Planning Commission Minutes 02-02-2021MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2021 - 6:15 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: John Alstad, Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, Alison Zimpfer, and
Eric Hagen
Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler
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 ELECT PAUL KONSOR AS CHAIR OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ELECT JOHN ALSTAD AS VICE CHAIR OF
THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ELECT CITY STAFF AS SECRETARY. J01 N
ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
C. Consideration of approving minutes
a. Regular Meeting Minutes — January 5th, 2021
ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES — JANUARY 5TH, 2021. ANDREW TAPPER
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
D. Citizen Comments
None.
E. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
None.
F. Consideration to approve agenda
ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. JOHN ALSTAD
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
2. Public Hearings
A. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Ordinance
Amendment relating to R-1 Zoning District standards
Applicant: Capstone Homes
Andrew Tapper reclused himself from this item.
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 1 1 7
Steve Grittman explained that this was a continued Public Hearing from the
January Planning Commission Meeting.
Grittman explained that the City developed building material standards several
years ago with the intent that the zoning regulations (including 5/12 roof pitch and
15 percent brick or stone treatment) were to point towards higher end housing.
Grittman noted that the applicant, Capstone Homes, is actively building in
Monticello (Haven Ridge) and is seeking amendment to the code for architecture.
The requested amendments are separated by the minimum roof pitch standard and
brick and stone treatment.
Grittman noted that some of the homes Capstone typically builds have less of a
roof pitch on ornamental features (such as over a porch, gabled dormers, or shed
dormer). The overall roof structure would meet the minimum code. Staff
presented the applicant's proposal, the staff recommendation to Planning
Commission from the January meeting, and staff s recommendation to Planning
Commission for February. A chart of these three alternatives for both proposed
ordinance amendments was provided in the staff report.
Grittman than discussed the proposed amendment for the brick and stone
requirements. Capstone has noted they have several popular models that do not
have brick or stone on the front fagade but rely on the architecture and the style of
siding on the home.
Alison Zimpfer asked if what the applicants were suggesting, without the brick
and stone, were not considered high end features or if it was just a different
architectural concept. Grittman noted that staff were not suggesting that the
builder was not constructing high end homes, but that it was the way the City
defined high end features when they adopted the current ordinance. Grittman
noted that the current ordinance was easy to apply and that builders have been
meeting that requirement. The applicants previously suggested that this standard
is unusual without any flexibility.
Paul Konsor clarified that this would be a city-wide amendment and not just for a
specific development. Grittman confirmed that this would change the City's
Zoning Ordinance to require every builder to comply with the new rules unless
builders are completing homes within a Planned Unit Development and specific
standards are noted with that approval. Konsor asked if this applicant would fall
under the optional fagade treatment section of the proposed code. Grittman noted
with the proposed amendment, if they would like to build homes without the 15
percent treatment of brick and stone, their option would be to present it to the
Planning Commission.
Eric Hagen asked if it were known how much brick and stone would be remove,
on average, if windows were excluded from the total fagade requirement. Angela
Schumann noted that examples were provided in the Planning Commission packet
and added that it would vary based on the design of the home and number of
windows on the fagade.
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 2 17
Hagen also asked if what staff were proposing, could all three options for fagade
architectural standards be found in a development or just one of the three options
per development. Grittman noted that the intent would be up to the
builder/developer to work with the portfolio they wish. Staff were not suggesting
that they had to choose one option for the entire development, Hagen mentioned
the importance of being cognizant of consistency within a development but
understood the desire for a variety of options.
Hagen also noted that the current ordinance allows 70 percent stucco or real wood
with only 5 percent brick or stone coverage. He asked what the remaining 25
percent could be used for. Grittman noted that it was free reign but imagined that
it could, for example, be lapped siding or shakes on a gable end.
Konsor noted that the applicant proposed to also remove from the fagade
requirements the square footage for doors (in addition to removing windows and
garage doors). He asked why staff s recommendation did not include removal of
the doors from the total fagade requirements. Grittman noted that staff did not
want a builder to have to eliminate having windows because of the brick or stone
requirement and that it was a good trade-off to exclude the windows from the
fagade, but not the door.
Konsor also asked why a developer would enter a development and then later ask
for an amendment to the building materials standard. Grittman deferred to the
applicant, but it was noted that the developer has mentioned their long-term
commitment to Monticello. Grittman noted that the amendment could apply to the
developer's future construction, rather than current.
Paul Konsor opened the public hearing.
Heather Lorch, Capstone Homes/applicant, introduced herself and provided a
short presentation. Lorch noted that after they first contracted the lots and applied
for building permits, they were not aware of the extend of the ordinance. Lorch
explained that very rarely have they seen in communities that brick or stone is a
requirement, which is why they did not dig into it too deeply. She also noted that
the roof pitch exempted several styles of homes they offer, which is why they
decided to work with the City to come up with a resolution together. Lorch noted
the history of Capstone Homes and explained that they completed 350 homes in
the metro area for 2020. Lorch explained they have a very strong warranty and
quality assurance program for their homes. Lorch noted the importance their
company places on quality and quality building materials. Lorch mentioned that
they feel the easier the building permit applications are, the more successful
builders can be, buyers can have good and multiple choices when selecting a
home, and staff are not burdened by having to look through so many plans. She
noted the high demand for farm style homes that do not have brick or stone.
Lorch provided additional considerations from staff s recommendation for
amendment to the zoning ordinance for the brick and stone requirement and the
roof pitches.
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 3 17
Zimpfer asked if the applicant has proposed changes in other communities. Lorch
noted that she has not requested an ordinance amendment to other communities in
her four years with the company. Zimpfer asked what the targeted age range of
the homes they sell would include. She noted that their company is a production
builder that builds attainable homes. Lorch noted that their target price range is
between $350,000 and $500,000 homes. They tend to get first time home buyers
with small families. They have been building detached townhomes that includes
lawn and snow maintenance that receives interest by many single parent
homeowners. They also have a villa product that are geared towards retired aged
individuals that are looking to downsize. She explained that it is the full gamut of
the market.
Hagen asked how many of their existing models meet the 15 percent brick or
stone standard. Lorch estimated that it was about half. Hagen asked if it would
significantly limit the types of homes in Haven Ridge. Lorch confirmed that they
had to remove some homes from their product line. She added that without the
roof pitch change, it eliminated 75 to 80 percent of their homes. She asked that
the brick or stone requirement be removed to offer homes to buyers that are not
interested in having that and added that they would lose buyers if that requirement
stayed in place. Hagen asked if they have any models that are 100 percent one
building material or all have at least two building materials. Lorch confirmed that
all models utilized at least two building materials.
Konsor asked for clarification from the applicant's presentation regarding the
proposed three material/styles exception of brick or stone. Lorch clarified the
chart provided in the staff report and noted they would propose that if the builder
is proposing no brick or stone, they would need two of the listed building
materials and 25 percent of each. Schumann wanted to be clear on what the 75
percent material would be and what the 25 percent would be.
Zimpfer asked if the applicant saw any concerns with what staff recommended.
Lorch appreciated the efforts that staff had put forth but asked for consideration
that homes with front porches be exempt from having the brick or stone
requirement. Hagen clarified with staff that an 80 square foot or larger porch
would exempt a builder from any brick or stone. Grittman confirmed that was the
intent and he felt the applicant was asking that if the home has a front porch, they
could drop the brick or stone requirement without special approval by the
Planning Commission. Hagen asked for clarification if the brick or stone
exemption was just for the porch area or the entire structure. Grittman felt the
intent was if there was a porch that met those conditions, there would be no brick
or stone requirement on that building. Konsor added an issue that could occur if
an accessory structure were constructed that required brick and stone and a
principal home was constructed with a porch that would be exempt from having
brick or stone. Hagen asked for further clarification on the porch exemption if it
would apply to the standard for 70 percent of stucco or real wood and the
requirement for 5 percent brick or stone. Grittman believed that was the intent.
Hagen asked if the applicant had the same understanding. Lorch confirmed but
noted they hadn't thought of those options as they do not use stucco or real wood
as a building material.
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 4 17
Charlotte Gabler asked if there was flexibility on the homes that are not shown
with brick or stone. Lorch confirmed that they had other elevations of models that
contained the brick or stone if a buyer requested that. Gabler asked if additional
landscaping would be required for homes that do not have brick or stone.
Schumann explained that the proposed ordinance amendments try to balance what
the City is trying to achieve and simplicity. Schumann noted that staff are not
proposing other amendments to the zoning ordinance at this time.
Hagen asked if the Planning Commission was approving Capstone Homes the
provision for optional fagade treatments prior to building permit when additional
architecture so warrants separately from the change to the ordinance. Schumann
believed that the assumption was that the Planning Commission was asked to
make a recommendation regarding the ordinance amendment and separately
Capstone Homes would determine how that impacts their designs and would
potentially come back to the Planning Commission with designs for approval. It
was reminded that the City Council would ultimately decide on the zoning
ordinance amendment language.
Andrew Tapper, 2528 Meadow Oak Lane, noted that in his neighborhood of Briar
Oaks, there are several homes that do not have brick or stone and are still
considered high quality. He thought that the City was being closed in design
styles. Tapper also questioned the recommendation of staff for approval by the
Planning Commission of individual housing styles and the logistics of adding
these items to future agendas.
Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Further discussion occurred regarding the staff recommendation during the
January Planning Commission meeting. Hagen asked the applicant if their plans
would be able to meet the proposed changes to the ordinance from the previous
recommendation. Lorch asked that the last sentence (column three/building
materials) be adjusted to 25 percent of the two lesser materials. She reiterated that
the 15 percent proposal would give a clunky and unbalanced design.
Hagen asked if this was the first time that the City had seen a deviation from brick
or stone or if this was something routinely brought up. Ron Hackenmueller noted
that there have been battles over the years regarding the 15 percent, especially as
other communities do not have this standard. Hackenmueller noted that builders
have revised their plans to ensure the 15 percent standard has been met, although
some homes in Monticello may not have any or less than the 15 percent amount.
Hackenmueller stated that the roof pitch amendment will allow flexibility and
would help the Building Department when reviewing a plan.
ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2021-006
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 7XX
INCORPORATING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS OF FEBRUARY 2ND,
2021, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. JOHN ALSTAD
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 5 1 7
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of amendment to regular monthly Planning Commission
meeting time
JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO SET REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETINGS AT 6:00 PM THE FIRST TUESDAY OF EACH MONTH.
ALISON ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
B. Monticello Capital Improvement Plan Update
Angela Schumann noted that the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is adopted by
the City Council each year as a part of the budget and tax levy. The plan thinks
about the next five to ten years in terms of public infrastructure and
improvements. Schumann noted that the City will rely on the Monticello 2040
Comprehensive Plan as the foundation for the preparation of that plan. Minnesota
State Statutes provide that for City's that adopt comprehensive plans, the Planning
Commission should hear an annual report on the CIP.
Matt Leonard, City Engineer/Public Work's Director, provided an overview of the
CIP. Leonard highlighted some larger items on the CIP, including: the
construction of a new Public Works building, pedestrian and bicycle
improvements including ADA improvements, road and utility (re)construction,
stormwater management improvements, park improvements, completion of a
feasibility study for a water treatment plant, updating the SCADA system
(communication system for water and sewer utilities), fire department updates and
upgrades, construction of a new liquor store location, and completion of an
updated comprehensive water plan.
Leonard encouraged the Planning Commission if they had any projects they
would like staff to review, they were open to their feedback.
He noted that there are grants that the City may apply for to help offset some of
the costs of these projects.
Leonard also provided MnDOT's Capital Highway Investment Plan and Wright
County's long range plans. Leonard specifically highlighted projects that impact
Monticello.
C. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report
Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's as provided
in the agenda.
4. Added Items
None.
5. Adjournment
JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:19 P.M. ALISON
ZIMPFER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0.
Recorder: Jacob Thunander
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 6 17
Approved: February 2nd, 2021
Attest:
Angela SchumarVi, go�munity Development Director
Planning Commission Minutes — February 2nd, 2021 Page 7 1 7