Loading...
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - 08/01/2023MINUTES REGULAR MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 1, 2023 — 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Chair Paul Konsor, Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Melissa Robeck Commissioners Absent: Eric Hagen Council Liaison Present: Councilmember Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Ron Hackenmueller, Hayden Stensgard, Jim Thares 1. General Business A. Call to Order Planning Commission Chair Paul Konsor called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Roll Call Mr. Konsor called the roll. C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items None D. Approval of Agenda ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 11, 2023 REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. E. Approval of Meeting Minutes • Regular Meeting Minutes —July 5, 2023 ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE JULY 5, 2023 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. F. Citizen Comment None 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Haven Ridge 2"d Addition Planned Unit Development District for proposed amendments to the PUD Design Standards Applicant: Tamarack Land City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. Paul Konsor asked for clarification that the applicant had requested changes to the PUD flexibility from the original approval of the second addition, and staff had proposed standards that do not reflect the applicant's requests. Mr. Grittman clarified that the applicant is aware of staffs recommendations, but does not know if all recommendations are agreeable to the applicant. Melissa Robeck asked what the reason for the proposed changes if the development already received approval. Mr. Grittman said that it was likely that the changing housing environment had caused the applicants to address the approved standards in an effort to draw more interest in the development. Teri Lehner asked if the applicants knew how many of each home style would be built in the proposed development, or if they had plans to prevent the entire development being built with the smaller home styles that are proposed. Mr. Grittman deferred to the applicants on the question, but did note this portion of the development is roughly 20% of the total Haven Ridge area. Andrew Tapper mentioned that the applicants are requesting areas of flexibility from the zoning ordinance by way of PUD, and asked what types of enhancements for this development will be offered by the development team. Mr. Grittman noted that the development itself can serve as the enhancement, due to the variety of housing styles and level of affordability included, providing an area of the market not necessarily seen in Monticello for some time. Councilmember Charlotte Gabler questioned whether the lack of garage space in the proposed home designs would lead to future requests for detached structures, due to a need for more storage space. Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the item. Marc Schulte, landowner, addressed the Planning Commission and the public. He noted that the Haven Ridge project is entering its sixth year and noted that anything other than a recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission could end the project. Mr. Konsor asked what standards recommended by either the applicant or staff are conflicting with this project proceeding. Mr. Schulte noted that the majority of the applicant's requested standards were proposed by Lennar Corporation If those standards were approved as proposed, the development would have a builder on- board and the development could then proceed yet this year. Mr. Konsor asked the applicant if they could clarify their initial thoughts on the recommendations staff proposed. Brian Theis, Applicant from Tamarack Land Development, addressed the Planning Commission and the public. Tamarack's role for this development is to provide ready -to -build lots for builders to purchase. In this case, Tamarack partnered with Lennar to be the home builder for this portion of the Haven Ridge development. Mr. Theis noted that at the time of the original second addition approval, there was no builder identified and those original standards were approved without any comment from a builder. Lennar has said that the standards approved in 2022 would not allow them to build homes in the second addition. Mr. Theis also noted that the applicant's proposed standards are intended to set minimums for the development; it is not the development team's intention to only build homes at the minimum standards set. Mr. Theis mentioned that it would be an intention to introduce more diverse housing options with different minimum standards in the future phases of the development. Staff's recommendation for the amended minimum setbacks and minimum square footage of homes were acceptable with the development team. Mr. Theis did mention that the minimum garage requirement of 480 square feet would create a challenge for the builder to accommodate with the home styles presented. Continuing through staffs recommendations as part of Exhibit Z in the agenda, the development team noted they could accommodate the roof pitch and facade requirements, but had concerns with the requirements regarding a usable front porch or pergola on all homes, as well as the requirement of keeping the front door no further than 6 feet set back from the front of the garage. Finally, Mr. Theis noted the difficulty to get, and substantial cost difference, in requiring 3" caliper trees versus 2.5" caliper trees at time of planting. Josh Metzer, Lennar Corporation, addressed the Planning Commission and the public. Mr. Metzer provided a spreadsheet for everyone attending the meeting, detailing the design specifications for each proposed home style. One of the main intentions of the proposed home styles is to help with the cost of purchasing a home. With Lennar's average home cost Twin Cities metro -wide being $580,000, the proposed smaller footprint homes would range from an estimated $350,000 to $390,000. Councilmember Gabler mentioned housing market trends and accommodating those trends to provide houses that are currently selling was something for the Planning Commission to consider during their discussion. Melissa Robeck asked if the lots would have houses built on them, and then sold to people. Mr. Metzer said that it depends on the type and level of interest that is drawn by the development. Lennar is prepared to market the lots both ways as necessary. In the event that lots are intended to be sold with homes already built on them, Ms. Robeck asked how Lennar decides which home styles go on which lots. Mr. Metzer said that Lennar's marketing team takes part in the decision, and the intention is not to build only one style of home with the same architectural character. The intention would be to offer multiple home options on those lots. Mr. Tapper entertained the idea of limiting the number lots for homes that would not otherwise meet the minimum square footage requirements. Mr. Metzer responded that it would be in the development team's best interest to let the market make the determination of what, and of how many of each, home styles would be built. Mr. Tapper asked if the applicants had an idea of what a good threshold would be to set on the number of smaller home styles allowed in the second addition. Mr. Metzer said that he could not provide a number at this time. Mr. Tapper expressed concerns that if flexibility in house square footage was allowed for this portion of the Haven Ridge development, it could lead to more requests for future phases of the development. Chief Building Official and Zoning Administrator Ron Hackenmueller mentioned that Edmonson Ridge, a recently approved residential development in town, offers smaller sized homes, as well as larger. Of the 20 lots currently developed, none of them include the small home designs approved with the development. Additionally, the approvals included a requirement for a minimum of 440 square feet of attached garage space. Mr. Tapper asked if the Edmonson Ridge lots are sold on a "buy for construction" basis. Mr. Hackenmueller stated that beyond the initial model homes built, the remainder of the lots have been sold prior to the homes being built. Mr. Metzer reiterated that it is the development team's intention to provide a variety of home styles that also offer a variety of architectural designs. Mr. Konsor stated that his confusion in the discussion stemmed from mixed messages from the development team and whether the ability to compromise on the provided conditions in Exhibit Z is feasible. Mr. Konsor restated that he would still be interested in setting limitations on the second addition of the development to only allow a certain amount of those home designs that are short on the finished square feet requirement and attached garage space. Mr. Konsor also emphasized the importance of having larger garages, so homeowners have the space to store things inside, rather than having them in the yard. Community Development Director Angela Schumann mentioned, for the Planning Commission to keep in mind, what the balance of available residential properties is in the City, whether they be for rent or for sale. A long-standing goal of the City is to continue to provide an abundance of housing opportunities to existing residents, as well as new potential residents looking for a new community to establish in. Mr. Metzer and the Planning Commission agreed to go line -by-line through staff's proposed conditions in exhibit Z, to better refine where the confliction remained with those standards. Mr. Konsor said that he did not have any issues with the proposed home styles as outlined in the spreadsheet handed out by Mr. Metzer, or the standards proposed by the applicant for the most part. He reiterated that he would still want some sort of assurance that the entire development will not be filled up with those smaller home designs. Councilmember Gabler noted that as the standards and conditions were refined during the item discussion, a condition could be added to limit the number of certain home styles in the development. Mr. Tapper said that he would be interested in tabling the agenda item, until City staff and the applicant have a closer consensus of what those standards should be. Mr. Metzer noted that tabling the recommendation of the item would not change what Lennar is requesting in regard to the home designs. From his standpoint, the remaining standards to come to an agreement on are conditions "c" and "d" located within Exhibit Z. Mr. Konsor restated his concerns do not fall within the conditions of approval, but rather the number of smaller homes within this portion of the development. He would be interested in setting some limitations to ensure that type of home variety. Mr. Theis said that his original request for an attached garage minimum was 430 square feet and staff countered with a 480 square feet minimum. The plans presented have a minimum attached garage size of 463 square feet, and would have liked to have the standards reflect as such. Teri Lehner asked staff if the City has ever created limitations on types of homes in a given development, and if that is a feasible thing to monitor. Ms. Schumann said she would have to look back to verify, but added that one of the main challenges with that would be having to tell a potential new resident that they could not build the home of their interest, due to a specific quota set by the City. Mr. Grittman added that typically the builders monitor their lot and home inventory in a given development and adding a limitation as such would require the building department to also monitor the development, so certain quotas are not exceeded. Mr. Grittman also mentioned that some cities have set standards where an identical home style could not be built next to each other within the neighborhood, not that it would be a recommendation from Staff, but as a reference for discussion. Mr. Konsor also stated that tabling the recommendation of this item would benefit the decision at hand, so staff and the applicant can work on coming to terms with the development standards. Mr. Theis noted that tabling the recommendation would affect their plans to grade in the late Summer/Fall, as a goal would be to have homes built and ready to showcase in the Spring. Councilmember Gabler asked if there was an option of having a special meeting later in the month of August, so the applicant could still make the standards Council decision time on August 28, 2023. Ms. Schumann clarified that that was a capability, and returned the question of what it was the Planning Commission would be interested in seeing different at that meeting, compared to what was presented. Mr. Metzer reiterated that if the Planning Commission was willing to amend the condition on garage size from 480 square feet to 463 square feet, the applicant's requests would then be satisfied to proceed with the development. Ms. Robeck noted that seemed like a reasonable compromise. Mr. Theis restated that his request was still for Planning Commission to recommend approval of the standards the applicant originally asked for, with that new minimum standard for the attached garages. Mr. Konsor noted a discrepancy in the information provided related to requested minimum square footages of the homes themselves and asked for clarification. Mr. Metzer clarified that the minimums set by the plans provided were 934 finished square footage, and 1,704 finishable square footage. Mr. Tapper believed that there would be no compromise on design standards between City staff, the Planning Commission and the applicant. The applicant had requested design standards that would allow the development to proceed yet this year. Mr. Schulte agreed that the standards requested by the applicant were the only standards that would allow the development to proceed with construction as proposed. Ms. Schumann noted that if it would benefit the Planning Commission and their decision -making, it was possible to hold a special meeting within the next two weeks, to allow time to still meet the second City Council meeting in August. Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Councilmember Gabler and Mr. Konsor agreed that holding a special meeting would be beneficial to the Planning Commission. Ms. Lehner agreed and said that a revised list of standards following the night's discussion would provide clarity. Ms. Robeck concurred. Mr. Konsor proposed that at the next meeting, the conditions in Exhibit Z should include a set quota for the smaller home styles presented, that would not meet normal zoning standards. Mr. Konsor used no more than 20% of lots in the second addition can have a "Crosby" or "Emily" style home, as an example. Mr. Tapper preferred up to 50% of the lots, rather than Mr. Konsor's proposed 20%. Mr. Konsor believed allowing 50% as the limit was too high. Ms. Lehner said that if the development team had an idea of what would be a reasonable percentage of lots to allow those smaller home styles at, the Planning Commission would appreciate that information. Mr. Tapper asked for clarification from the body, that if Staff and the applicant can bring back a proposed limit to the smaller home styles to be built in the second addition, the standards originally proposed by the applicant are sufficient. The Planning Commission concurred. Councilmember Gabler asked the Planning Commission if they thought it is in the City's best interest to dictate which style homes can be built, and where in the community, potentially affecting Monticello's efforts to bring in new residents and new homeowners. Ms. Gabler mentioned this could be part of the discussion at that subsequent meeting. Mr. Konsor asked if there are any conflicts with setting a limitation as discussed. Mr. Grittman did not have any uniform examples of a limitation as such being set, but did mention this is a Planned Unit Development, and a standard like that could be implemented. He did not provide an example of what staff would bring back to the Planning Commission for consideration, as that would need to be further discussed. Ms. Schumann clarified that the Planning Commission is fine with the standards requested by the applicant, so long as the applicant can ensure variety in the development, and not have only those three smaller home designs built on all 59 lots. The Planning Commission concurred. Mr. Konsor reopened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Metzer asked for clarification on when the subsequent meeting would be held. Ms. Schumann said that the meeting could be held on August 8t", 2023 or August 15t" 2023, and still be ready to proceed with the City Council at their August 28th meeting. Mr. Schulte noted that tabling action on the item at hand would affect their plan to close on the property within the week. Councilniember Gabler asked if closing on the property prior to receiving official approval by the City Council was the applicant's intention. Mr. Theis said that if the Planning Commission recommended approval, they would proceed with closing on the property and potentially begin grading the site, prior to City Council approval. Mr. Theis reiterated that establishing a threshold on home styles built in the development makes it difficult for not only the development team, but also the potential homebuyers. Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE AGENDA ITEM UNTIL AUGUST 15, 2023 AT 6:00 P.M. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. Teri Lehner left at 8:23 p.m., leaving three voting members to carry out the remainder of the agenda. B. Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance related to commercial animal kennels as a principal use, including Use Table, Use Specific Standards and Definitions Applicant: City of Monticello Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. Following some inquiries from community members on the capabilities of bringing an animal kennel facility to Monticello, City staff drafted an ordinance to allow the use within specific zoning districts. The purpose of the proposed use was to allow day care, boarding, and training services for household pets as a principal use in specific commercial and industrial districts. Councilmember Gabler asked if someone wanted to operate a pet grooming business out of their home, would they be considered under the personal service definition or would it be a home occupation. Ms. Schumann clarified that the home occupation would take precedent, and depending on the level of home occupation, the person operating would potentially need a conditional use permit for said home occupation. Mr. Konsor asked if this applies to neighbors assisting each other for short-term animal care during a vacation. Ms. Schumann clarified that it relies more on whether these services are being publicly advertised as commercial business. The City does not intend to monitor neighbors caring for animals in a short-term, non-public sense. Mr. Tapper asked if a dog is dropped off at an establishment specifically for grooming purposes, and ends up being there all day, is that considered boarding. Ms. Schumann clarified that it would not be considered boarding under the proposed ordinance. Mr. Konsor asked if kennels are already defined within the Monticello Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Schumann confirmed and added that the current definition only allows it to be in the agriculture -open space district within the City. Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. John Gallagher, 404 Underwood Lane, St. Michael, MN, 55376, addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Gallagher said he attended the public hearing to observe, as he is interested in potentially bringing this use to Monticello. Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO COMMERCIAL ANIMAL KENNELS AS A PRINCIPAL USE, INCLUDING USE TABLE, USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS, BASED ON FINDINGS IN RESOLUTION PC-2023-23. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 3-0. C. Consideration of a request for an Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance related to a correction to the approved lan upage within Ordinance No. 799 as related to R-1, Single -Family Residential District Applicant: City of Monticello Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item. A corrective item, the intent of the agenda item is to correct language for the size of garages in the R-1 Single -Family Residential District in a previous ordinance adopted by the City Council. The corrective ordinance would revise adopted language to match the original intention of the Zoning Ordinance section. Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. ANDREW MOVED RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN RESOLUTION PC-2023-24. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 3-0. 3. Begular Agenda A. Economic Development Toolbox Update Economic Development Manager Jim Thares provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. At the meeting, Mr. Thares provided a document listing the assistance opportunities at the local, state, and federal level for businesses in Monticello to utilize as necessary. 4. Other Business A. Community Development Director's Report Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. 5. Adiournment ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 3-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:15 P.M. Recorded By: Hayden Stensgarcl�W Date Approved: September 5, 2023 ATTEST: An�geaa S c h a n, Community Development Director