Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes - 04/05/2022MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 5, 2022 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Paul Konsor, Andrew Tapper, Alison Zimpfer, Eric Hagen, Teri Lehner Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Ron Hackenmueller, Hayden Stensgard 1. General Business A. Call to Order Chairperson Paul Konsor called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:05 p.m. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Joint Workshop Minutes — January 10, 2022 ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 10, 2022 JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. b. Regular Meeting Minutes — February 2, 2022 ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 2, 2022 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. c. Special Meeting Minutes — February 22, 2022 ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 22, 2022 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. d. Regular Meeting Minutes — March 1, 2022 ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 1, 2022 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. C. Citizen Comments None D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda Community Development Director Angela Schumann demonstrated how to access the agenda page on the City of Monticello's webpage to the Planning Commissioners and the public. No items were added to the agenda. E. Consideration to approve agenda ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA FOR THE APRIL 5, 2022 REGULAR MEETING. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for Co -location of Antenna Including Revision/Repair on an Existing Telecommunication Antenna Support Structure in the Industrial and Business Campus (IBC) District Applicant: Michael Clust City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. The amendment to the conditional use permit is required to make the revisions to the antenna tower necessary. All the added equipment relevant to this request, with the exception of the meter, will be within the fenced in area that surrounds the antenna tower. The meter will be mounted on an already existing piece of equipment outside of the screened area. Chairperson Paul Konsor asked if this request is specifically focused on the revisions and updating of the equipment on the tower. Mr. Grittman confirmed. Mr. Konsor subsequently asked why this request is required to go through the review process through the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Grittman clarified that this review is standard for antenna towers to have the opportunity to review the changes requested so they are not drastic in both the areas of visual change, as well as operational changes. Eric Hagen asked for clarification of the proposed platform to be installed. Mr. Grittman clarified the platform is for the new operating equipment assisting the added equipment on the top of the tower. The platform is to ensure a separation between the ground and the equipment. Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of this agenda item. Public Comment Jeff Haley, 1537 Cherry Tree Road, Noblesville, Indiana 46062, was present on behalf of the applicant and noted he was open to answer any questions. Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2022-017 RECOMMEDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CO - LOCATION OF ANTENNA INCLUDING REVISION/REPAIR ON AN EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE IN THE INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS CAMPUS (IBC) DISTRICT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z. Ms. Schumann noted that this item is anticipated to be on the April 25, 2022 City Council agenda for final approval. B. Consideration of an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for Installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in the Pine Street Sub -District of the Central Community District (CCD) Applicant: SMJ International, LLC. Mr. Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. The location of discussion is a part of a PUD that was adopted as a conditional use permit more than a decade ago. For the time being, the current proposed charging stations will be exclusive to Tesla Motor's vehicles. This change in available parking on site, does not affect the allowance for minimal parking. The applicants are proposing the transition of eight normal parking spaces on site to these charging stations. The applicant has noted that with the installation of the equipment necessary, there will be two trees removed. The applicant has intentions of replacing the trees that will be affected. Since this use is not accessory to the primary uses within the PUD, this request is being addressed as a new primary use on site as a motor fuel station. The applicants will be entering into a ground lease for the location proposed. Mr. Konsor asked about how this would change the snow clearing plan on site. Mr. Grittman noted that this has not been addressed and would encourage that question to be directed to the applicant. Mr. Konsor asked if this approval opens the door for any and all electric charging stations to be installed anywhere in this parking lot. Mr. Grittman clarified that this approval is specific to the site plan provided by the applicant. Mr. Konsor asked how the utility boxes will be screened. Mr. Grittman mentioned that the equipment will be ground mounted and will be subject to the standards of other ground mounted utility boxes. A question regarding the storage of vehicles at the charging stations was posed. Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Public Comment Austin Barkley, 3500 Deer Creek Road, Palo Alto, California 94304, on behalf of Tesla, addressed the Planning Commission. There is what is called an "idle fee" for Tesla Vehicles to be charged with if their vehicle is fully charged and still occupying a charging station to disincentivize overnight parking and similar matters. Mr. Hagen asked what the draw was for this location to be selected. Mr. Barkley noted the proximity to the freeway, as well as the use of the commercial stores in the area. The charging stations take roughly 30 minutes to complete, and the timing works well with grocery shopping and etc. Mr. Barkley mentioned as well that for the time being, these stations are exclusive to Tesla vehicles, but in the future, it has been made a priority to increase access to other electric vehicle brands. Andrew Tapper asked if there was needed change in electrical access on site to power the charging stations. Mr. Barkley clarified that they have been in constant contact with Xcel Energy to prepare and execute the increase in power to the site. Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing. ALISON ZIMPFER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2022-018, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR INSTALLATION OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION IN THE PINE STREET SUB -DISTRICT OF THE CENTRAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 5-0. C. Consideration of Rezoning to a Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat of Country Club Manor First Addition, a Proposed 30 Unit Twin -Home (60 Housing Units) Development in the R-3, Medium Density Residential District Applicant: Headwaters Development, LLC. Mr. Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. The three components of the item included requests for rezoning to Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat of Country Club Manor First Addition. The developer has proposed this project in phases, whereas the first phase will be the construction of the 30 twin -home buildings, followed by the construction of an apartment building to be on the same 16+ acre property. The applicant has noted a request for PUD flexibility in building separations on site as they are currently 10 feet apart at their closest points, 2 feet less than the recommended distance of 12 feet. The other flexibility request involves the standard setbacks of the twin homes in the front yard and back. Mr. Grittman pointed out there is additional opportunity on the site for the developer to add landscaping to both screen the development from Interstate 94, as well as the adjacent neighborhood to the North of the site. A number of trees are anticipated to be removed from the site during development, and as the City's zoning ordinance defines, four of the major trees will need to be protected or replaced. Mr. Tapper asked if the townhomes are exclusive to senior living. Mr. Grittman confirmed that it was a 55+ development and that the town homes are intended to be rentals. Mr. Hagen addressed the note on the garage size on the twin home project and that he would like to see the minimum size of 450 sq ft be confirmed in the development plans. Ms. Gabler asked if the brick or stone material on the front of the townhomes in their building elevations met code requirements. Mr. Grittman said the amount shown most likely does not, though an exact calculation has not been done yet to ensure. Ms. Gabler asked if the 7th street property line would include a berm or standard plantings for screening purposes. Mr. Grittman said staff would certainly welcome a berm, but the property itself does not seem to be capable of including a berm on that property line. The yards will be screened, but a berm is not likely in that location. Ms. Gabler asked if they were slab homes and that the yards or homes themselves would not encroach on any right of ways or easements involving Interstate 94 to the South and 7th Street West to the North. Mr. Grittman confirmed both questions. Mr. Konsor asked if the extension of the noise wall from the North along 1-94. Mr. Grittman said that it was his understanding this proposal would not qualify for the extension of the noise barrier. Ms. Gabler asked if MN DOT has had the opportunity to review this preliminary plat. Ms. Schumann said that it is standard practice for MN DOT to review preliminary plats. Other than minor suggestions, to this point, staff has not received their formal review letter. Mr. Konsor asked if there was a recently approved project on the northeast corner of 7th Street West and Elm Street. Mr. Grittman confirmed that there is an already approved 28 -unit twin home development that is likely to be underway this Spring. Ms. Gabler asked if there is trail or sidewalk along both sides of 7th Street West. Mr. Grittman clarified that there is not currently. Ms. Gabler asked if a traffic study had been completed for this project. Ms. Schumann clarified that there was a traffic study included in the agenda packet. Ms. Schumann also mentioned that the City of Monticello's PARC Commission has made it a priority to work with the developer in constructing a trail along the South of 7th Street West to connect with Elm Street. Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of this agenda item. Public Comment Brian Nicholson of Headwaters Development, LLC. (Applicant) addressed the Planning Commission and the public. This will be the second development Headwaters has done in Monticello, the first being Willow's Landing on the East end of town. Mr. Nicholson noted that this development will be a 55+ age exclusive project. The majority of the construction for this project will occur off site as well. The intention is to minimize noise issues and traffic during construction of the town homes. Ms. Gabler asked how drastically removing one or two units to space the buildings out better would affect the project. Mr. Nicholson said that it does affect the project as changing unit counts will affect not only the affordability aspect of the project, but as well as the Tax Increment Financing plan that is also a component of the development. Mr. Nicholson clarified that Headwaters is willing to cooperate with the City on the amount of brick or stone on the facades of the town homes as well as the landscaping and screening. Public Comment Jason Thompson, 25 Fairway Drive, Monticello, MN 55362, expressed concerns regardin screening along 7th Street West as well as the added traffic along that street. Mr. Grittman noted that the intention is for the applicant to provide an updated landscaping plan to show plans for landscaping/screening/buffer areas along 7th Street West. Mr. Konsor mentioned the public comment submitted by mail that was included in the agenda packet and its concern for car lights shining in windows of the neighborhood lining the north of 7th Street West. Ms. Schumann clarified that 71h Street is categorized as a collector road, designed to handle large amounts of traffic. Collector roads within the City, such as School Boulevard, have been able to maintain traffic levels and support for multi -family residential districts. Mr. Konsor asked for clarification on whether the screening with fence along the North side of 7th Street West would be dealt with under the discretion and responsibility of each property owner. Ms. Schumann confirmed. Commissioner Zimpfer excused herself from the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Mr. Thompson asked if the City has plans to widen 7th Street as part of this project. Ms. Schumann clarified that at this time, there is no proposal to widen the 7th Street. If at any time there is an intention to widen 7th Street, adjacent property owners would be notified in sufficient time. Ms. Schumann noted that it is the City's intention to have trail or sidewalk on both sides of all collector roads within the City of Monticello to provide safer and efficient routes for pedestrians. Mr. Thompson asked if there was a set timeline for development the proposal of discussion. Mr. Konsor said that this is the first stage in the development project and the start of the project will likely be in the summer or fall of 2022. Ms. Schumann mentioned there are four billboards located on the property currently, and this development will include the removal of those non- conforming structures. Public Comment Jack Nelson, 8 Center Circle, Monticello, MN 55362, noted that there is a culvert for run-off in the vicinity of where the stormwater pond in proposed to b within this development. Mr. Nelson also expressed concerns of traffic increasing as well as the capacity of the water treatment plant in Monticello. He also expressed interest in extensive screening along 7th Street West. Ms. Schumann clarified that as of now, there is no concerns regarding the capability of the City's current water treatment facility. As development continues in the near future, this aspect will be monitored in preparation for any adjustments necessary. Mr. Hagen expressed interest in an updated dimensional rendering to show the proposed screening along 7th Street West. Traffic is something that is not as easily managed, but screening can be better managed to help accommodate the existing neighborhoods in the area. Mr. Tapper noted he visited the site prior to the meeting and believed that with the lack of residential area along 7th Street, the speed of traffic might be faster than if the properties along that road were all developed. Public Comment Kurt Hartner, 1201 Golf Course Road, Unit 201, Monticello, MN 55362, emphasized that he is encouraging the development of this proposal and expressed relief hearing from the developer that much of the construction will be off site. Mr. Hartner said this would be a great time to extend the sound barrier along 1-94 and was curious to where the City will dump snow once this land is developed. Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing portion of this agenda item. Mr. Hagen noted he was comfortable to proceed to motions with the addition of staff and the developer to review the capability of adjusting the location of one of the access points to avoid try to avoid headlight issues with the adjacent neighborhoods. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2022-0191 RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF REZONING OF OUTLOT A, COUNTRY CLUB MANOR TO COUNTRY CLUB MANOR FIRST ADDITION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ERIC HAGEN SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2022-020, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF COUNTRY CLUB MANOR FIRST ADDITION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z INCLUDED THE ADDED CONDITION TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE PROPOSED ACCESS POINTS TO EDUCE HEADLIGHT DISTURBANCE TOWARDS THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH, BOTH DURING DEVELOPMENT AND POST DEVELOPMENT. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. ERIC HAGEN MOVED TO ADOPT REOSLUTION NO. PC 2022-0211 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR TWIN HOME PORTION OF THE PROPOSED COUNTRY CLUB MANOR FIRST ADDITION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AS DESCRIBED IN DECISION #2. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. Schumann noted this item is tentatively scheduled to move forward at the April 25, 2022 City Council regular meeting. D. Consideration of an Amendment to Planned Unit Development of Featherstone, Development Stage Planned Unit Development for Featherstone, Development and Final Stage Planned Unit Development and Preliminary and Final Plat of Featherstone 6th Addition, a 21 unit single-family residential development, and Rezoning to R-1 for Outlot A, Lots 1-11, Block 1, Lots 1-7, Block 2, and Lots 1-3, Block 3 of the proposed plat of Featherstone 6th Addition and Rezoning to PUD for Outlot B, Featherstone 6th Addition. Applicant: Gold Nugget Development, Inc. Mr. Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. The remaining land located within the development area will be outlots for future development. The future development to the South will include connection of the road system to 85th Street NE. The amendment to the PUD being requested is in regard to Outlot B of Featherstone 6th Addition due to the future development plans being changed from townhomes to single-family homes. Outlot C as part of this development includes roughly 80 acres of light industrial and commercial development. Mr. Grittman provided an overview of the conditions of approval as part of Exhibit Z in the agenda item. Mr. Tapper asked what is considered community commercial when referring to the 10 acres designated to it in the southwest corner of the development. Mr. Grittman clarified that community commercial is a land use designation from the Monticello Comprehensive Plan and is similar to the uses in the current B-2 and B-3 zoning districts. Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Horst Graser of Gold Nugget Development, LLC., addressed the Planning Commission and the public. It is intended by the developer, Novak -Fleck Inc., to not develop the commercial and industrial land as part of Outlot C within the plat and leave that area open for a new developer to complete the process. The same is intended for Outlot B on the preliminary plat. Mr. Graser expressed concerns for two of the conditions of approval. The request to create an outlot for the stormwater pond in the middle of the preliminary plat. Mr. Graser believed this condition should be discussed at a later date with whoever develops the industrial Outlot C or the residential Outlot B. The other condition was the requirement for a privacy fence along the West property line between Outlot C and the development to the East of that. Mr. Graser believed the fence was not something that needed to be constructed at this time of current development. Mr. Hagen asked if there was a named developer of Outlot B. Mr. Graser believed there was a purchase agreement in the works for a new developer to build on Outlot B. Mr. Konsor asked who would be required to build a privacy fence. Mr. Graser clarified that his request is for whoever the next developer is, to be required to build the fence, but not at this time and not by Novak -Fleck Inc. Mr. Hagen asked staff to clarify the necessity of the fence at this time. Mr. Grittman clarified that the lack of space along the property line is limited to the point where a landscape buffer might be difficult to construct. Mr. Graser questioned the necessity for the boundary fence at this time. Mr. Grittman noted that a screening fence is normally split 50/50 between the two property owners and because there is not a second property owner within the development, it was recommended that the fence be required as part of this development. Mr. Graser said he did not want the fence discussion to cause problems with this development, the intention was to provide opportunity for the Planning Commission to discuss who should be required to build the fence. Mr. Graser believed that it should be whoever develops the industrial land to the West of the residential. Ms. Schumann noted that there was stormwater plan provided by the developer as part of their application materials and recommended the conditions of approval stand as is to provide the City Engineer flexibility to decide what will be necessary in terms of stormwater management once the rest of the property is developed. Ms. Schumann further explained that number 6 within the conditions of approval can stand as is or be amended to include the opportunity for a drainage and utility easement to access and maintain the stormwater pond rather than the creation of an outlot, with discretion to the City Engineer. Mr. Graser agreed to the potential amendment to condition number 6. Ms. Schumann noted that the Planning Commission and the public have been given an updated plat document that was entered into the agenda following the meeting. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2022-0221 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR FEATHERSTONE, INCLUDING ALL OF THE PROPOSED PLAT OF FEATHERSTONE 6T" ADDITION, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z, INCLUDING UPDATED APPROVAL CONDITIONS #6, WHICH INCLUDES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE OPTION OF A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AND AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY ENGINEER, AND #2e (11), TO STATE EASTERLY WHERE THE TERM WESTERLY IS. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. The amended conditions of approval noted in the first motion carried over to the remaining motions pertaining to this agenda item. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2022-0231 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF FEATHERSTONE 6T" ADDITION, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE UPDATED CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2022-0241 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR FEATHERSTONE 6T" ADDITION OUTLOT A. LOTS 1-11, BLOCK 1, LOTS 1-7, BLOCK 21 AND LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 3 AND OUTLOT B, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE UPDATED CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2022-025 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REZONING TO R-1 FOR FEATHERSTONE 6T" ADDITION OUTLOT A, AND LOTS 1-111 BLOCK 1, LOTS 1-7, BLOCK 2, AND LOTS 1-3 BLOCK 3. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:46 p.m. The Planning Commission resumed their regular meeting at 9:53 p.m. E. Consideration of an Amendment to an Interim Use Permit for Extraction/Excavation of Materials in the B-3 (Highway Business) and the B-4 (Regional Business) Districts Applicant: City of Monticello Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. The main goal for the amendment to the interim use permit proposed was to allow for multiple contractors to take away excavated materials from the already existing area approved for the interim use permit. The access area and removal routes remain as previously approved. Mr. Konsor asked if the removal of Dundas Road was included in the work taking place under the existing interim use permit. Ms. Schumann clarified that it was not included in what is currently being removed from the site. Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2022-0261, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EXTRACTION/EXCAVATION OF MATERIALS IN THE B-3 (HIGHWAY BUSINESS) AND THE B-4 (REGIONAL BUSINESS) DISTRICTS, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. F. Consideration of an Amendment to the City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance for adoption of The Pointes at Cedar Planned Development District and an amendment to the City of Monticello Zoning Ordinance for an amendment to the boundary of the Freeway Bonus Sign Overlay District Applicant: City of Monticello Mr. Grittman provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. A presentation accompanied the posted materials in the agenda. This presentation has been added to the agenda page as part of the record. A zoning work group was formed in November of 2021 to begin discussion and development of what was to be included and left out of the ordinance language. The group was made up of City staff, representatives from the City Council, Planning Commission, and PARC Commission, and some landowners within the newly formed zoning district. The group maintained focus on goals incorporated in The Pointes at Cedar Small Area Plan as well as working to create a review process for potential development. Mr. Grittman said there is a note in the report that inconsistency found in this proposed district to the goals of the Small Area Plan is grounds for denial. The group also worked to form design features specific to the proposed sub -districts within The Pointes at Cedar Planned Development District, Populus, Tilia and Quercus. Mr. Grittman noted items the Zoning Ordinance Work Group had requested for minor amendment within the draft. The companion request to the adoption of the zoning ordinance is amending the boundary of the freeway bonus sign overlay district. The northern portion of The Pointes at Cedar area is currently located in the bonus district. It is the intention to remove all parcels located in The Pointes at Cedar area as the freeway bonus sign district is inconsistent with the proposed zoning ordinance (PCD). Ms. Gabler asked if there were specific items/standards that are consistent throughout the sub -districts. Mr. Grittman said there are both theme elements that are consistent as well as standards items such as parking, signage, lighting etc. are consistent throughout all districts. Mr. Tapper asked what would happen if there were to be something missing in this ordinance amendment and it needs to be corrected in the future. Mr. Grittman clarified that it would be an amendment to the zoning ordinance process that has been in place. Mr. Grittman clarified that there is enough flexibility in these districts to accommodate development to a certain extent, without being inconsistent with the standards of any given sub -district. Mr. Tapper asked why the boundary of the Freeway Bonus Sign Overlay District is drawn the way it is. Ms. Schumann clarified that the boundary was designed to accommodate business that are close to the freeway and interchange of Interstate 94 and TH 25. Mr. Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Mr. Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC 2022-0271 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 8XX FOR AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELO ZONING ORDINANCE CHAPTERS AND SECTION RELATING TO THE POINTES AT CEDAR DISTRICT (PCD), INCLUDING ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE BOUNDARIES OF THE POINTES AT CEDAR DISTRICT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO THE CORRECTIONS AND VERIFICATIONS NOTED BY STAFF IN THE MEETING ON APRIL 5, 2022. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2022-028, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 8XX FOR AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE BOUNDARY TO THE FREEWAY BONUS SIGN OVERLAY DISTRICT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of Adoatine Resolution No. PC 2022-29, Finding that the Establishment of TIF District 1-44 is Consistent with the City of Monticello Comprehensive Plan (Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan) Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. Washburn Computer Group is planning for a 40,000 sq ft expansion at their current location on the corner of Fallon Avenue and Chelsea Road. Ms. Schumann noted that the decision for this agenda item is strict to the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC 2022-029, FINDING THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TIF DISTRICT 1-44 AND TIF PLAN FOR TIF DISTRICT 1-44 CONFORMS TO THE MONTICELLO 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0 B. Community Development Director's Report Ms. Schumann provided an overview of the agenda item to the Planning Commission and the public. 4. Added Items None 5. Adjournment PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:52 P.M. Recorded By: Hayden Stensgard S' Date Approved: May 18, 2022 ATTEST: Angela Schumon} , (ori munity Development Director