the westerly portion would be open for equipment drop off during off hours. Grittman explained that the request was a little bit of a non-traditional PUD and that PUD flexibility was intended to create a hybrid use for this site. The code does not address this particular use exactly, particular with the amount of storage and display that would accompany this proposal since it's not a traditional automobile dealership or passenger vehicle facility. The PUD standards were still applied when reviewing the application. Staff ensured that the application with conditions as noted in Exhibit Z would more closely reflect the intent of the base zoning and fulfilling the use of PUD zoning per the code. Grittman reviewed the comments in Exhibit Z. Andrew Tapper asked for clarification on the opposing road entrance issue noted in the conditions. Grittman noted the importance of aligning the driveways with adjacent properties. Grittman was concerned with exiting traffic from both the proposed site and adjacent property when making left turns at the same time. He noted that the driver is likely watching street traffic rather than the other driver at the other site causing conflicting traffic movements. Tapper asked if it was better that the entrances were directly inline. Grittman confirmed, but also added that if the access points are far enough part that the traffic, they would not conflict. Tapper asked if there was a proposed distance that the middle driveway be shifted to the left. Grittman explained that the City Engineer would be able to confirm. In discussion with the Engineering staff, it is believed that either aligning the middle access with Dahlheimer's Beverage or shifting it to the west would be viable. Lloyd Hilgart asked what the biggest concessions from the zoning code that the applicant was receiving with the PUD and how the applicant would offset those deviations. Grittman noted a large concession is the milling surface for the storage area. Grittman also noted that the departure from the landscaping standards is significant on this plan, but it is staff s understanding that modifications would be feasible for the applicant. Lastly, the building materials and/or coloring have been requirements of other buildings along Chelsea Road. Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 4 110 Hilgart asked about the building size and if there is a criterion for foundation size. Grittman stated there is a standard that applies to automobile sales and has been applied to recreational vehicle dealers. He noted that if that standard is applied, the site would be a little bit under that requirement, but their intent is to add mezzanine space and future expansion space. Angela Schumann clarified that the Zoning Ordinance table is specific to vehicle sales or rental. On an eight acre or more site, the requirement is nine percent coverage or a minimum building size of 40,000 square feet, whichever requires the larger building. Hilgart mentioned that he was accepting of the building size but would like to see the building facade and landscaping more enhanced due to its location. John Alstad opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Phil Watkins, Nuss Truck & Equipment/the applicant, noted no concerns with meeting the recommendations. Watkins noted that since the Concept Stage PUD meeting, the applicants revised their drawing to increase the size of the building. He added regarding the storage area, they envisioned possible extending the roof out to increase square footage even further. Watkins noted they might need to further discuss a redesign of that storage area as operations could be impacted. Watkins noted regarding the landscaping plan, their intent was to match their neighbor — Ryan Motors. He explained that they added significant landscaping by the millings area. He added that the millings area is designed as an unloading area for heavy equipment and for customers to have access to the facility after hours. Watkins noted that aligning the middle access across the street would probably work for them. He noted they were designed that way for efficiency of truck circulation interior to the site. They tried to limit turning throughout the site as best as possible. Watkins noted the black coded fencing would be acceptable and they could likely remove the proposed barbed wire, but in the past have had security issues without it. Watkins suggested that if they do need barbed wire, they would create a security plan with the City. Watkins noted that the largest things at play were the engineering comments. Andrew Tapper asked about discrepancies with the landscaping plans. Watkins noted a revised landscaping plan was created after discussions with staff. The plans would be squared up once they know what they can have. John Alstad asked for clarification on the location of the property. Watkins noted that there would be vacant lots on both sides of the development and Ryan Motors was two parcels to the east. Watkins added that the stormwater pond was installed for neighboring properties to the south and is fairly high in relation to the lot. He noted that the developer would need to raise their entire site between 2 and 8 feet to get water to flow to that pond. Watkins noted they will be above the freeway elevation. He added a problem they are encountering is that some of the water from other lots is flowing through their lot to get to the pipe that goes to that pond. He noted they will have to put some type of stormwater diversion in there and hook it up to the system. Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 5 1 10 Scott Dahlke, Civil Engineering Site Design/the applicant's engineer, explained some of the major items with the Engineering comments. Dahlke noted they have been working with City Staff to resolve engineering issues and the largest issue is with stormwater. He reiterated that this issue has to do with the drainage of not only the subject parcel, but all the adjacent properties and everything that feeds into the stormwater system, as well. The developers and staff are working together through alternatives to resolve this issue. Dahlke noted that stormwater is proposed to be handled off site in the existing City ponds. The development would pay their share for stormwater treatment that would be generated by the development site. Dahlke also noted a comment in the Engineering comment letter regarding a Drainage and Utility Easement that bisects the property. He noted there is an existing 20-foot easement that extends from I-94 coming through the middle of the site (just west of the proposed building location). It was put in place with the earlier plats of these properties. He noted there is no stormwater feature or pipe nor a ditch associated with the easement area. He felt that it was unnecessary as far as they could tell, but that they are accommodating it to relocate it to the far westerly boundary. When the property is platted, there would be a 12-foot Drainage and Utility Easement along all boundaries and additional easement would be placed on the west. A combination of those featured easements would allow for future drainage improvements needed if it came to be. Dahlke also noted that the developer and staff talked about the access locations. They are in the process of generating a modified plan showing the middle access aligned with Dahlheimer Beverage. They also discussed shifting the most easterly access 25 feet further to the east for as much separation between all access points that would still function for operations on the site. Dahlke also noted that sewer and water connections comments were fairly straightforward, and it was explained that all of those stubs are extended up to the property from Chelsea Road West. Storm sewer connection is also stubbed in at two locations on Chelsea Road West. He noted that those connections would be extended to the building, connecting to the storm sewer, and extending storm sewer on the site to handle all surface drainage. Dahlke expressed that no drainage would go toward I-94 or MnDOT right-of-way. All drainage would be collected and routed through the stormwater ponds. Dahlke also explained that currently there is a continuous trail on the south side of Chelsea Road West. There is no sidewalk on the north side of Chelsea Road West. Per the Engineering comment letter, staff recommended installation of the sidewalk. Dahlke indicated that one of the complications of this is the location of current fire hydrants being in the location of proposed sidewalks additions. He indicated that three fire hydrants are on their frontage and they proposed to match how Ryan Motors installed sidewalk. Engineering staff recommended that they asked the developer to adjust the location of the sidewalk in the boulevard to try to straighten it out and pull it closer to the curbline. Dahlke indicated they would be modifying to incorporate those changes. Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 6 110 Hilgart asked the applicant how much traffic they anticipated coming and going from the site in relationship to changing the access point locations. Watkins estimated daily that there would between 10 to 20 tractor/trucks, 10 to 15 tractors with trailers, 25 employees, and 30 to 35 customers. He noted that a lot of their parts sales is delivery. He mentioned that their access spacing would be similar to Mills Fleet Farm, which sees far more traffic. Watkins noted that the most ideal location of the access point from an operations standpoint would be between the end of the building addition and first row of customer truck parking. Hilgart asked for clarification that the milled area would have no fence. Watkins noted it might have a fence, but it would not have a gate. He noted a challenge with the far west area dropping steeply due to having to raise the site up quite a bit and to have enough room for landscaping. Hilgart asked for why the applicant needed fencing. Watkins noted problems in the past with theft. Hilgart asked for the height of the proposed fence. Watkins noted 7 feet high with 3 strands of barbed wire above. Watkins noted he believed they would be okay with a plastic coded fence. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Decision 1— Rezoning to PUD, Planned Unit Development JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-003 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REZONING TO PUD, NUSS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Decision 2 — Preliminary Plat JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-004 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLAT, CONSOLIDATING THE TWO SUBJECT PROPERTIES INTO A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT PARCEL, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF EXHIBIT Z. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Decision 3 - Development Stage PUD Approval JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2021-005 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE APPLICATION, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z OF THIS REPORT, AND BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. EXHIBIT Z Rezoning to PUD, Preliminary and Final Plat, and Development and Final Stage PUD Nuss Trucking and Equipment Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 7 110 1. Addition of landscaped islands or similar spaces throughout the paved area, including at least one such island along the north boundary of the site. 2. Addition of evergreen trees screening the outdoor storage parking area on the west, and buffer plantings on the east, all as noted in this report and consistent with city code requirements. 3. Revised landscaping plan is submitted based on the engineered final site plan. 4. Addition of architectural enhancements to the principal building emphasizing additional/alternative materials treatments and principal entrance features. 5. Elimination of the westerly access point, and consolidation with the 2nd access point as noted in the City Engineer' report. 6. Elimination of the references to barbed wire, and reliance on alternative security measures on the property. 7. Addition of dark green or black vinyl coating on the chain link fencing, per ordinance requirements. 8. Specification of the exterior materials for the storage/trash area to be similar to those of the principal building. 9. Modification of the lighting plan to a maximum of 1.0 footcandles at the property line and 25 foot tall poles. 10. Submission of a signage plan consistent with the requirements of the City's sign ordinance. 11. The City Engineer provide comment and recommendation related to grading, drainage and utilities. 12. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer's report dated December 17, 2020. 13. Compliance with the comments of MnDOT's plat review. 14. Comments and recommendations of other City Staff and Planning Commission. D. Consideration of a request for Ordinance Amendment relating to R-1 Zoning District standards Applicant: Capstone Homes Andrew Tapper reclused himself from this item. Steve Grittman explained the two requests for the Zoning Ordinance amendment. The intent was to alter some of the building architectural Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 8 110 standards that apply to single-family homes in both the R-1 and R-2 District. Grittman briefly reviewed the current code for roof pitches and recommendations by the applicant. Grittman noted that the applicants supplied several home designs that have porch or gabled covered roofs that do not meet the roof pitch standard. However, Grittman noted that the main roof structures do meet the current code. Staff felt this request was reasonable but recommended the limiting the amount of coverage for these types of roof variations. Through discussions with the applicants, they had noted concerns with staff s recommendation. The second request for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance related to building materials (brick or stone fagade requirements) for single family homes in the R-1 or R-2 Districts. The applicants requested dropping that language as there were several styles of their homes that do not have brick or stone and that it was a popular request by home buyers. Staff want to protect the original interest in maintaining high levels of architecture and building quality in the single-family home districts. Grittman provided the applicants request for zoning ordinance amendment with several staff recommendations that aim to maintain the high -quality building materials and architecture of the single-family districts. Grittman noted that when the original language was adopted, the intent of the language was to accompany the City's intent to encourage or require step-up architecture and higher end housing that was not being seen built at the time. There was a concern that some of the housing that was being proposed was at the least amount of architectural detail or building materials. John Alstad asked what the main thrust of the proposed change. Grittman deferred to the applicants but noted that in their view the market has moved away in some designs in fagade materials and a wider variety of architecture was taking hold. Alstad also asked about the extraordinary pitch clause. Grittman noted that it was existing language in the code. It was noted that the Planning Commission would not be able to recommend a motion due to a lack of a quorum for this item. Alstad opened the public hearing. Heather Lorch, Capstone Homes/the applicant, wanted the opportunity to get some initial feedback and direction so that when they come back to the Planning Commission next month, there might be some tweaked language, or some further conversations could be had. Lorch prepared a short presentation that speaks to some of the recommendations they have as a developer that they would like the Boards to consider in addition to what staff proposed. Alstad asked if the homes that the applicant discussed building last year (approximately 350 homes) were all built in Minnesota. Lorch confirmed. Alstad asked if the extraordinary roof pitch refers to a less steep roof pitch. Lorch confirmed that they are proposing a 6/12 overall and a 7/12 for the Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 9 110 enhanced areas. Alstad asked if that change would affect the ability to protect the house. Lorch declined. Alison Zimpfer did not see issues with the applicants request and noted the importance of regularly updating the ordinance to stay current and move our City to the forefront. Lloyd Hilgart did not object to changing the pitches on accessory roofs but encouraged having percentages identified for having such roofs. Hilgart noted complexity to the proposed staff recommendation for brick and stone and was not in favor of removing the brick and stone requirement. Lorch responded that by removing the brick or stone does not mean diminishing the quality of the home. She noted that there is a new generation of buyers that are not interested in stone and they would like to be able to offer something that would interest them. Zimpfer reiterated the need to keep our zoning ordinance updated and modern to attract new generations and more home development in the City. Alstad agreed. There were no further comments by the public. JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE FEBRUARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND TABLE ACTION ON THE REQUEST. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 2-0. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report as provided in the agenda packet. 4. Added Items None. 5. Adjournment JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:20 P.M. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: February 2nd, 2021 Attest: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes — January 5th, 2021 Page 10 110 Planning Commission Agenda: 02/02/21 1B. Consideration of election of Planning Commission officers for 2021 A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is asked to take action to elect for positions of Chair and Vice Chair of the Commission for 2021. At present, the City code for Planning Commission requires that the Commission elect a Chair from its appointed members for a term of one year, and other officers as it determines. The Planning Commission has in the past elected a Vice Chair, in addition. The Vice Chair has fulfilled the duties of the Chair in the event of absence. The position of Chair is open due to Sam Murdoff's election to the City Council. Commissioner John Alstad currently serves as Vice Chair. Unless otherwise directed by the Commission, staff will continue to serve as Secretary. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Decision 1: Chair Position 1. Motion to nominate Commissioner Planning Commission for 2021. 2. Motion of other. Decision 2: Vice Chair Position as Chair of the Motion to nominate Commissioner as Vice Chair of the Planning Commission for 2021. 2. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff defers to the Planning Commission on matters of appointment. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. City Code Title 2, Chapter 1 - Planning Commission CHAPTER 1 PLANNING COMMISSION SECTION: 2-1-1: Name of the Commission 2-1-2: Authorization 2-1-3: Membership 2-1-4: Term of Office 2-1-5: Attendance 2-1-6: Vacancy 2-1-7: Officers 2-1-8: Meetings 2-1-9: Quorum 2-1-10: Duties of the Commission 2-1-11: Amendments 2-1-12: Compensation 2-1-1: NAME OF THE COMMISSION: The name of the organization shall be the Monticello Planning Commission. 2-1-2: AUTHORIZATION: The authorization for the establishment of this commission is set forth under Minnesota Statutes, Section 462, Municipal Planning Enabling Act. The planning commission is hereby designated the planning agency of the City pursuant to the Municipal Planning Act. 2-1-3: MEMBERSHIP: The Planning Commission shall consist of five members appointed by the Council. All members shall be residents of the City of Monticello and shall have equal rights and privileges. 2-1-4: TERM OF OFFICE: (A) Appointments. All members shall be appointed for three year terms ending on December 31 et of a given year; however, said term may be terminated earlier by the Council. Terms shall be staggered so that no more than two members' terms shall expire in a given year. Said terms are to commence on the day of appointment by Council. Every appointed member shall, before entering upon the discharge of his duties, take an oath that he/she will faithfully discharge the duties of office. (B) Renewals. When an expiring member's term is up, such member may be reappointed by Council with the effective date of the new term beginning on the first day of the next year following the expiration. MONTICELLO CITY CODE TITLE 2 / Chapter 1 / Page 1 2-1-5: ATTENDANCE: It is the City Council's intention to encourage Planning Commission members to attend all Planning Commission meetings. Should any Planning Commission member be absent for more than three meetings in a calendar year, that member may be subject to replacement by the City Council. 2-1-6: VACANCY: Any vacancy in the regular or at -large membership shall be filled by the City Council, and such appointee shall serve for the unexpired term so filled. 2-1-7: OFFICERS: (A) Elections. The City Planning Commission shall elect at its January meeting from its membership a chair, vice chair, and a secretary who shall serve for a term of one year and shall have such powers as may be prescribed in the rules of said Commission. (B) Duties of Chair. The chair shall preside at all meetings of the Planning Commission and shall have the duties normally conferred and parliamentary usage of such officers. (C) Duties of Vice Chair. The vice chair shall act for the chair in his absence. (D) Duties of Secretary. A secretary may be appointed who is not a member of the Planning Commission but can be employed as a member of city staff. The secretary shall keep the minutes and records of the Commission; and with the assistance of staff as is available shall prepare the agenda of the regular and special meetings for Commission members, arrange proper and legal notice of hearings when necessary, attend to correspondence of the Commission, and handle other duties as are normally carried out by a secretary. 2-1-8: MEETINGS: (A) The Planning Commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each month. This meeting shall be held on the first Tuesday. Regular meetings shall commence at 6:00 p.m. Hearings shall be heard as soon thereafter as possible. The Planning Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of business and shall keep a record of its resolutions, transactions, and findings, which record shall be a public record. The meeting shall be open to the general public. (B) In the event of conflict for a regularly -scheduled meeting date, a majority at any meeting may change the date, time and location of the meeting. (C) Special meetings may be called by the Chair or two members of the Planning Commission together, as needed, and shall be coordinated with MONTICELLO CITY CODE TITLE 2 / Chapter 1 / Page 2 city staff. 2-1-9: QUORUM: A majority of all voting Planning Commission members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. 2-1-10: DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION: The Commission has the powers and duties assigned to it under Minnesota Statutes, Section 462, Municipal Planning Enabling Act, by this Code, and state law. 2-1-11: AMENDMENTS: This ordinance may be amended as recommended by the majority vote of the existing membership of the Planning Commission and only after majority vote of the City Council. 2-1-12: COMPENSATION: Compensation of members of the Commission shall be as set forth in City Code for Fee Schedule. (#336, 11/22/99) (#337, 1/10/11) (#593, 3/10/14) (#607, 1/26/15) MONTICELLO CITY CODE TITLE 2 / Chapter 1 / Page 3 Planning Commission Agenda 02/02/21 2A. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for an amendment to the zoning ordinance affecting architectural standards in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. Applicant: Capstone Homes. (NAC/AS) Property: Legal: NA Address: NA Planning Case Number: 2020-045 A. REFERENCE & BACKGROUND Request(s): Request to amend the zoning ordinance related to building design in the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts, by (1) exempting certain small roof areas (porches and gables, etc.) from the main roof -slope requirement of 5:12 pitch; and (2) eliminating the requirement for stone/brick etc. on front elevations. Deadline for Decision: February 21, 2021, extended 60 days to April 171h, 2021 Project Description: The applicant is a home builder preparing to construct homes in the first phase of Haven Ridge. The applicant seeks to amend the zoning ordinance to accommodate alternative house design options by modifying two code sections currently applicable to all single family homes in the R-1 and R-2 districts. The applicants contend that these two current requirements serve to limit home options based on changing architectural preferences. ANALYSIS January 5th, 2021 Analysis As noted above, there are two requested changes. The first is to modify the roof slope standards that currently require a minimum 5:12 pitch on all roof planes. The code reads as follows: Planning Commission Agenda 02/02/21 1 •� REQUIRED YARDS {in eo} Max Minimum Minimum Roof Height Minimum Floor Areas Building Pitch & Soffit nt Interior Street Rear {stories 7 (sq ft) Width (vertical rsel Side (l] Side [3] feet) (ft) horizontal run) 10 2.5 stories LOSO foundation/ S" 1 121, 0 �] 20 30 35 feet 24 no minimum 2,000 finishable [4] soffit Fr2 1 For interior lots in R-I and R-A districts, an attached accessory structure may be allowed to meet a 6' setback, provided that the sum of both side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet_. : Interior side yard setbacks for single family homes on lots of record with a lot width 66 feet or less in the Original Plat of Monticello and Lower Monticello shall be at least six (6) feet. : The required rear yard shall consist of a space at least 30-feet in depth across the entire width of the lot that is exclusive of wetlands, ponds, or slopes greater than 12 percent : Finishable square footage is exclusive of attached accessory space. This section is clipped from the R-1 table of standards, but the identical roof pitch requirement is in the R-2 table. The applicants have requested the following language as an additional note: Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature. The advantage of this addition is that small appurtenant roof extensions such as those included in the applicant's illustrations rarely conflict with the original objective of the ordinance, which was to ensure that architecture reflective of higher -end housing predominated in the community, was intended to discourage the development of housing with a "cheaper" look. Staff would note that a carte -blanche exemption for these types of roof areas may have the effect of encouraging design that complies only with the technical aspects of the code, and results in a reduction in visual impacts. As such, staff would suggest the exemption with a limiting factor, such as: Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature, provided no such exempted roof areas shall comprise any more than 20% of the total horizontal roof area of a single family structure. With this limitation, staff believes that the proposed amendment would facilitate increased design flexibility while avoiding overuse of the exemption to the detriment of the code intent. The second proposed amendment relates to the required building materials on single family homes. The relevant section reads as follows: 15% calculation — conversation for the market on alternate materials Section 4.11 (C) (2) R-1 and R-2 Districts 2 Planning Commission Agenda 02/02/21 A minimum of 15% of the front building facade of any structure in the R-1 or R-2 Districts, less the square footage area of the garage doors, shall be covered with brick or stone. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone coverage to 5%. The Community Development Department may approve optional facade treatments when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing may include usable front porches, extraordinary roof pitch or other features. As noted, the applicants propose that this language be amended by deleting references to the brick and stone, and insert alternative language requiring a variety of facade treatments with a variety of possible materials. The redlined version would read as follows: 0 A 2 Tlk�t iet.. lens the squat;e ! ,,t,, ;e ,.rea F'the gapage ,a.,efw . b ,77 i. eevered with briebriek or stene. The front facade of any structure in the R-1 or R- 2 Districts shall include two or more different types of material which can include, but not be limited to, Vinyl Lap, Vinyl Shakes, Vinyl Board & Batten, LP (or similar) Lap, Board & Batten, Shakes, Stone, Stucco, and/or Brick. The primary type of material applied to the front facade shall not exceed 85% of the front facade of the building, less the square footage of windows, doors and garage doors. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. The Community Development Department may approve optional facade treatments when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing may include usable front porches, extraordinary roof pitch or other features. Presumably, this language would be read and written to include cement board or other common materials used in residential construction. The building materials requirements of the ordinance were written and adopted following the City's concern that new building construction was concentrating around lower -valued entry level homes, and that the standards in place at the time did not encourage higher -value home building. Thus, at that time, the City adopted (or reinforced) its requirements for larger single family lot areas and widths, along with the building requirements currently at issue. Changes to building design and preferences, suggest the applicants, make these materials regulations no longer necessary. It may be that this builder has a number of house styles without the brick or stone that meet the City's expectations. However, by amending the code as suggested, the City may be accommodating the 3 Planning Commission Agenda 02/02/21 architecturally featureless homes from another builder that the existing codes were designed to avoid. To accommodate this design change, but maintain some protection against a lowering standard of home construction, the City may incorporate the applicant's new language as a specifically approved alternative, while retaining the current requirements for the standard case (and adding some specificity to the recommendations. Thus, staff would suggest the following: Except as may be allowed in Section (0(2)(a) and (b) below, a minimum of 15% of the front building facade of any structure in the R- I or R-2 Districts, less the square footage area of the garage doors, shall be covered with brick or stone. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. (a) The Community Development Department may approve optional facade treatments when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing includes usable front porches of at least six (6) feet in any length and width and no less than 80 square feet in area; extraordinary roofpitch on the principal roofline of at least 8:12; or other features approved by the Planning Commission prior to buildinz permit. (b) In lieu of the specific brick or stone quantities otherwise required in Section (0(2), front facades may include materials which consist of (1) Vinyl, (2) Cement Board, (3) Stucco, and/or (4) LP (or similar) and which include at least three (3) styles of such materials, includinz Lap, Board & Batten, Shakes or other style. The Community Development Department may approve other materials that meet the intent of this Section. For this section to apply, no less than 15% of each of at least three such style components (lap, shake, etc.) shall be used on the front facade. These changes would accommodate the applicant's request and retain the City's interest in ensuring that other housing will be built to the standards which have been in place for many years and applied to all homebuilding over that period. The intent of staff s alternative is to acknowledge the potential for changing house designs in the marketplace but avoid home value issues faced by the City during past phases of building. February 2nd, 2021 Analysis Since the time of the January meeting, planning staff has had an opportunity to consider the discussion held during the public hearing, along with the practical C! Planning Commission Agenda 02/02/21 application of the amendments as proposed by the applicant and the alternative language prepared. The applicant has also submitted revised language for February. However, the information came immediately prior to the publication of this report. Due to the timing of the amended proposal, staff have not had a chance to review or compare the applicant's new language. The table included as Supporting Data item #B reflects the resulting staff recommendation based on the January hearing and staff discussions. The table compares 1) the current ordinance language, 2) the applicant's January proposed amendment, 3) the alternative language prepared by staff in response to the applicant's proposal for the January meeting, and finally, 4) staff s current recommendation. The current staff recommendation for the roof pitch is much the same as prior, with an added clarification for measurement purposes. The staff recommendation for building material amendment would leave the 15% brick/stone requirement in place but proposes to allow windows on the front fagade to be taken out of the total square footage used to calculate the 15% brick/stone requirement. (This would be in addition to the previously discounted garage door square footage.) The amendment further gives Planning Commission the flexibility to allow for modified home designs through a process similar to the administrative appeal process. The language would allow the Commission to consider individual fagade designs where enhancements to roof pitch, porches, materials combinations may permit a reduction in brick or stone. The resulting impact of the building materials amendment would be an overall reduction in the amount of brick and stone on a home. The impact on the facades would vary, depending on the window treatments for any given home. Illustrations of this example are also provided in the supporting data for single-family homes. It should be noted that the proposed amendment language would apply to both the R-1 and R-2 Districts. This is an important detail, as many R-2 townhome projects include a garage forward design, in which the brick or stone is a significant design enhancement for the remaining fagade area visible to the street front. Staff has included illustrations for this purpose, as well. Staff believe the current recommendation provides more consistency with the current ordinance and less complexity than the alternatives proposed by the applicant or the alternative language presented in January. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2021-006 recommending adoption of Ordinance No. 7XX incorporating staff recommendations of February 2"d, 2021, based on findings in said resolution. 5 Planning Commission Agenda 02/02/21 2. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC-2021-006, amending the Monticello Zoning Ordinance as presented by the applicants, based on findings in said resolution. 3. Motion to or other or to table action, pending additional information from staff or applicant. 4. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution No. PC-2021-006, based on findings identified by the Planning Commission after the public hearing. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Alternative # 1 above. Staff believes the amendment to the roof pitch provides needed flexibility in accommodating roofline character along the facade. However, staff believes the current ordinance for building materials requiring brick or stone to be an important component in the city's efforts to create neighborhoods and housing with character and quality. The requirement aligns with the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, which cites the following goal within the Implementation Chapter: "Continue to evaluate the zoning ordinance for opportunities to enhance design through landscaping, signage and building materials in all districts." Some modification of the existing ordinance language can be appropriate, provided the City retains the ability to require higher quality homebuilding when the features proposed by this applicant are not present in other building designs. The changes presented in the February staff recommendation are designed to incorporate flexibility, while adding some specificity to the code to avoid overuse of the "loopholes" that could undermine the City's housing objectives. While it is noted that some surrounding communities (Becker, Big Lake, Buffalo) do not include a percentage requirement for brick or stone within their ordinances, Monticello's code has included this standard for close to 20 years and has consistently applied the standard throughout neighborhoods since that time. If the Planning Commission is inclined to allow additional flexibility in the brick or stone requirement beyond that recommended by staff, then language similar to the Alternative Amendment as presented in January may be considered. D. SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution PC-2021-006 B. Amendment Comparison Table C. Draft Ordinance D. Current Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Excerpts 6 Planning Commission Agenda 02/02/21 E. Applicant Narrative, dated December 21, 2020 F. Applicant Narrative, dated January 28, 2021 G. Applicant Illustrations H. Sample Home Plan Illustrations — Staff Recommendation Impact I. Sample Existing Monticello Housing Fagade Images 7 CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-006 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND ROOF PITCH AND BUILDING MATERIALS STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City has been requested to amend portions of its building standards applicable to single family homes; and WHEREAS, the applicant contends that changing homebuilding preferences require amendment to current ordinance standards; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments would increase options for new home construction in the City; and WHEREAS, the amendments have been crafted t increase variability, but also to protect the City's objectives of higher -end house construction; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment would clarify certain aspects of the existing applicable code language; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 5d', 2021 and continued hearing on February 2" d, 2021 on the application and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present information to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report, which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval: 1. The Zoning Ordinance amendment provides an appropriate means of furthering both the intent and the specific goals and policies for land use in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed amendment raises no extraordinary issues for the City's regulation of single family home construction. 3. The ordinance incorporates applicable provisions of staff comment as applicable. 4. The proposed use is expected to have no negative impacts on municipal public services. CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-006 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota, that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Monticello City Council approves the Zoning Ordinance amendment, based on the findings listed above. ADOPTED this 2nd day of February, 2021, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota. MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION IRE ATTEST: , Chair Angela Schumann, Community Development Director 2 Ordinance Standard 1) Current Language 2) Applicant Proposal (January) 3) Alternative Amendment (Prepared for January Rep( 4) Staff Recommendation Amendment (Prepared for February Report) Minimum Roof Pitch (R-1)/(R-2) 5"/12" 5%12": Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow 5%12: Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and 5%12: Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs may be porch roofs may be allowed at a lower pitch as an for a lower pitch to incorporate as architectural feature, provided no such exempted allowed at a lower pitch as an an architectural feature. roof areas shall comprise any more than 20% of architectural feature, provided no the total horizontal roof area of a single-family such exempted roof areas shall structure. comprise any more than 20% of the total horizontal roof area of a (single-family) structure as measured from a birds -eye plan view. Building Materials (R-1 AND R-2) A minimum of 15% of the front building facade of any structure in the R-1 or R-2 Districts, less the square footage area of the garage doors, shall be covered with brick or stone. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone coverage to 5%. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. The Community Development Department may approve optional facade treatments when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing may include usable front porches, extraordinary roof pitch or other features. ^ 7 nim m of 15% of the #ent Except as may be allowed in Section (C)(2)(a) and A minimum of 15% of the front building facade of any structure in the R-1 or R-2 Districts, less the square footage area of windows and garage doors, shall be covered with brick or stone. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone coverage to 5%. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. The Ge gn9unit•• Develepn9en Depertn9ent Planning Commission* may approve optional facade treatments prior to building permit when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing may include usable front porches, extraordinary roof pitch or other features. *This would allow flexibility without requiring a PUD. bUgGling f 4G •-truetuFe :n W below a minimum of 15% of the front building facade of any structure in the R-1 or R-2 Districts, less the square footage area of the garage doors, shall be covered with brick or stone. StFWGtHFes .•.it" 48Rt facades ,.,.,,, by least 701 gGde the ° 1 ^r R ' Distr4et•- '^« t"^ ^r^ feet^^^ ^r^^ toe ^^r-^^^ of deeFs <"^" be . -d With ^'- G-ev -6 eF ste:,e The front facade of any structure in the R-1 or R-2 Districts red at st,,,.,.,, OF Feal • eed may red ee the brick er stone shall include two or more different types of material which EeYeFage to 51%. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. (a) The Community Development Department may approve optional facade treatments when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing includes usable front porches of at least six (6) feet in any length and width and no can include, but not be limited to, Vinyl Lap, Vinyl Shakes, Vinyl Board & Batten, LP (or similar) Lap, Board & Batten, Shakes, Stone, Stucco, and/or Brick. The primary type of material applied to the front facade shall not exceed 85% of the front facade of less than 80 square feet in area; extraordinary roof pitch; or other features approved by the Planning Commission prior to building permit. the building, less the square footage of windows, doors and (b) In lieu of the specific brick or stone quantities garage doors. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. The Community Development Department may approve optional facade treatments when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing may include usable front porches, extraordinary roof pitch or other features. otherwise required in Section (C)(2), front facades may include materials which consist of (1) Vinyl, (2) Cement Board, (3) Stucco, and/or (4) LP (or similar) and which include at least three (3) styles of such materials, including Lap, Board & Batten, Shakes or other style. The Community Development Department may approve other materials that meet the intent of this Section. For this section to apply, no less than 15% of each of at least three such style components (lap, shake, etc.) shall be used on the front facade. CITY OF Monticello COUNTY OF Wright STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE REGULATIONS RELATING T BUILDING ARCHITECTURE IN THE R-1 AND R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY OF MONTICELLO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO ORDAINS: Section 1. Table 3-5, R-1 Development Standards is amended to add the following as a footnote to Minimum Roof Pitch and Soffit requirements: (5) Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature, provided no such exempted roof areas shall comprise any more than 20% of the total horizontal roof area of a sing amily structure as measured from a bird's-eye plan view. Section 2. Table 3-6, R-2 Development Standards is amended to add the following as a footnote to Minimum Roof Pitch and Soffit requirements: (4) Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature, provided no such exempted roof areas shall comprise any more than 20% of the total horizontal roof area of a structure as measured from a bird's eve plan view. Section 3. Section 4.11 (C)(2) is hereby amended to read as follows: A minimum of 15% of the front building facade of any structure in the R-1 or R-2 Districts, less the square footage area of windows and garage doors, shall be covered with brick or stone. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone coverage to 5%. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. The Planning Commission may approve optional facade treatments prior to building permit when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing may include usable front porches, extraordinary roof pitch or other features. Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance as part of the Official Monticello City Code, Title 10, Zoning Ordinance, and to renumber the tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended effect of this Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary corrections to any internal citations that result from said renumbering process, provided that such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as has been adopted. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and publication. The ordinance in its entirety and map shall be posted on the City website after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance and map are available online and at Monticello City Hall for examination upon request. ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this day of , 2021. ATTEST: Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk AYES: NAYS: Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor 2 CHAPTER 3: ZONING DISTRICTS Section 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts Subsection (E) R-I: Single Family Residence District REQUIRED YARDS (in feet) Max Minimum I Minimum Roof -- -- Height Minimum Floor Areas Building Pitch & Soffit Front Interior Street Rear (stories / (sq ft) Width (vertical rise/ Side [ I ] Side [3] i feet) (ft) horizontal run) Single 1,050 foundation/ 5" / 12" [2] Family 30 1 ] 35 feet 20 30 2.5 stories 24 no minimum Building 2,000 finishable [4] soffit [ 1 ]: For interior lots in R- I and R-A districts, an attached accessory structure may be allowed to meet a 6' setback, provided that the sum of both side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet.. [2]: Interior side yard setbacks for single family homes on lots of record with a lot width 66 feet or less in the Original Plat of Monticello and Lower Monticello shall be at least six (6) feet. [3]: The required rear yard shall consist of a space at least 30-feet in depth across the entire width of the lot that is exclusive of wetlands, ponds, or slopes greater than 12 percent. [4]: Finishable square footage is exclusive of attached accessory space. ■ An attached garage shall be included with all principal residential structures in the R-I district. Accessory See Section 5.3(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory structures. Structures The minimum floor area for all attached accessory structures shall be 550 sq. ft. ■ See footnote [ I ] above as related to setbacks for attached accessory structures on interior lots. Other Section 3.3, Common District Requirements Regulations Section 3.4(B), Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts to Consult Section 4.1 I. Building Materials (not all Section 4.8, Off -Street Parking inclusive) Section 4.1, Landscaping and Screening Standards t: 20 foot setback from a street abutting a side yard 2: Single family home conforming to front yard setback �- 3: 30 foot front yard setback 4: 10 foot side yard setbacks on shared interior lot lines Q 5: 10,000 SF minimum. ' lot size; max density Of 5 units per acre 6: 30 foot rear yard setback 7: 6 foot interior side yard setback for lots of record in the Original Plat of Monticello and Lower Monticello 8: Minimum lot width of 70 feet 5 UNITS 5�_ t2,o F �pVIEJG1-4 11k„ Page 90 City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance CHAPTER 4: FINISHING STANDARDS Section 4.1 I Building Materials Subsection (C) Residential District Requirements (2) New materials In recognition of the ever -changing marketplace for new finishing materials, the Community Development Department may authorize the use of materials not listed herein if it is determined that such a material is substantially similar or superior to one or more of the approved building materials. (C) Residential District Requirements (1) All Residence Districts No metal siding shall be permitted wider than 12 inches or without a one-half (1 /2) inch or more overlap and relief. (2) R-1 and R-2 Districts A minimum of 15% of the front building facade of any structure in the R-1 or R-2 Districts, less the square footage area of the garage doors, shall be covered with brick or stone. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone coverage to 5%. The Community Development Department may approve optional facade treatments when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing may include usable front porches, extraordinary roof pitch or other features. (3) R-A and T-N Districts A minimum of 20% of the front building facade of any structure in the R-A or T- N zoning district, less the square footage area of the garage doors, shall be covered with brick or stone. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this same standard. Structures with front facades covered by at least 70% stucco or real wood may reduce the brick or stone coverage to 10%. (4) R-3 District and other Districts with Multiple Family Housing A R-3 District and other districts with multiple family housing shall be subject to building material standards as follows: all building walls facing a public street shall be covered with stone, brick, cultured masonry simulating brick or stone, or other enhanced materials acceptable to the City Council to an extent not less than 20% of the exposed wall silhouette area. In addition, multiple family structures of thirteen (13) or more units shall, when lap horizontal siding, be constructed of heavy gauge steel or cement -board, with no use of vinyl or aluminum permitted. City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance Page 333 CAPSTONE H O M E S December 21, 2020 Angela Schumann Community Development Director 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Application Ms. Schumann, Capstone Homes is looking forward to offering new homes to the residents of Monticello at Haven Ridge. Capstone Homes has been building homes for over 30 years now in Minnesota and has become one of the largest privately owned homebuilder in Minnesota. We are humbled and grateful that in 2020, the Capstone team designed, drafted and constructed over 300 homes in the Metro area. With this experience in mind, Capstone Homes would like to request consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment for the R-1 and R-2 categories. We would like to request the ordinance to be amended in 2 areas regarding architecture. The first request is that Table 3-5, Chapter 3 of the Zoning Ordinance be revised to include the following: The primary roof pitch shall be a minimum of 5/12. Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature. Revision of the roof pitch requirements allows for enhanced architecture that increases the value and the character of the homes and neighborhood. We would also like to propose that the requirement of stone or brick on the front elevation be eliminated entirely. Many of today's buyers are drawn to a simpler design. One such design is the known as the 'farmhouse look'. To allow for a simpler, but not lower quality design, we would like to propose that Chapter 4, Section (C) (2) of the Zoning Ordinance be updated to include the following: Front Facades shall include three different types of material which can include but not be limited to Vinyl Lap, Vinyl Shakes, Vinyl Board & Batten, LP (or similar) Lap, Board & Batten, Shakes, Stone, Stucco, Brick. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can be seen from the street shall meet this some standard. We look forward to working with you, your staff, the Planning Commission and City Council to discuss this amendment to the Residential District Requirements and working with all of you in the years to come. Regards, F G/ Heather Lorch Land Manager CAPSTONE HOMES, INC. 14015 SUNFISH LAKE BLVD, SUITE 400 1 RAMSEY, MN 55303 0: 763-427-3090 1 F: 763-712-9060 CAPSTONE H O M E S January 28, 2020 Angela Schumann Community Development Director 505 Walnut Street Monticello, MN 55362 RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Application Ms. Schumann, As was mentioned last month, Capstone Homes is looking forward to offering new homes to the residents of Monticello at Haven Ridge. After the January Planning Commission hearing and further discussions with City Staff, Capstone Homes would like to update the recommended language for the zoning Ordinance Amendment. Capstone Homes would like to request consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment for the R-1 and R-2 categories. We would like to request the ordinance to be amended in 2 areas regarding architecture. The first request is that Table 3-5, Chapter 3 of the Zoning Ordinance be revised to include the following: The primary roof pitch shall be a minimum of 5112. Roof gables, shed roofs, dormers and porch roofs to allow for a lower pitch to incorporate as an architectural feature. Revision of the roof pitch requirements allows for enhanced architecture that increases the value and the character of the homes and neighborhood, as such a percentage calculation is not necessary. Staff would have the option to determine if a roof pitch is an architectural feature, thus having the ability to reject a home plan that has lower pitch that staff feels might be taking advantage of this revised ordinance. We would also like to propose that the requirement of stone or brick on the front elevation be eliminated entirely. Many of today's buyers are drawn to a simpler design. One such design is the known as the 'farmhouse look'. To allow for a simpler, but not lower quality design, we would like to propose that Chapter 4, Section (C) (2) of the Zoning Ordinance be updated to include the following: Section 3 Except as may be allowed in Section (C)(2)(a) and (b) below, a minimum of 15% of the font building facade of any structure in the R-1 or R-2 Districts, less the square footage area of the garage doors, entry doors and windows, shall be covered with brick or stone. Any attached or major detached accessory building that can been seen from the street shall meet this standard. (a) The Community Development Department may approve optional facade treatments when additional architectural detailing so warrants. Such detailing includes usable front porches of at least six (6) feet in any length and width and no less than 80 square feet in area, extraordinary roof pitch on the principal roofline of at least 7:12 and front gables of 8:12, or other features approved by the Planning Commission prior to building permit. CAPSTONE HOMES, INC. 14015 SUNFISH LAKE BLVD, SUITE 400 1 RAMSEY, MN 55303 0: 763-427-3090 1 F: 763-712-9060 (b) In lieu of the specific brick or stone quantities otherwise required in Section (C)(2), front facades may include materials which consist of (I) Vinyl, (2) Cement Board, (3) Stucco, and/or (4) LP (or similar) and which include at least three (3) styles of such materials, including Lap, Board & Batten, Shakes or other style. For this section to apply, the primary type of style/material applies to the front fagade shall not exceed 75% of the front fagade of the building, less the square footage of windows, entry doors and garage doors. Garage doors shall have windows. The Community Development Department may approve other materials that meet the intent of this Section. We look forward to working with you, your staff, the Planning Commission and City Council to discuss this amendment to the Residential District Requirements and working with all of you in the years to come. Regards, Heather Lorch Land Manager 2 A"r0TERSON Yellow Shaded Areas: 4/12 Pitch ELEVATION B ELEVATION A ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 1 3 BATHROOM 1 3 STALL GARAGE •OPT. -- 4: WINDOW ;;I GREAT ROOM 14-0 x 18-0 *OPT. \ w FIREPLACE, WINDOW I,,,, WALL PED- F01'ER PORCH 2,173 SQ FT LIVING SPACE -= i U� •OPT.--�:!:: KITCHEN WINDOW 10-3 x 15-2 DINING-- 10-9 x 15-2 •OPTIONAL VAULT* - MASTER SUITE *OPTIONAL , 13-0 x 11-0 ISLAND W/ SNACK BAR Z nin 4 _ WINDOW MUD •OPT. D5L. BOWL / SINKS GARAGE 31-0 x 22-6/20-6/22-0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I *OPT. — WINDOW w.I.C, MASTERHx, OPT. ' BATHLAUND. SINK LAUND, ] LARGa R 1 SNW'R. it 1 L-------------- LOFT *OPT. FIREPLACE 13-1 x 15-4 W�INPDOWS• :��`'I FUTURE N FAMILY ROOM 19-0 x 18-2 WALL LIN. [5o4d UNFIN. 0 UTIL./ STOR. BEDROOM 02 I BEDROOM 03 10-4 x 12-2 10-4 x 12-2 In II y ,� II < FUTURE BEDROOM I' 11-6 x 10-3 I� II L Ir — it 11j I IIIIIII� R.I. II IIIIII� 3/4 II MAIN FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR -WESLEY - Yellow Shaded Areas: 3/12 Pitch A-0_.._I ELEVATION B ELEVATION A ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 1 2 BATHROOM 1 3 STALL GARAGE 1,842 SQ FT LIVING SPACE -OPT. VAULT uur - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - wlNDow' ���! FLOOR LINE- ' $OPT. WINDOW' 'OPT. WINDOW' DBL. BOWL SINKS FUTURE -=k FAMILY ROOM NN IS-I1 x 20-2 PT. FIREPLACE- 14-0 x I1-8 - II II FUTURE FUTURE LL BEDROOM 01 i LL BEDROOM 02 10-11 x 10-1 II 11-1 x 10-1 II " �_ __-- ' UP UNPIN. UTILITY/ ---�, STORAGE CRAWL SPACE ��OPTIONAL STAIRS TO LOWER FLOOR G04RAGE 30-0 x 22-6/24-0 r � r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I------------ ----------------------- MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR CHEICENNE-. IV - Yellow Shaded Areas: 4/12 Pitch ELEVATION A ®®®®®®® ®®® ®®®®®®® ®®® ®®®�® ®®® ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 1 2 BATHROOM 1 3 STALL GARAGE 1,589 SQ FT LIVING SPACE KITCHEN I l 10-4 x 16-5 DINING --- 11-0 x 16-5 I 11 I I -OPTIONAL ISLAND w/ SNACK BAR W.I. �/� .,u 'VPT.�III VAULTED PANT. WINDOW !I„ LIVING ROOM 13-6 x 16-1 WALLS FOYER BEDROOM 02 1 BEDROOM 03 10-2 x 11-6 11-8 x 10-11 Lu.I.C, •OPT. -� LARGER SI-IW'R. ±CPTMAL-V4ULT. — HAS. MASTER SUITE BATH 12-5 x 14-4 •OPT. -' DBL. BOWL SINKS GARAGE 28-0 x 22/20-0 7 - - - - - - - - - - - I 5 r---------------n I I I I ; I I I I ' I I I I I�r ff �- 'OPT. i ' FIREPLACE• I L — J-,. r I I II I e I II FUTURE BEDFUTURE ROOM STORAGE I I ; -� Iz II 11-3 x 15-0 '®e � I I 23-0 x I1-6 I I ,•� �� I� II d', II �I —h II --- II —� UNFIN. II UNFIN. -- �,� FUTURE UTIL,/ ;; STORAGE - -: � • 13-3 x 15-0 _ _ LAUND. *OPTIONAL* BEDROOM 05 I I 11-1 x 14—S CRAWL SPACE r —11I I WINDOW MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR -PRIMROSE III- ELEVATION A EEEEEEE EEEEEEE EEEEEEE ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 1 2 BATHROOM 1 3 STALL GARAGE 1,609 SQ FT LIVING SPACE nlu SNACK BAR -OPT. ::----------------------- IUINDOLU VAULT FUTURE ,'PUT, I�� w.l._c Ji BEDROOM i � - �I 12-1 x 11-4 UNPIN. UTIL./ LAUND. -OPT. I I r 1�� SINK ♦. 1 I ♦♦ UP FUTURE - - BEDROOM 12-0 x 10-1 CRAWL SPACE FUTURE FAMILY ROOM I°I-0 x 19-2 *OPT. � FIREPLACE• GARAGE 29-0 x 26-8/24-8 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR I INAVOOD II - �} r ELEVATION B ELEVATION A ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 1 2 BATHROOM 1 3 STALL GARAGE 1.1540 SQ FT LIVING SPACE MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR OSIER II - Yellow Shaded Areas: 4/12 Pitch ELEVATION A ELEVATION B ELEVATION C 3 BEDROOM 1 3 BATHROOM 1 3 STALL GARAGE 2,266 SQ FT LIVING SPACE KITCHEN DINING 12-8 x I2-8 GREAT ROOM 14-6 x 16-I 10-5 x 13-1 T- ISLAND - - - ""' SNACK BAR � ` ��•OPT. } FIREPLACE• UP ON PAl MEGH. ---- cHAS£ u,u i i FLEX ROOM : a FOvER 9-4 x II-6 GARAGE A 30-0 x 22/20-0 PORCH i---------------- I I ■ I I I I I � I -OPT. WINDOW - 1/2 MUD , •OPT.-- 13ENGH•; I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I I +---- -L---------- DB'L SINKS - ;;4i-------- ;' •OPT. £GR£SS WINDOW - FUTURE FAMILY ROOM 22-5 x 16-2 ' ��� �� •OPT. ` N FIR1=PLACE• HALF - WALL UNFIN. UTIL./ STOR, UP 4 - - ' R.I. I; FUTURE BEDROOM 11-3 x 11-4 FUT. I I W.I.C. I MAIN FLOOR SECOND FLOOR LOWER FLOOR BIRCHWOOD A ELEVATION B ELEVATION A FE j] ®®®®®®® J _-.�.... .ram..• ELEVATION C a ELEVATION D 3 BEDROOM 1 2 BATHROOM 1 2 STALL GARAGE 1,559 SQ FT LIVING SPACE OPT, I 1 0 OPT. 1 VAULT 1 ""' WINDOW 1 ""' WINDOW I i DINING 1 GREAT ROOM` MASTERLSUITE 14-0 x 11-10 12-1 x 11-3 It`,, 12-3 x 13-3 OPT. �� �� OPT. � WINDOWuu, ISLAND w/ FIREPLACE '��-_ I „i OPT. SNACK BAR I I " WINDOW z ° KITCHEN 13-5 x S-0 PANTRY MAS. BATH UTIL. V �T_ „ OPT, /\ LARGERWINDOW sEuu'R.R. MUD/ LAUND. BEDROOM 03 - - - - 10-1 x 10-11 SOFFIT ------- OPT. BENCW BATH FOYER GARAGE 20-0 x 24-6 BEDROOM 02 10-6 x 11-0 r I I I I I I I I I I I I PORCH N ❑� MAIN FLOOR -CEDAR II Yellow Shaded Areas: 3/12 Pitch . �_ ED ®®® ®®® ®®® ELEVATION B ELEVATION A ELEVATION C 2 BEDROOM 1 2 BATHROOM 1 3 STALL GARAGE 1,630 SQ FT LIVING SPACE LARGER SHOWER -OPT • ,,;;; DINING GREAT ROOM VAULT C WINDOW;;,;; 12-6 x 10-3 12-1 x 21-0 MASTER SUITE ISLAND w/ 12-4 x 14-0 BATH SNACK BAR , VAULT If n ' OPTIONAL FIREPLACE KITCHEN FLOOR HALF LL LAUND. W.I.C. 12-6 x 13-1 LINE W q PANT. - - ------ -- O ,IIII IIIII )5ATW•OPT• ; FLEX ROOM ;FpY DNBEDROOM •2 WINDOW 10-8 x 11-4 I 10-8 x 11$I •OPt.• FLOOR BENCHLINE MUD FL, LI PORCH GARAGE 30-0 x 22/20-0 I I r - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ro -OPT.* WINDOW -OPT. — EGRESS WINDOW FUTURE FAMILY ROOM 20-5 x 20-5 OPTONAL \,'yl FIREPLACE H �•'�� ,III IIII UNFIN. STORAGE II II If II II II II II II FUTURE II FUTURE BEDROOM BEDROOM II 10-6 x 12-1 I, II II 10-6 x 14-9 II II II JJJIII� - - u---- i I I �•�;� W.I.c. Li I i I I I , b R.I. BATH- i UNFIN. ------�;; UTILITY � II MAIN FLOOR LOWER FLOOR THE "PRIMROSE III" (ELEVATION A) -, AX. -501-015LOCK24"OR AFTERS 1� M1111111111:i-11 .1110 •ALL OVERHEAD DOORS SHALL" BE RATED TO WITHSTAND A 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 90 MPH WIND SPEED * STEEL PANEL GARAGE DOORS * VINYL SHAKE SIDING a FRONT ONLY - - - * STONE VENEER PER ELEVATIONS 1 1 VINYL L LAF SIDING a ALL SIDES .I. .I. .I. .I. .I. .I. ARTIST CONCEPT: THIS CONCEPT WAS CREATED AS SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE * WINDOW GRIDS a FRONT ONLY PURPOSES ONLY AND MAY NOT REPRESENT THE ACTUAL PRODUCT. **BUYERS SPECIFICATION LIST WILL SUPERSEDE THE DRAWING** * NO RETURNS ON ANY GABLES (w/ WALKOUT OPTION) 12 6� LEFT ELEVATION SCALE: I/S" = FRONT ELEVATION A SCALE: 1/4" = I'-OII II��Ilsom II ****** COPYRIGHT NOTE ****** ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 02020, CAPSTONE HOMES, INC. NO UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGNER. THIS PLAN IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE FINISHED PROJECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY OTHER THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF THE DESIGNER. ANY OTHER USE OF THIS MUST CONSTITUTE A REUSE LICENSE. Im mf.-i mn - I Wowia141, MIM!] • • .71 � 41-ii 5TON H-1 aro.24 1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -s- 1 � 1 -s- 1 -s •ADDRESS NUMBERS REQUIRED TO BE DISPLAYED AT ALL THIS IS A (5) COURSE MULTI LEVEL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION WITH A WALKOUT FOUNDATION. (w/ WALKOUT OPTION) MIQZH I SCALE: I/S" REAR ELE SCALE: 1/0" = MAN "40 l (w/ WALKOUT OPTION) Y Z Z W to O Z Q U.d F W N O f 0I I W N C1 J f WFF0!2m10 W b r2 F N W p O Q W J p N Z= W 9�lua2dz W"1H WQCINO W a U J N C I- z aa oo Q W O Y C u Z FA I d Z N Q w w W y FWWC2W1-0:2 w N o W O N o Q O owZzwwo IwFQ;y0w3z W 30 Z N O y Q a} ri V � N W O a O p Q W W N� W W p N 0 Q N H z O H W z z �7 8 0 z r N M 0 0 V 0 W W N ~ ~ E 0 I dN M u O t _ In E Oz W M> w z E oLu>: N W � C ■1 Y M O y p V,j a R aW J IA M (� Iz U) 3 UIn r 0 r ( ' Ou uTO. ` 4 a�m � �Q J d H W J to o ? W W } z U w 1 0 (y } -j w U Z rj N N ..1 0 L f W G H w v 2 o v y DRAWN BY: MI5 DATE- OCT. 30th 20 JOB*- OHVRO120ro *SOLID BLOCK RAFTERS Q MAX. OF 24" O.C. THE "PRIMROSE 1111w DRYWALL ACCESS (ELEVATION C) ■■ _ _ LLMM ■■ ■■ sss>• � � i i on I_I MR IIII IIII IIII IIII ON _IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII = W. go 10171 ■ - - _ �--�?��— �? IIII IIII IIII IIII � °r��° IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IS1019 _ s IIII IIII IIII IIII �s010 s IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII �sWE = $' IIII IIII IIII IIII 112luffirm. IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII ' ' r •ALL OVERHEAD DOORS SHALL --- BE RATED TO WITHSTAND A 90 MPH WIND SPEED * STEEL PANEL GARAGE DOORS * VINYL SNAKE SIDING a FRONT ONLY * STONE VENEER PER ELEVATIONS * VINYL LAP SIDING a ALL SIDES ARTIST CONCEPT: THIS CONCEPT WAS CREATED AS SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE I1JINDOUJ GRIDS FRONT ONLY PURPOSES ONLY AND MAY NOT REPRESENT THE ACTUAL PRODUCT. * NO RETURNS ON ANY GABLES **BUYERS SPECIFICATION LIST WILL SUPERSEDE THE DRAWING** 12 ****** COPYRIGHT NOTE ****** ALL RIGHTS RESERVED CQ2020, CAPSTONE HOMES, INC. NO UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGNER. THIS PLAN IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE FINISHED PROJECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY OTHER THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF THE DESIGNER. ANY OTHER USE OF THIS MUST CONSTITUTE A REUSE LICENSE. J (w/ WALKOUT OPTION) L—Mr I =-= YA-h I I C IN SCALE: I/S" = FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-O" 12 *PROVIDE (4) ROOF VENTS, ro ,r-240* ASPHALT SHINGsLES--j'o ,rVINYL L.4P-" SIDINGS .OGK PATIO DOOR MAXIMUM OF 4"- (w/ WALKOUT OPTION) 61I DRYWALL ACCESS TOTAL FRONTAGE: 563 � W STONE.85.8 .1_ ANc—'!— -ADDRESS NUMBERS REQUIRED TO BE DISPLAYED AT ALL TIMES DURING; CONSTRUCTION a6 •PROVIDE (2) ROOF VENTS* FVINYL LAPJ SIDING THIS IS A (5) COURSE MULTI LEVEL WITH A WALKOUT FOUNDATION. 12 6� FVINYL LAPS SIDINGS rVINYL LAPJ SIDING RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE: I/S" = I'-O" REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/0" = I'-O" M (w/ WALKOUT OPTION) YZZ W toZpz Q co F V1 C f W d �1 0 z W N 0 J f W F I-C N M y m W w Q� r2 w y W coQWdoyzz W R"�Wa1dz W a 0 J 0 y C Z a a J W 0 Y C z FA w 1 w y z d Z Q W p'y o W ONC1a0 zwwo lw x a 3: 0 2 w 3 z W W 3 W Z y 0 y Q OC } ri J W V cc W 9 W W a 0 y G Q W W y W W p N 0 Q N H z 0 W z z 8 O z r N M 1t1 0 V CD W W N ~ ^ E 0 I O o N M z M E O WM>CzCw E 0 m G 0 (� N W >: C 01 y M O a R P■j xJU'�Mu Z ti 3 U) 3 Ur 0 L6 r 0 O O W d) m H N J 1w U � d F W A O Z _ _Q O U > w O w z w (L/ I.. Q- z � N .1 G J f. W W � H v 2 0 u vs DRAWN BY: GJS DATE- NOV, 13 20 JOB*- #NYRO1105 F!a, ,� 1 of 13 THE "LINWOOD II" xxxxxx GUPYNIGMT NOTE ------ ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ©2020, CAPSTONE HOMES, INC. NO UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE DESIGNER. THIS PLAN IS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE FINISHED PROJECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, CHANGED, OR COPIED IN ANY FORM OR MANNER. NOR ARE THEY TO BE ASSIGNED TO ANY OTHER THIRD PARTY WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING THE WRITTEN PERMISSION AND CONSENT OF THE DESIGNER. ANY OTHER USE OF THIS MUST CONSTITUTE A REUSE LICENSE. FRONTAGE: T � T ARTIST CONCEPT: THIS CONCEPT WAS CREATED AS SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND MAY NOT REPRESENT THE ACTUAL PRODUCT. "BUYERS SPECIFICATION LIST WILL SUPERSEDE THE DRAWING" (w/ WALKOUT OPTION) LEFT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/0" = I'-O" (ELEVATION C) FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = I'-O" •PROVIDE (3) ROOF VENTS 6 FVINYL LAP2 SIDING (w/ WALKOUT OPTION) ,ADDRESS NUMBERS REQUIRED TO BE DISPLAYED AT ALL TIMES DURING; CONSTRUCTION ,rVINYL LAP-' SIDING STONE VENEER 13'-O *PROVIDE (4) ROOF VENTS 12 6 /-240" ASPHALT 5HINGLES1 8 BLOCK PATIO DOOR TO MAXIMUM OF: 4"- III III I ,rVINYL LAP-' SIDING No FVINYL LAPS SIDING No `VINYL LAPS STONE VENEER SIDING 1_O RIGHT ELEVATION (w/ WALKOUT OPTION) SCALE: I/S" = V-OII REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/S" = 1'-O" YtoZZ �ZZW p F.QW WN5 Wd fWFCmy O yW W WQQJ 0. zz dWQC1y0 W Q O J y C 0, Z a a Q W O Y C z N! N IdzyQ�oO W FIyW CiW F4 � Q 0 � � a E Mw z W 13:0zvlpy4 OC } ri 1 W V � W W O 2 1 Q O y p Q W W y W 111 O Q � G N H z O H W t7 z 8 0 0 z N M 4v U) 0 0 O uiC4 W N W F ^ E 0 I co M v 0 C z M E 1ID O In W M > E z L46 F O OW N W � C C Lu O Y N M 0 a a R —0 aW J U) � ti 3 -- 3 I � U) 3 Ur 0 IV r 0 MO � v' U) N m U � > d F W A 0- z _Q 0 - > 1 U II,I w Q } z w z = G g I- W W � H v 2 o v to DRAWN BY: CJS DATE: OCT. 30 20 JOB": OHVRO1104 P9• A 1 of 14 �r m 4 VMS i °� ���ii).�� >!^� �� t��-� ° �. � J�ii t'�.�d' 4 ors 1 � `- �"F � ��"t', i �� �dA92'h� .� � - tl_rf �:�. J. i 7: ,n � i � 9. 'Sd/ .E < XE'i, 6� At y. 4 006, mb�W'm _ 'i A- *" . � - � -. � ..-•+tip !'I 1' YF Y. Y fp. _- �''°,;'fir ■ ■ '� ,. HBO, I ago mull imam must ii � I .2x10 -2XI0 SPIRIT HILLS TOWNHOM S 3' LAP 51DIN6 ON CHIMNEY BOX Ixb CORNER TRIM BOARDS 12 b F ASPHALT SHIN6LE5 8 UNIT BUILDING MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA ARCHITECTURAL Al - DETAILED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A: - FIRST FLOOR UNIT PLANS A3 - SECOND FLOOR UNIT PLANS A4 - FIRST FLOOR BLDG PLAN 8 BLDG ELEVATIONS A5 - SECOND FLOOR BLDG PLAN 4 BLDG ELEVATION Ab - BUILDING SECTIONS 8 WALL DETAIL A-1 - BUILDING SECTION 8 WALL DETAIL STRUCTURAL SI - UNIT FOUNDATION PLANS 52 - OVERALL BUILDING FOUNDATION PLAN 51-01 2x10 5HIN5LE5-. CERTAINTEED CEDAR IMPRESSIONS STYLE - PERFECTION -2x6 I ASPHALTI SHINE -E5 5HIN6LE5: CERTAINTEED CEDAR IMPRESSIONS STYLE - PERFECTION I� 5.-0. 2x10 3' LAP 5101% ON CHIMNEY BOX ` Ix6 CORNER TRIM BOARDS 12 b 2XIO FRIEZE BOARD b' LAP SIDING TYP. CORNER TRIM Ixb 12 5 F I I I I I I I I I I I I I J J 12 9 3' LAP SIDING 13" LAP SIDING ON CHIMNEY BOX 1 ON CHIMNEY BOX Ixb CORNER Ixb TRIM CORNERBOARDS TRIM BOARD5 / 'oil III �.�I�II~1111\.. `�■�111■II 1\�- 1�._ �e MIMI= Ell. IMM �n — r--------------_—_—_—_---__--_—__--_—_—_—_—_� -------- MlM—]WIN ----Y---------• MIME NOW m Mill wm --- -- - - o I I I -2x1O 1 Ixb CORNER 3' LAP 510ING TRIM BOARDS ON CHIMNEY i X I I ASPHALT 5HIN6LE5 i 1 5HIN6LE5: CERTAINTEED CEDAR IMPREIONS STYLE - PERFECTION II i Ixb FRIEZE I '— BOARD it I ASPHALT SHINGLES ASPHALT SHINGLE5 ASPHALT SHINGLES 3' LAP 510IN6 MIMI 1 �j �G�A�IQ.!IJ:!a3[•1111321q: '� I IH� �_ NI I11110 NHI9ENI nn m'�m r / r • I' iruwnm i� �'I-I'I�II-I r� nil ■ 1 ur •r=us uu �uu w c!u L /fig W mi u rn m r • e-_ �e I N ■ Ii1 �7■fl11 a■—rr uu nu—■><u uu111111111blu IM SPIT nN I�1m rrr—■rn �_ Nk �r—�*il w■��w � L T ir r•■■Im Fill rn n �■iiri rin� r, -2x1O FRIEZE BOARD 6' LAP 510IN6 TYP. CORNER TRIM Ixb 12 T - �2xIO FRIEZE BOARD 3' LAP SIDING —� TYP. CORNER TRIM Ixb 12 4x4 P05T5 SUPPORTS cm or MCIri�wCeIlO E \/ 4 APPROVED FILE COPY 1r �, SCALE: 1/4" = I'-0" �V b�fs + REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE 07 + SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTION Date:. i b� Signature: 3' LAP SIDING b' LAP SIDING ` 44 P05T5 SUPPORTS FENCE WALL 3' LAP SIDING BOTH SIDES ��'� Lei■ ■i■ ■i■ �ii■ ■■ ■i■ ■i■ ■ NUNN m ■--lei Inr.�•••r • r Yt��—YI nu•■—uu u IiY-�—li�ill ui<—�„ Tni =1i4AQ1o;9mQ ����� • r •I R wm Koyj JL, 'I Z k E 0 0 It rtab =S 0 'Ci > N I~ v] A Q 00 ��bAll U Go ti U ao r-a d C,4 0 o�� r Ley 7U+ .Y U :i 0 >3 G. W b 3 � o I� i CIO 4� o � o '.-j •� O c U a v; 0 Q 0 a en Q U o � � M N � M o y c P. cu U N U � 4-4 Q (� TH15 PLAN 15 DRAWN FOR: ZONE "6 42" FROST FOOTINGS 35* SNOW LOADS 12 617-7- oil milli, son �I�I�I�I�I C I■I■I■I■I 'rrrrrl rrrrrrrr •�'� '``�� .8 M MWIIIMIMIMIMIi Imlf _ iiiiii = Monson ■ Monson Monson 10111-1 4--0" f 4'-C" AR-Y WALL NOTES: NO PENETRATIONS WITHIN 4'-O" OF PART? WALL FIRE -RATED PLYWOOD e PARTY WALL YPICAL a EA, 11ART- WALL) 12 I■�I■��I■ _■ ■■■ __-_ ■I�■ I� ■ICI I��■JI�MEN =___ ■■■son -__ � ■ ■■IM �I■I ME 11111M =___ ■n =_ ■■■I� ■�■II■�I� ME __ lil■❑■ ■I■�II�II���'■ poil■pumI■��■ ■■I�_■■■oil _- ■■■I��I�■III�I■-I =__ ■■■ __■I�II■�I■�LI�■ �■I_owl EEI_ ■i■ __ ®■I�I�II�■ ■I�■ I■� __11111111111111 ___■ �■I ■I II•I I� I■� L■�- ■■■ - III■ I■� Imo■ I ■ -I I� I■� ■ ■I- son ■■■ - ■■■ -- III■ IM II IM■ ■ ■ I■� �■I = ■ �I■ IIIIIII� INS■ I■� ❑■ �I■ ■ - ■ ■ = ICI ICI ■ I■� I� I� ■ I■� �- - ■ IIIIIII� III■ I� III■ ■ ICI I■��= u -r_ ■ I� I■ �■I I� ■ ■ ■ ; - u - ■ ■ ■ �■ ■- ICI I■] ICI �» I I■IIIIII� ICI I■� I� ■ I■� ■ BLOCK8645-GATEWAY CIRCLE 1�MLEAqLLAGE-6TF CLEFT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/S" = 11-011 PROFIT ELEVATION Al SCALE: 3/16 = 11 3 BEDROOM'( UNITS 2 BEDROOM UNITS TOTAL SQ. FT. - 1 J32 TOTAL SQ. FT. - 1151 FINISHED SQ. FT. - 146i FINISHED SQ. FT. - 1289 FINISHABLE SQ. FT. - 1880 FINISHABLE SQ. FT., - 1102 8647 GATEWAY CICEL 8649 GATEWAYCIRCLE 8651 GATEWAY CIRCLE LOT 2, BLOCK 6 LOT 3, BLOCK 6 LOT 4, BLOCK 6 -0" RAKE ON GABLE ATTIC VENTILATION: OR 1/3OOTH OK ATTIC AREA PROVIDED WITH AT LEAST 509. IN THE i FORTi OF ROOF i, THE 3ALANSE IN VENTED SOFFIT i s5-3 GATWAYCIRCLE BLOCKLOT 5, V-O RAKE ON GABLE 12 20V • s • FOUNDATION w >.R STEP BLOCK TO MATCH GRAD AT SIDES OF BUILDING r 20:12 I -ITCH ROOF VENTS TO CODE ,RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/0" = 1"-O"" 1'-0" OVERHANG W EAVES 1'-0" OVERHANG 6 GA151-E ENDS (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE) WAIVER 0 z FLASHING NOTE: W (L z Z ALL OPENINGS TO EXTERIOR MUST Z W U O Z Z W 5E CAULKED S FLASHED W W � - -q � FLASHING IS REQUIRED WHERE ALL 0 = Q lL ROOF ! VERTICAL SURFACES MEET. U1 F- p W OR WHERE -SIDING MATERIAL CHANGES Q, W ARCHITECTURAL ASfi 54NGLES- p wc�F- ALUMINUM SOFFIT 4 FASCIA a O O Q p � 3�"I CORNER TRIM Z O —,q w p 31r��" WINDOW 4 DOOR TRIM z p (FRONT ELEVATION ONLY) On 0 PROVIDE MONO TRUSSES dw Z q z L O -A z -FOR EYEBROW ROOFS =pQ,qisZ I-- L w - q � �z -PROVIDE GABLE TRUSSES TO --4O SET ON TOP OF MONO TRUSSES w - ff ly o W Qcljcl-4W VIN1'L BOARD 4 BATTEN O p O (PER ELEVATION) cj I-- rJ � d u- w VINYL SHAKES d z 0 pl (PER ELEVATION) To 4 `n z w w-pz � VINYL LAP SIDING c1 X z - CALL ELEVATIONS, d � UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE) W � o W � z FACEBRICK PER ELEVATION }- UJ p w Z � (VERIFY' BRAND 4 COLOR) LL tlL -1 `� U O w-WW=� to�lyLL GRADE LINES ON PLAN DO NOT REFLECT ACTUAL GRADE }dpw W D � Q3 wca } p ELEVATIONS ARE ONLY A REPRESENTATION 4 MAY HAVE SLIGHT E � VARIATIONS AS DICTATED fBY BUILDER , N co m co LDLn m IN! N x " M cqOz > w I O U- c Q N � 3 RAIL a MIN 3ro" HEIGHT TO MEET CODE REQUIREMENTS ***SEE RAILING DETAIL ON DETAIL PAGE FOR MORE FRAMING INFO*** Q V TOP OF SUBFLOORING ------------------------------------------- GRADE X w Q) 1 ONco 0�8 CL " �" ' p Q ter,©JS a ''' ,� cv •o`VA er o i d) co lL r Ns4 H O � w � m � w o } fy Z COPYRIGHT © Q This Plan is copq written and is property SHEET of R Home, LLC, Any unauthorized use shall result in minimum of $25,000 penalty. , OF CAPSTONE H OM E S City of Monticello Planning Commission ig Ordinance Amendment February 2, 2021 r, 6d CAPSTONE H O M E S Largest Locally Owned Homebuilder in MN 20 Years of Homebuilding Experience f CAPSTONE vt1° ■ s •woos- 4 ■ :.. I = 44 tj H 0 M E S I fia� Quality in Craftsmanship Capstone brings quality craftsman to each home, providing lasting quality in our homes, supported by a strong warranty and quality assurance team. CAPSTONE - H O M E S I M it - I lh ME Overview of Architecture • Simplifying architectural approval process gives City staff clear guidelines that promotes f . ' flexibility allowing builders to accommodate a market demand. A , p Farmhouse is today's most popular architectural style. "� �' Roof Pitch While we understand City's staff desire for minimum percentage of overall roof area to prevent a builder from taking advantage of the ordinance change, it is a qualification that becomes unnecessary following reasons: , • By their very nature, dormers and roof sheds are an architectural feature that adds character to a home and the neighborhood. • Staff would have the discretion to determine if lower pitch areas presented are architectural feature, giving them the ability to reject a plan, thus eliminate the concern that a builder would take advantage of -the lower pitch allowance. k Requiring a percentage adds complication. May become an obstacle for smaller builders to calculate. Foster �'� Building Materials While we are in general agreement with staff regarding proposed ordinance revisions to building materials requirements being proposed tonight, we would like to see the Commission consider the following items for discussion and inclusion in the ordinance amendment. • 15% of stone or brick calculations proposed by the builder to be front facade materials less the square footage of garage doors, windows as well as e n try doors. • 15% stone or brick exemptions permitted with: • 6 ft Porch (80 sq ft min) • Minimum of 3 material/styles, primary material/style can not exceed 75% of front facade materials less garage doors, entry doors and windows. Garage doors shall have windows. Brick and Stone Calculation c1M vivo URN Nor Patterson 15% calculations of stone and brick proposed to be front facade materials less garage doors, windows and entry doors. • While most of the neighborhoods that Capstone builds in do not have a calculation requirement. Those that have a requirement, garage doors, entry doors and windows are eliminated from the percentage calculation, so that it is a percentage of the facade materials being used. • Because windows, entry doors and garage doors are architectural features enhancing the design of the home and neighborhood. It would seem reasonable that the calculation should be a percentage of the area of fa ade� materials on the front of the house. e� Ll 3 Materials/Styles in Lieu of 15% Stone or Brick Minimum of 3 material/styles, primary material/style can not exceed 75% of front facade materials less garage doors, garage and windows. Garage doors shall have windows. • One calculation of at least 25% of secondary materials allows architectural design to combine materials in an aesthetically pleasing combination. • Multiple percentage requirements: • Limit flexibility of architectural style and quality. • Create arbitrary features that diminish architectural curb appeal. f Make it difficult for smaller builders to c mply with multiple and complex ca culations required. Birchwooc Secondary materials for this stone/brick exception would combine more material than the stone or brick current brick/stone requiremi _F 02 k z1 -.-- Primrose -III CAPSTONE - H O M E S .............. -4 Planning Commission Agenda: 02/02/21 3A. Monticello Capital Improvement Plan Update (ML/AS) A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: City Engineer/Public Works Director Matt Leonard will be present during the February meeting of the Planning Commission to review in summary the 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Mr. Leonard will provide an overview of the priority CIP projects for the coming years. City staff provides Planning Commission with an annual update on the adopted Capital Improvement Plan in accordance with Mn Statutes 462.356. In cities with adopted comprehensive plans, the statute outlines the opportunity for the planning agency to review the capital improvement plans. The Monticello CIP is updated annually as part of the budget process of the city, with the input of all city departments and review for adoption by the City Council. The city uses its comprehensive plan to guide decision -making on capital improvements. Going forward, the city will use the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan as the foundational document for the annual update of the 10-year CIP. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: No action. The agenda item is for information and discussion purposes. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. MN Statutes 462.356 B. Monticello 2021-2030 Capital Improvement Plan MINNESOTA STATUTES 2020 462.356 462.356 PROCEDURE TO EFFECT PLAN: GENERALLY. Subdivision 1. Recommendations for plan execution. Upon the recommendation by the planning agency of the comprehensive municipal plan or sections thereof, the planning agency shall study and propose to the governing body reasonable and practicable means for putting the plan or section of the plan into effect. Subject to the limitations of the following sections, such means include, but are not limited to, zoning regulations, regulations for the subdivision of land, an official map, a program for coordination of the normal public improvements and services of the municipality, urban renewal and a capital improvements program. Subd. 2. Compliance with plan. After a comprehensive municipal plan or section thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement be authorized by the municipality or special district or agency thereof or any other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the municipality until after the planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal, or capital improvement and reported in writing to the governing body or other special district or agency or political subdivision concerned, its findings as to compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal plan. Failure of the planning agency to report on the proposal within 45 days after such a reference, or such other period as may be designated by the governing body shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of this subdivision. The governing body may, by resolution adopted by two-thirds vote dispense with the requirements of this subdivision when in its judgment it finds that the proposed acquisition or disposal of real property or capital improvement has no relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan. History: 1965 c 670 s 6 Official Publication of the State of Minnesota Revisor of Statutes City of Monticello, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan 2021-2030 Ref. 2021 2023 2 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Public Works PWK-13-001 600,000 18,000,000 2,400,000 21,000,000 Public Works Facility Wheel Loader VEQ-14-001 245,000 245,000 Hook Truck w/plow © VEQ-13-022 278,000 278,000 1 Ton Truck 0 VEQ-13-013 65,000 65,000 Box Sander 0 VEQ-13-014 23,000 23,000 One Ton Truck w/dump © VEQ-13-016 80,000 80,000 Fleet Replacement - See Fleet Replacement Plan © VEQ-13-023 1,372,414 1,549,196 400,908 53,023 520,103 280,215 77,096 139,211 38,725 4,430,892 Subtotal -Public Works 1,291,000 19,372,414 3,949,196 400,908 53,023 520,103 280,215 77,096 139,211 38,725 26,121,892 Streets MNC-13-001 25,000 25,000 City Street Signs © Annual Chip Seal © MNC-14-001 250,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,450,000 Annual Crack Seal © MNC-20-001 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 700,000 Street Light Improvements (see small area) 0 STR-13-010 100,000 100,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 800,000 Elm Street Sidewalk and 3rd St ped blinker O STR-15-003 550,000 550,000 Broadway Sidewalk Improvements 0 350,000 350,000 Sidewalk Gap/ADA Improvement Project (TBD) 0 STR-15-004 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 1,000,000 Fenning Avenue Reconstruction - Curb/Landscaping 300,000 300,000 95th Street Extension w/o noise wall STR-16-001 1,950,000 1,950,000 Flashing Yellow Arrow -Signal Improvements © STR-16-002 300,000 300,000 Fallon Ave & Trail Improvements - Chelsea to School 0 STR-17-002 100,000 550,000 150,000 800,000 TH 25/4th Street Signal © STR-18-001 400,000 400,000 Pavement Preservation Program © STR-19-001 100,000 3,150,000 3,250,000 1,500,000 3,250,000 1,500,000 12,750,000 Broadway Corridor Parklets 0 STR-19-004 25,000 25,000 50,000 Chelsea Road/Cedar Street Roundabout STR-19-005 50,000 300,000 350,000 School Blvd SRTS Improvements © STR-20-001 200,000 200,000 School Blvd/Cedar Roundabout STR-20-002 50,000 450,000 500,000 School Blvd/Fallon Roundabout STR-20-003 50,000 450,000 500,000 Chelsea Blvd/Cedar Roundabout 500,000 500,000 Chelsea Blvd/Edmonson Roundabout 500,000 500,000 Walnut River Street Connection STR-20-005 700,000 700,000 Edmondson Avenue Reconstruction 0 STR-20-006 2,500,000 2,500,000 90th Street Reconstruction - Chelsea to City Limits 0 STR-20-007 2,500,000 2,500,000 Dundas Avenue Reconstruction 2,000,000 2,000,000 School Blvd Extension - Redford Lane to 90th Street 0 STR-20-008 4,000,000 4,000,000 Walnut Street Corridor Improvement 0 STR-18-002 1,000,000 1,000,000 Subtotal - Streets 970,000 3,945,000 895,000 3,745,000 2,845,000 1,895,000 545,000 3,495,000 1,045,000 17,295,000 36,675,000 Stormwater/Drainage SWD-13-001 75,000 40,000 240,000 40,000 240,000 40,000 240,000 40,000 240,000 40,000 1,235,000 Stormwater Pond Restoration 0 Stormwater Liftstation (TH 25 Pond) © SWD-13-002 1,060,000 1,060,000 Boulevard Drainage Tile SWD-13-004 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 500,000 Chelsea/Fallon Avenue Pond Expansion SWD-17-001 450,000 609,000 1,059,000 Otter Creek Industrial Park - Pond A Construction SWD-20-001 480,000 480,000 Otter Creek Industrial Park- Pond D Construction SWD-20-002 560,000 560,000 Otter Creek Industrial Park- Karlsburger Pond Outlet 0 SWD-20-003 120,000 120,000 A Glorious Church Pond Expansion SWD-20-004 475,000 475,000 Chelsea Road Outlet Control - HB07 0 SWD-20-005 40,000 40,000 Prairie Road Pond Outlet 0 SWD-20-006 300,000 300,000 600,000 Fenning Avenue Stormwater 100,000 100,000 Subtotal - Stormwater/Draina a 700,000 2,160,000 450,000 90,000 290,000 699,000 290,000 90,000 1,070,000 390,000 6,229,000 City of Monticello, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan 2021-2030 Ref. 2021 2022 2025 2026 2028 2030 Recreation & Culture PAR-13-003 16,000 16,000 32,000 Sunset Ponds Open Air Shelter Pioneer Park - Band Shell PAR-13-004 90,000 90,000 BCOL Athletic Field Needs Study 20,000 20,000 BCOL Ball Fields (p&p) Future Phases PAR-13-012 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 4,200,000 Park Master Plan PAR-20-001 35,000 35,000 East BCOL Trail Connection PAR-20-002 50,000 50,000 Briarwood Trail Connection PAR-20-003 200,000 200,000 BCOL ROAD MAINTENANCE 0 PAR-20-004 25,000 25,000 4th Street Park Improvements 0 PAR-20-006 425,000 425,000 Ellison Playground Equipment PAR-20-007 100,000 100,000 Ellison Park Restroom Building PAR-20-008 275,000 275,000 CSAH 75 Pathway Lighting (W & E Bridge) PAR-13-014 60,000 60,000 Fanning Trail - School Blvd to 86th Street PAR-15-004 300,000 300,000 West Bridge Splash Pad/East Bridge Band Shell O PAR-15-005 800,000 800,000 West Bridge Play Structure PAR-17-002 100,000 100,000 Pioneer Park Play Structure PAR-17-004 100,000 100,000 River Mill Park Sidewalk/Parking 100,000 100,000 Front Street Pier PAR-17-007 25,000 25,000 Kifco Water Wheel x 2 VEQ-19-008 35,000 35,000 Top Dresser VEQ-19-009 20,000 20,000 Tractor VEQ-13-038 49,000 49,000 Skid Loader VEQ-13-039 75,000 75,000 Fleet Replacement - See Fleet Replacement Plan 0 303,234 197,161 64,943 161,441 109,984 - 5,015 229,379 1,071,157 Pathway Improvements (ops) (Reclassify) MNC-14-007 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 500,000 Boarding Dock for Ellison 0 STE-18-002 25,000 25,000 Riverwalk Fishing Piers 25,000 25,000 Wayfinding Signage 10,000 10,000 Welcome Sign for Monticello 40,000 40,000 Columbarium-Riverside Cemetery 70,000 70,000 Blvd Trees 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 Great River Regional Trail 500,000 500,000 1,000,000 CSAH 39 Pathway - River Mill Drive to Hart Blvd 400,000 400,000 Subtotal - Recreation 1,229,000 813,234 357,161 310,943 1,191,441 1,094,984 776,000 1,380,015 2,404,379 750,000 10,307,157 Utility - Water UTW-13-001 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 1,500,000 Annual Water System Improvements © Water Treatment Facility © UTW-13-002 4,500,000 4,500,000 Well #6 © UTW-13-003 1,200,000 1,200,000 SCADA System - Water 0 VEQ-13-003 700,000 700,000 Subtotal -Water 850,000 1,350,000 150,000 4,650,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 7,900,000 Utility -Sews e MNC-17-001 110,000 110,000 WWTP Demo Obsolete WWTP Equipment Annual Sewage Line Improvements © UTS-13-001 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 2,500,000 Liftstation - Marvin Road UTS-13-002 750,000 750,000 WWTP Solids Handling Improvements © UTS-13-004 1,365,000 1,365,000 WWTP Phase 2 Improvements © UTS-13-005 1,800,000 1,800,000 WWTP Repair and Maintenance 0 UTS-16-001 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 1,250,000 WWTP Headworks Improvements 0 UTS-17-001 2,100,000 2,100,000 Fallon Avenue Trunk Line Improvements UTS-17-002 10,000,000 10,000,000 SCADA System - Sewage 0 VEQ-13-004 930,000 375,000 1,305,000 Chelsea Road Dual Foremain Extension 0 UTS-19-002 1,000,000 1,000,000 Vactor Dump Station © UTS-20-001 100,000 100,000 rieet Kepiacement-see riee[ Kepiacemen[ Tian st,Uoo 4t,IUU sio, iao - IoZ,UZU - *u'UU* - osa,Uto Subtotal - Sewage 1 1,305,000 1,647,056 3,587,790 2,891,196 375,000 557,029 375,000 1,425,005 10,375,000 375,000 22,913,076 2 City of Monticello, Minnesota Capital Improvement Plan 2021-2030 Ref. 2021 024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Fire & Rescue STE-13-006 190,000 190,000 SCBA Packs © Engine 1 © VEQ-18-005 725,000 725,000 Utility 1 © VEQ-18-006 120,000 120,000 Turnout Gear © STE-16-005 7,500 30,000 4,000 16,500 25,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 138,000 Squad 5 O VEQ-19-004 75000 75,000 Engine 12 © 850,000 850,000 Tenderll © 350,000 350,000 Utility 12 © 165,000 165,000 Subtotal - Fire & Rescue 272,500 755,000 124,000 16,500 25,000 365,000 10,000 175,000 860,000 10,000 2,613,000 Liquor Store LIQ-13-002 75,000 75,000 Parking Lot Improvements © Roof © LIQ-18-001 50,000 50,000 Point of Sale Software © VEQ-17-001 20,000 20,000 Liquor Store LIQ-13-003 2,000,000 2,000,000 Liquor Store Coolers © VEQ-13-046 25,000 25,000 Breakroom Expansion 0 25,000 25,000 Subtotal - Liquor Store 25,000 95,000 75,000 2,000,000 2,195,000 Deputy Registrar VEQ-13-047 30,000 30,000 DMV Vehicle B Relocation/Building Renovation © 125,000 125,000 Subtotal - Deputy Registrar 125,000 30,000 155,000 IT Services STE-13-001 5,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 15,600 146,000 Personal Computers 0 Laptops 0 STE-13-005 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 30,000 GIS Hardware and Software 0 STE-13-007 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 80,000 Website O VEQ-19-006 15,000 15,000 Pavement Management Software 0 STE-13-008 4,000 4,200 4,400 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 44,800 Copier 12,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 12,000 8,000 8,000 80,000 Subtotal - IT Services 35,600 42,800 39,000 39,200 39,200 39,200 39,200 43,200 39,200 39,200 395,800 Monticello Community Center MCC-13-001 40,000 40,000 Movable Walls Mississippi Room Dias Top MCC-13-003 20,000 20,000 Concessions Front Counter Replacement MCC-13-004 100,000 100,000 East/West Door Handicap Doors © MCC-17-003 6,000 6,000 New Patio to Replace Old Skate Park 0 MCC-18-001 250,000 250,000 Card Access Readers MCC-18-003 16,000 16,000 Carpet and Terrazo Repair 0 MNC-13-006 20,000 40,000 60,000 Vanity and Partition Replacement MNC-13-010 20,000 20,000 Facility Door Replacement MNC-13-011 5,000 2,500 2,500 10,000 Recreation Software VEQ-18-001 35,000 35,000 Floor Scrubber 0 STE-18-005 8,000 8,000 Recreation Equipment 0 STE-13-013 85,000 60,000 60,000 205,000 Tables STE-13-015 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 Surveillance Camera Update STE-15-001 65,000 65,000 Dishwasher STE-17-002 20,000 20,000 Climbing Wall Resurface 0 MNC-19-001 30,000 30,000 Childcare Countertop MNC-19-002 5,000 5,000 Water Heater for Guard Kitchen 20,000 20,000 Subtotal - MCC 142,000 135,000 190,500 67,500 75,000 250,000 65,000 925,000 Grand Total 6,803,100 30,322,504 9,762,148 12,334,247 5,036,164 7,425,316 2,715,415 6,900,317 16,082,790 19,047,925 116,429,924 Planning Commission Agenda: 02/02/21 3B. Consideration of amendment to regular monthly Planning Commission meeting time. A. REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission is asked to consider rescheduling its regular meeting time from 6:15 PM to 6:00 PM. The meetings of the Commission historically were held at 6:00 PM, but in recent years moved to 6:15 PM to accommodate Commissioner schedules. B. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Motion to set regular Planning Commission meetings at 6:00 PM the first Tuesday of each month. 2. Motion of other. C. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff defers to the Planning Commission on matters of regular meeting dates and times. D. SUPPORTING DATA: A. City Code Title 2, Chapter 1 - Planning Commission Planning Commission Agenda — 02/02/21 3C. Community Development Director's Report COVID-19 City of Monticello Information Resource: https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/covidl9 Council Action on/related to Commission Recommendations • Consideration for adoption of the 2021 City of Monticello Official Zoning Map. Approved unanimously on January 11 rh, 2021 as part of the consent agenda. • Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for a Commercial Office Use in the CCD (Central Community District), Walnut & Cedar Sub -District. Applicant: Laestadian Lutheran Church (Phil Jurmu, Facilities Manager) Approved unanimously on January 111, 2021 as part of the consent agenda. • Consideration of a Map Amendment (Rezoning) to Planned Unit Development, Development & Final Stage Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary and Final Plat for the Construction of a Machinery & Truck Repair & Sales Use. Applicant: Nuss Truck & Equipment (Phil Watkins). Approved unanimously on January 2511, 2021 as part of the regular agenda, with some conditions of approval modified. Upcoming Workshops and Training March Workshop In addition to the February workshop, staff is also planning a Commission workshop in March. Tentatively, the workshop will be a joint session with City Council and focus on Land Use Basics training and the role of the Planning Commission. The workshop would be held prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting on March 2nd at 4:30 PM. Training Opportunities In addition to the in-house training offered as part of the March workshop, staff would note that Fusion Learning Partners (formerly Government Training Services) offers a series of land use -focused training opportunities. At this time, no in -person or online trainings are scheduled through Fusion for 2021. However, Commissioners are encouraged to check the website frequently for upcoming opportunities. httns:HfusionID. orLy/landuse/ Another important resource for Planning Commissioners is the League of Minnesota Cities, which offers a variety of guidebooks on land use and planning. Visit: hgps://www.lmc.org/ Council Updates Council Highlights - January: hgps://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/highlights Planning Commission Agenda — 02/02/21 Council Connection - January: https://www. ci.monticello.n-n.us/vertical/sites/%7B46185197-6086-4078-ADDC- OF3 918 715 C4C %7D/uploads/Council_ Connection_ January_2021.pdf