Planning Commission – 07/06/2021

1

ADD. Consideration of an Administrative Appeal to Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter

3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts, Subsection (E) R-1: Single Family Residence District. Applicant: Erin Jones

Prepared by: Community Development Director

Meeting Date: 07/06/21

Council Date (pending appeal): 7/26/21

Additional Analysis by: Chief Building and Zoning Official

REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND

Property: Legal Description: Lot 10, Block 1, Club West 1212 Prairie Pine Court

Planning Case Number: 2021 - 025

Request(s): Administrative Appeal

Deadline for Decision: August 31, 2021 (60-day deadline)

Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential; (LDR): Intended for detached homes, usually on lots from 7,000 to 14,000 square feet. Housing in this designation includes single-family detached residential units as well as detached accessory structures. Other compatible uses, such as schools, nursing homes, private parks and religious facilities may also locate in this designation.

Zoning Designation: R-1 Single Family Residence District The purpose of the "R-1" Single Family district is to provide for low density, single family, detached residential dwelling units and directly related complementary uses.

Overlays/Environmental Regulations Applicable: NA

Current Site Uses: Single Family Residential/Development in Progress

Surrounding Land Uses: North: Single Family Residential East: Single Family Residential South: Railroad/Golf Course West: Single Family Residential

Planning Commission – 07/06/2021

2

Project Description: With adoption of Ordinance No. 755, the City approved a process for applicants/builders to seek a waiver of the brick or stone requirement via an administrative appeal to the Planning Commission, acting in its role as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals.

The applicant is seeking an appeal under this clause for construction of a new single-family home in the Club West neighborhood. Club West is not a Planned Unit Development.

ANALYSIS: Erin Jones has submitted an administrative appeal per the ordinance process for review of the 15% brick/stone requirements for a single-family lot in the Club West subdivision of Monticello. The applicant’s narrative and façade plan illustrate the proposed façade enhancements in lieu of the required brick/stone.

As discussed during the prior considerations, the intent of the brick and stone requirement is to encourage higher value housing in the community and avoid featureless subdivision and housing design.

Consideration of variation from the brick/stone requirement under the recently amended ordinance and approved administrative appeal presumes that other enhancements of equal impact and value would replace the reduced brick/stone façade treatment.

For the current proposal, the variations proposed to the two-story design are intended to be offset by a 6’ usable front porch, a significant percentage of alternative material design on the façade, including board and batten, corbels at the eaves, and garage eyebrow roof feature. The home design also includes an increased roof pitch on the main structure (12/12).

The home, at over 4000 square feet is well in excess of R-1 square footage requirements.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS

1. Motion to adopt Resolution No. PC 2021-024, approving the appeal as submitted by Erin Jones and as submitted in the plan dated 5/19/21, based on the findings in said Resolution.

2. Motion to deny the adoption of Resolution No. PC 2021-024, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission.

3. Motion table action on Resolution No. 2021-024, subject to additional information

from the applicant and/or staff.

Planning Commission – 07/06/2021

3

STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION

City staff recommends Alternative 1 for approval of the administrative appeal. This recommendation is based on the significant level of enhanced detail submitted on the home plan, which is consistent with the treatments outlined as code alternatives.

SUPPORTING DATA A. Resolution 2021-024 B. Aerial Site Image C. Applicant Narrative D. Home Design Façade Plan E. Ordinance No. 755

1

CITY OF MONTICELLO WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA

RESOLUTION NO. 2021-024

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO APPROVING AN APPEAL FROM THE REQUIREMENT FOR 15% BRICK OR STONE FACADES ON

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES LOT 10, BLOCK 1, CLUB WEST SUBDIVISION

WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to construct a single family house in the Club West Subdivision; and

WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residence District, in which single family homes are allowed as permitted uses; and

WHEREAS, the applicable zoning regulations require that at least 15% of all single family dwelling facades are comprised of brick, stone, or similar materials; and

WHEREAS, the regulations provide for an administrative appeals process in front of the Planning Commission, sitting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, by which builders may request a waiver of the brick or stone requirements, under certain circumstances; and

WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to waive the 15% brick and stone requirement for the proposed single-family home in favor or alternative materials and features as outlined by the Zoning Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the proposed modifications are supported by various enhancements to the applicant’s housing, including a usable porch, additional alternative façade materials including board and batten, increased roofline pitch and varied rooflines; and

WHEREAS, the proposed modifications meet the City’s long-term interest in supporting enhanced building material quality and neighborhood design; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the matter at its regular meeting on July 6th, 2021 and the applicant was 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:

2

1. The proposed modifications are consistent with the intent of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan.

2. The proposed modifications are reasonable, given the conditions in the area, and on the subject property.

3. The applicant has carried its burden of showing that market conditions support the variations from the standard and provided adequate alternatives that continue to meet the expectations and intent of the City’s land use regulations.

4. The proposed modifications will otherwise meet the general intent of the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.

5. The proposed modifications will not create undue burdens on public systems, including streets and utilities.

6. The proposed modifications will not create substantial impacts on neighboring land uses that are not within the expectations of the current zoning allowances.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, sitting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, Minnesota that the proposed Variance is hereby approved.

ADOPTED this 6th day of July, 2021, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello, Minnesota.

MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION

By: Paul Konsor, Chair

ATTEST:

Angela Schumann, Community Development Director

Wright County, MN

Developed by

Parcel ID 155187001100

Sec/Twp/Rng 03-121-025

Property Address 1212 PRAIRIE PINE CT

MONTICELLO

Alternate ID n/a

Class 20A - RES 1-3 UNIMPR LAND

Acreage n/a

Owner Address 1212 PRAIRIE PINE CT

MONTICELLO, MN 55362

District 1101 CITY OF MONTICELLO 882 H

Brief Tax Description Sect-03 Twp-121 Range-025 CLUB WEST Lot-010 Block-001

(Note: Not to be used on legal documents)

Date created: 7/6/2021Last Data Uploaded: 7/6/2021 7:47:23 AM

295 ft

Overview

Legend

Roads

CSAHCL

CTYCL

MUNICL

PRIVATECL

TWPCL

Highways

Interstate

State Hwy

US Hwy

City/Township Limits

c

t

Parcels

Torrens

Hello,

My name is Erin Jones, I have been a homeowner in this wonderful city for 6 years now and my family

and I are about to embark on a home building journey in Monticello this summer. We are very excited to

expand our space while being lucky enough to stay in the area. I am writing because I recently

discovered the requirement to have 15% stone on the front façade of our house and I would love the

opportunity to discuss possible deviations from this.

Professionally, I am a senior interior designer for Target Corp. so the opportunity to design my own home

was very exciting. My dream home has a modern all-white exterior with cedar and black accents. Homes

with this look are becoming very popular across the country and offer an updated look that sets them

apart from the beige and gray houses we have seen for the last 20-30 years. Although simple in nature,

this type of exterior requires a large investment in premium materials and details. Overall, we have

added over fifty thousand dollars worth of exterior façade upgrades to ensure our home looks beautiful. I

have designed our home to have LP board and batten running to the ground to achieve that clean

modern look. To add interest and character we incorporated cedar architectural elements and black

elements like windows and garage doors. An aluminum eyebrow roof, increased roof pitch, upgraded trim

and doors are also part of the design. I strongly feel that the texture of modern finishes like LP board and

batten and warm natural wood eliminate the need for the addition of stone, and I feel stone would actually

be a detriment to the overall design. I am including a rendering of our home with notes calling out the

areas we invested in beyond the standard design from the builder. I can fully understand the reasoning

for requiring stone on base level houses with no added investment in design or detail but I feel like there

should be exceptions to this requirement in situations where substantial thought and investments have

been put into a front façade design.

One of the reasons I love Monticello so much is the amount of growth I see here and the commitment this

town has to art and design. With more people moving here from the metro I’m sure we will only see more

requests to have updated exterior architecture incorporated into the town. I too want the houses that go

up around us to be beautiful but I do not believe that a stone requirement is the answer. There have

been so many advancements in building materials in the last decade that I truly feel it is time to move

beyond the stone mandate. Houses these days are trending heavily towards wood, stained concrete and

decorative LP siding which are all equally as beautiful as stone and offer homeowners so many fun

design options. I believe we all want Monticello to be on the cutting edge of building trends, so why hold

us back by requiring a detail that is no longer as popular as it once was?

Another major reason to consider not requiring stone is the structural implications it can have on a home.

I know as a designer who has worked for years on residential and commercial projects that stone is rarely

installed in a perfect fashion and it can create an unwelcome entry for moisture. As I’m sure you know,

anywhere moisture can enter – so can mold. I would prefer to have my siding run to the ground instead

of creating a lip with a gap where rain/snow/ice can enter if there are any issues with the installation

failing. I have provided two links below to articles reiterating my concern.

I would be very happy to discuss this more on the phone or in person if that is beneficial. I have included

a couple of photos below of beautiful non-stone homes for inspiration. Our plans have been submitted to

the city by our builder Price Custom Homes. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to consider my

request to not include stone on our home and I hope to hear back from you soon. Thank you very much!

Erin Jones

612-770-2185

Future Address: 1212 Prairie Pine Court, Monticello

Related Links:

Moisture problems related to stone veneer:

https://abihomeservices.com/manufactured-stone-veneer-moisture-problems/

Reasons not to install stone (cost, moisture and mold):

https://www.4feldco.com/articles/stone-veneer-siding-problems/

Increased roof pitch15K

Aluminum eyebrowroof $2K

LP entire front facade$12K + Board &Batten upgrade of$2K

Black windows $3K

Cedar corbels andcolumns throughoutfacade $4K

Black garage doors$1K

Decorative windows$2K

Gable window $1.5K

Sidelites & upgradeddoor $3K

Wider LP trim $4K

Additional gable $3K

Additional gable $3K