Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 11-02-2020MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 2nd, 2020 - 6:15 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Sam Murdoff, Paul Konsor, and Andrew Tapper Commissioners Absent: John Alstad and Alison Zimpfer Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Ron Hackenmueller, and Scott Ruhland (Lakota Group) 1. General Business A. Call to Order Sam Murdoff called the Regular Meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:15 p.m. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Regular Meeting Minutes — October 5th, 2020 PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — OCTOBER, 5TH, 2020. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. C. Citizen Comments None. D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda N/A E. Consideration to approve agenda ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS IT STANDS. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 2. Public Hearings A. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to "Places to Live", Rezoning to Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Planned Unit Development, and Preliminary and Final Plat for a 54 lot detached single-family subdivision Applicant: Shawn Weinand/LSW Investments, LLC Steve Grittman reviewed the land use application request and provided the location of the proposed residential development. He noted that it is a 20 acre parcel that is located at the intersection at 85th Street North East and Edmonson Avenue and adjacent to the Featherstone development. The proposed plan would connect by streets with Featherstone with access only provided by interior streets. Grittman provided a site plan and noted that the lots were proposed to be single family residential, but would require a Planned Unit Development as it varies from the standard Monticello Zoning Code. The report uses the T -N (Traditional Planning Commission Minutes — November 2nd, 2020 Page 1 1 14 Neighborhood Residence) District as a baseline, but the report also references the R-1 (Single Family Residence) District and R-2 (Single and Two -Family Residence) District zoning standards to understand how this proposal fits in the context of what our current zoning might require and also seeing how the applicant is seeking PUD flexibility from base standards. The median lot size is 10,600 square feet, which is smaller lots than the R-1, but slightly larger than the T -N. The project is slightly denser than Featherstone, but the City still considers the proposal to be low density. The proposal indicates a range of lot sizes from 6,800 square feet to 30,000 square feet. It was noted that the larger lots would be encumbered by drainage ponds. Grittman noted the review requirement for PUD. Grittman also noted that the proposal included a request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment from "Urban Reserve" to "Places to Live". He stated that also on the agenda was an item to consider adoption of an updated Comprehensive Plan. The draft plan guides the land as "Mixed Neighborhood". A mixed neighborhood would include single family as well as some mid to high density attached housing. Grittman noted that the proposed plat and PUD would not be in conflict with the proposed Comprehensive Plan. He also added that the PUD aspect is met in at least one way by providing an alternative housing design not commonly seen in the community. Grittman provided a review of the staff report and Exhibit Z comments, including those related to driveway design, parking availability and landscaping recommendations. Staff recommended approval of the land use application. Sam Murdoff asked if Featherstone is a PUD. Grittman confirmed and stated that it was created that way primarily because the larger Featherstone project anticipated a mix of housing and commercial development in the area. The R-1 standards are used for the current single-family Featherstone development and none of the standards have been flexed. Murdoff was concerned about having the development without any major road outlet. Grittman demonstrated access to the site and noted that people could get to the collector system fairly quickly without having to wind very far through the Featherstone neighborhood. Murdoff asked if the Featherstone development was designed to handle additional traffic with a development of this parcel. Grittman confirmed that the access points in Featherstone were specifically designed to allow access to the proposed property development. The designation for the proposed development parcel was not made prior to the platting of Featherstone, but Grittman thought that it was generally an expectation that this property would develop as residential, but the density was not determined by the Comprehensive Plan or at the time of the Featherstone project. Grittman thought that there would not be an undue burden on the roadways on Featherstone. Murdoff asked for an estimate on projected vehicle trips on the roadway. Grittman suggested less than a total of 400 trips including the existing and that traffic would likely distribute evenly north and west. Angela Schumann also noted that because 85th Street and Edmonson Avenue are considered collector routes, the access spacing would be problematic to include Planning Commission Minutes — November 2nd, 2020 Page 2 1 14 additional access to either collector road. It was noted that there has been some discussion of a future roundabout at 85" Street and Edmonson Avenue and that the proposed development would accommodate such improvement if desired. Paul Konsor asked what is proposed for Block 3, Lot 19. Grittman noted that it is a different house design than what is seen for most of the proposed development. Grittman assumed a three -stall garage with a larger structure. Elevations were shown to the commission. Konsor asked for clarification on the number of proposed garage stalls per lot as there were discrepancies between the applicant's submittal and the staff report. Grittman noted that it was not known from the plans submitted and that the Exhibit Z conditions would require clarification. Grittman noted that the issue for staff is that most of the driveways appear to be narrow and appear to be drawn to the wrong side of the structure on the plat. Staff presume that there are more two stall garages than the applicant was planning, but clarification was needed. Murdoff wondered if this information was typically required to be cleared up in advance of the meeting. If the Planning Commission made a recommendation on the decisions for the application, the application would not be further considered by the board, presuming the applicant can meet the conditions assigned to the proposal. Grittman noted that it was not necessary to have that information to move the plat forward, but that it would need to be clarified as there is enough room to do it. Grittman explained that the final layout for each unit design may change after approval of the Preliminary Plat, as often times developers build as requested. Some property owners may have different needs for garage stall spaces. However, Grittman noted that the standards would need to be figured out in advance so that we are not creating utility or parking along streets problems. Judgements can be made as development is constructed. Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Grittman quickly added that one additional item was to be added to the conditions, requiring that this approval is conditional upon approval of the annexation. Shawn Weinand, the applicant, asked staff to show all of the drawings of the architecture. He noted that there are four different styles of homes. Weinand noted that they tried to create a similar exterior so that it would create a neighborhood feel, but also have flexibility so that there was different floorplans and variety of buyers. Homes would range from a two to six bedroom home. Weinand explained that what made this project unique was the architecture and that he wanted to have a similar feeling as in Autumn Ridge Villas. He explained that they are trying to create a single family home that is on a little smaller of a lot, with a bigger driveway, and public streets. Weinand noted that it was unknown at this time what lots would accommodate which size garage. He noted that a majority of two stall garages would be located in the center due to the size of the lots. The perimeter of the project would be primarily three stall garage. He noted that they have found out through the Autumn Ridge project that people prefer a larger garage. The houses range on main level from 1,500 square feet to 2,100 square feet. The applicant requested a minimum finished square footage of 1,250 square feet to allow flexibility by the buyers. The lots would run an estimated $45,000 Planning Commission Minutes — November 2nd, 2020 Page 3 114 more than Autumn Ridge. Weinand noted they are trying to develop a unique, step-up housing and sell out within five years. Weinand noted that they are making all changes or saw no issues with the concerns of staff. He noted that ample driveway and public street parking would be provided. Weinand noted that he would like to request that the minimum square footage of the garages be set at 440 square feet rather than 450 square feet due to dimensional issues. He expected that very few of the garages would be less the 24 feet in width. He noted that the development would more than compliment neighboring development. He added that each house would be landscaped. An association would be formed, but would not manage the lawn or snow removal of the driveway. Covenants would be set in place to help keep a clean neighborhood. A mix of ages was envisioned for this neighborhood. Weinand noted he had copies of the changes proposed by staff. Weinand noted on proposed Lot 4, 5, and 6 Block 3 a drain pipe and easement existed causing the shape of the lot to be as noted. He would work with his development team on alternatives, but welcomed staff s recommendation. Murdoff asked what zoning district the developer would like to utilize as a base for the PUD flexibility. Weinand noted that he was seeking a PUD to create a feeling of a controlled neighborhood with some continuity and some architectural control. Paul Konsor asked for clarification on any homeowner's association. Weinand noted that there would be an association only to control the architecture and the covenants, but generally not for maintenance. If a monument sign was constructed, an association would be minimal to maintain. Weinand confirmed there would be an official homeowner's association to control the covenants. Konsor also asked if the applicant would like to amend his application to include an adjustment to the minimum garage square footage. Weinand noted that he didn't see that condition until today and as part of the PUD he requested that it be changed to 440 square feet. Konsor noted a concern with the clashing of step-up housing with a smaller garage square footage. Weinand noted that he actually had 400 square feet on the plans he submitted. Murdoff asked for clarification on lot sizes for the proposed development. Tapper noted that the numbers would shift because of the shifting of outlots, but that the median lot size would not change much. Tapper asked if most of the large lots included the drainage ponds. Grittman confirmed. Weinand asked staff if the zoning they were comparing it to was 7,500 square feet for lot size. Grittman confirmed it was 7,500 square feet in the T -N and there are only a couple below that number. Tapper asked for a neighborhood that was comparable to a T -N District. Grittman noted the entry portion of Carlisle Village from Country Road are similar to the T -N size. Sunset Ponds also has T -N similar properties. Charlotte Gabler asked about park dedication. Schumann explained that the overall park dedication recommendation would come from the Parks, Arts, and Planning Commission Minutes — November 2nd, 2020 Page 4 114 Recreation Commission on November 10. She noted that staff look at the half mile spacing requirement for parks and noted the proximity to a linear park found at Featherstone. In addition, staff comments regarding the sidewalks was to ensure good connections especially to the Featherstone development and that park. Finally as part of the park dedication requirement, the applicant is proposing two, ten foot bituminous pathways along Edmonson Avenue and 85th Street. Gabler asked for clarification on park design envisioned in Featherstone. Schumann noted that a tot lot/playground has already been constructed. She noted that an amenity that is often requested is natural pathways and they would be incorporated into the park while also incorporating stormwater ponds and views in this area. Murdoff asked if the developer looked at a different plat configuration. Weinand noted that the design proposed was the most efficient, best flow, and use of property. Tapper noted that curved streets also serves as a traffic calming measure. Weinand also added that they were working with two existing streets and had to follow drainage of streets. The contour of the two surrounding neighborhoods also needed to be followed. Sewer and water were also stubbed in from those streets. Murdoff asked the applicant for more information on the finishable square footage of space exceptions they were proposing. Weinand noted that that finishable square footage of space for the two or three stall garages were very similar. The base square footage is 1,650 square feet, but they want flexibility on this request. The 3 or 4 level split, is about 1,540 square feet with potential for an additional 600 to 1,000 square feet to finish off. If a finished basement was added to the two or three stall garages, it was estimated that 3,200 to 3,600 square feet of finished square feet. On the 2 story with tuck under garage, it was estimated at 2,200 square feet with expansion of an office or loft area that could go up to 2,500 square feet. There would be plenty of expansion room if desired. He also explained that these homes provided steep roof pitches. Weinand noted the importance of bringing step-up housing to the community and the importance of having higher lot and home prices in the community. Schumann clarified the T -N and R-1 district standards for finished and finishable square footage. She asked if Murdoff was looking for how many lots would meet or exceed the finishable square footage of 2,000 square feet or better. Weinand noted that if they have a crawl space, they might have something that is not finishable of more than 1,250, but that would be rare. He was asking for flexibility in the PUD for this section of the code to be flexible to the market demand. Schumann noted the importance of looking at the grading plan and the building design standards on that grading plan for look out or walk out homes. Weinand encouraged the Planning Commission to see how Autumn Ridge Villas is developing. Neil Mccarty, 4462 87th Street NE, noted concerns of the proposed new development especially as it relates to increased traffic in the Featherstone subdivision and why additional access points couldn't directly serve the proposed neighborhood. Mccarty also had questions regarding enforcement of covenants. Murdoff responded that the proposed development would have an association that would enforce covenants. Ron Hackenmueller noted that there is the zoning Planning Commission Minutes — November 2nd, 2020 Page 5 114 ordinance that is enforced by the City and the covenants are enforced by the developer. Angela Schumann noted that Edmonson Avenue on the east portion of this development is a County right of way and that they have control on access management. She added that there are access spacing guidelines in place for both 85t' and Edmonson. Schumann noted spacing would be difficult and subject to review by the City Engineer, who did not comment on an access issues in their comment letter. Grittman noted that the typical County road spacing is a quarter mile, but sometime is down to an 1/8 of a mile (660 feet). The distance between 85th and 87th Street is 1,100 feet, but that you could not have an access that would maintain a road at 660 feet from both streets. Mccarty also suggested that the Commission have the most complete and any revised information about the development prior to making any decisions. Schumann noted the application's for which the public hearing was held and the planning process. She mentioned that the City Council would review any recommendation for approval of the discussed land use application. If approved by City Council, the applicant would be required to file for Final Plat and Final Stage Planned Unit Development which is also subject to approval of the City Council. Schumann noted that one additional comment letter was submitted from a property owner in the Featherstone development. That letter was included in the agenda packet. Schumann summarized concerns of density and property value. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Murdoff echoed concerns and wanted clarification on driveway size, minimum fmishable and finished square feet, and size of house on lot. Tapper responded that the developer indicated he is not sure what the future holds and a buyer will want. Tapper asked the developer if these homes would be built on speculation. Weinand declined, but noted a certain amount of speculation is used. Murdoff suggested minimum standards for lot size categories. Gabler explained that the PUD would utilize the base zoning standards of the R-1 and T -N. Murdoff indicated that he wasn't comfortable not knowing which zoning designation standards to utilize for the development. Grittman explained that a PUD has to stand on its own and that staff present comparable districts to understand what the context is, but that we are not granting variances to the R-1 or T -N District. The City would view this project as a standalone project with its own zoning district. The Planning Commission role is to understand if the project does a better job of meeting the City's development goals than a standard zoning district would. Grittman noted that zoning districts can be useful comparatives and put projects into context, but not the standard that is applied to a PUD. Grittman reiterated staff's recommendation of approval and felt that it meets the development goals set forth by the City. Konsor asked if there are still guidelines that would be followed under the PUD, such as setbacks. Grittman confirmed there are functional guidelines. Grittman further responded to the question of knowing whether each lot would be up to the standard that the City is trying to achieve. We are trying to identify what the minimum standard that we expect the applicant to achieve and be comfortable with. It would be assumed that the market would also Planning Commission Minutes —November 2nd, 2020 Page 6 114 play a role so that someone that pays more for a lot is going to put a larger home on it. It was acknowledged by Grittman that this is not always the case. Schumann added that the elevations that the applicant included are the standard. The elevations including the types of materials, the amount of materials, orientation of materials, the breakup of the facades, quality of the materials, and the number of materials that provide visual interest are used as a guidebook. Decision 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2020-029, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GUIDED USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM "URBAN RESERVE" TO "PLACES TO LIVE", BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS INCORPORATED IN EXHIBIT Z WITH THE ADDITION OF THE CONTIGENCY OF ANNEXATION AND THE GARAGE SPACE TO BE A MINIMUM OF 440 SQUARE FEET. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 2-1 WITH SAM MURDOFF VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Decision 2. Rezoning to PUD ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2020-030, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF REZONING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, BASED ON THE FINDINGS NOTED IN THE RESOLUTION. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 2-1 WITH SAM MURDOFF VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Decision 3. Preliminary Plat ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2020-031, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR EDMONSON RIDGE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS NOTED IN THE RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS INCORPORATED IN EXHIBIT Z WITH THE ADDITION OF THE CONTIGENCY OF ANNEXATION AND THE GARAGE SPACE TO BE A MINIMUM OF 440 SQUARE FEET. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 2-1 WITH SAM MURDOFF VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Decision 4. Development Stage PUD ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2020-0325 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR EDMONSON RIDGE, BASED ON THE FINDINGS NOTED IN THE RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AS INCORPORATED IN EXHIBIT Z WITH THE ADDITION OF THE CONTIGENCY OF ANNEXATION AND THE GARAGE SPACE TO BE A MINIMUM OF 440 SQUARE FEET. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE Planning Commission Minutes — November 2nd, 2020 Page 7 114 MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 2-1 WITH SAM MURDOFF VOTING IN OPPOSITION. EXHIBIT Z Comprehensive Plan Amendment to "Places to Live", Rezoning to PUD, Development Stage PUD, and Preliminary Plat for Edmonson Ridge Legal Description (lengthy): The South 933 feet of the East 933 feet of the Northwest Quarter both measured at right angles thereof Section 23, Township 121, Range 25, Wright County, Minnesota 1. The approval of the Preliminary Plat and Development Stage PUD is subject to approval of the requested Annexation, rezoning and applicable Comprehensive Plan amendment, and the annexation is processed by the Office of Administrative Hearings per the MOAA. 2. A sidewalk is built along 86th Street NE connecting to the proposed sidewalk connection from Edmonson Way. 3. The private trail in the middle of Block 3 will be removed. 4. Applicant will provide drawings identifying driveway widths and designs that correspond to house styles and elevations. 5. Applicant shall provide unit floor plans to verify final sizes of attached garages and living space as part of the Final Stage PUD review. 6. The connecting trails to the external collector roads will be platted to 30' in width. The applicant may choose to plat just one such outlot in the southeast corner of the plat to provide convenient pedestrian access to the regional pathway system. 7. The infiltration basins will be deeded to the City as a drainage and utility easement with conservation easement signs installed. 8. The infiltration basins shall have access for maintenance consistent with the recommendations of the City Engineer. 9. The development is subject to the requirements of the City Engineer, per the letter dated October 21, 2020. 10. Landscape treatments are added to delineate the private and public boundaries along the infiltration basin areas. 11. Landscape treatments are added at the perimeter of the platted area adjacent to the rear yards and collector roadways to create a buffer and increase rear yard privacy for residents. 12. The applicant enters into a development agreement as a condition of Final Plat and Final PUD approval. Planning Commission Minutes — November 2nd, 2020 Page 8 114 13. The minimum garage size for all units shall be set at 440 square feet. 14. Compliance with the comments of other staff and Planning Commission. B. Consideration of an Interim Use Permit for Monticello Public Works for Public Warehousing, Temporary Applicant: City of Monticello Steve Grittman explained the request for Interim Use Permit by the City of Monticello. He reminded the Commission that the Zoning Ordinance was recently amended to add public temporary storage as a secondary use of property and was allowed with an Interim Use Permit in the B-3, I-1, or I-2 districts. This would allow the City of Monticello Public Works to have a location for temporary storage until they can accommodate storage space through new construction or otherwise. The proposal is for storage to occur at the Custom Canopy site along Edmonson Avenue, zoned B-3 (Highway Business). Grittman highlighted the building that is being considered to being used for the storage. The City would use the building for seasonal equipment storage, but could be utilized for other storage uses. They anticipate a relatively low volume of traffic coming and going from this site and would comply with the terms of the permit/ordinance. Following the completion of the IUP, the property would return to its typical B-3 uses. Staff recommended approval of the application with conditions identified in Exhibit Z. Grittman noted at the previous Planning Commission meeting there was concerns of the types of storage especially hazardous materials and if it would raise concerns for surrounding properties. Staff specifically added Item 3 of Exhibit Z to address those concerns. Grittman noted that some of the materials may be classified as hazardous materials by the PCA, but there are storage handling requirements for that material. Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public hearing was closed. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2020-0335 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR PUBLIC WAREHOUSING, TEMPORARY, IN THE WESTERN -MOST BUILDING AT 1305 EDMONSON AVE. NE, FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 5 YEARS, OR WHEN THE LEASE FOR SUCH STORAGE TERMINATES, WHICHEVER IS SOONER. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. EXHIBIT Z Interim Use Permit for Public Warehousing, Temporary 1305 Edmonson Ave. NE PID 155500142401 1. The term of the Interim Use Permit shall be five years from the date of City Council approval, or upon termination of the City's lease for the property, whichever is sooner. Planning Commission Minutes — November 2nd, 2020 Page 9 114 2. The Interim Use Permit grants no additional rights to use the property for leased warehousing/storage beyond the applicable zoning regulations for the property. 3. The City/tenant shall at all times maintain stored materials and equipment in accordance with all applicable zoning, building, and fire codes, including the provisions of the zoning ordinance authorizing the Interim Use Permit. 4. Comments and recommendations of other staff. C. Consideration of a Request for Adoption of the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan Applicant: City of Monticello Angela Schumann introduced the item for recommendation of adoption of the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission is asked to consider comments that were received prior to the public hearing including those in the packet and those comments received during the meeting. Schumann noted that the Comprehensive Plan is the City's long range plan and the blueprint for how it will grow over the next twenty years. The need to update the City's Comprehensive Plan was amplified by changes throughout the community itself as well broader land use patterns occurring across the nation. Changes in technology, commercial real estate, the impacts of the pandemic, how we move goods and services, and how we transition from energy based economy and tax base were considered when developing the draft plan. Schumann stressed the amount of stakeholders that were engaged with the plan from the start. Schumann introduced Scott Ruhland from the Lakota Group to provide information on the planning process. Scott Ruhland, the Lakota Group, introduced himself and noted that the plan process has taken 15 months to develop the updated draft Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the consultant and City have been able to stay on schedule even with the pandemic. The consultants confirmed that they were able to gather a lot of feedback from the community on the plan. Ruhland noted that the project was broken into two phases: visioning and comprehensive plan update. He noted that the consultants wanted to get a feel for the community and to understand what direction the community wanted to go as far as the improvement and development of Monticello over the next twenty years. Community engagement was provided multiple days and in-person and virtual/online opportunities. Ruhland reviewed the approved vision statement, community value statements, and preferred growth scenario with the Commission. Ruhland highlighted extensive community engagement opportunities throughout phase two: comprehensive plan update. Planning Commission Minutes — November 2nd, 2020 Page 10 114 He explained the foundation of the plan is the land use chapter and provided the big picture items that came out of the land use strategies and vision. Ruhland noted that the three themes of the plan are community health, sustainability, and sense of place. Ruhland provided key highlights from each of the proposed draft chapters. Each chapter will have goals, policies, and strategies to achieve the comprehensive plan vision. These will all be included under an implementation chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Andrew Tapper noted that he also serves on the IEDC and they recently discussed the completion of a new hotel and hospitality study. He asked where a hotel fits in with the land use classifications. Ruhland noted that the Comprehensive Plan designations are looked at from a high level and the zoning will allow specific uses. The updated Comprehensive Plan give ideas of the types of uses that should locate in the land use categories that have been developed. Ruhland noted for hotels the Comprehensive Plan would be ideal in Regional Commercial, Employment Campus, and Commercial Residential Flex. It was noted that once adopted, the Zoning Ordinance would need to be cleaned up to make it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ruhland also pointed out in the implementation chapter it includes the land use designations with the corresponding zoning district. Sam Murdoff opened up the public hearing. Mike Schneider, 453 135th Avenue, Foley, explained that he was concerned with property he owns that is between East Broadway and I-94, across from Meadow Oak Drive. He noted that the colors of the land use designations were difficult to tell without a large map. He felt that the designation for Employment Campus for his property does not fit, and felt that a Community Residential Flex would be a better fit. He noted the surrounding residential to the parcel and that the Employment Campus seemed too industrial for the area. He noted that the City has been concerned about residential along the interstate, but noted land along Golf Course Road and near the interstate on the east side of town was designated residential and felt it was a similar parcel to his own. Discussion regarding that particular parcel occurred. Gabler asked if moving that designation to the Commercial and Residential Flex was a better designation and allowed for more discussion. Tapper also asked if determining a designation would discourage people from developing it for a different use. Schumann noted that staff would convey how the parcel was designated and it's intended use, but that a comprehensive plan amendment could always be applied for. Staff agreed that this parcel was difficult to identify a particular designation. Ruhland understood the conflict with the land Schneider noted on the east parcel adjacent to the interstate and being designated residential. Grittman noted concerns with Schneider's parcel being residential and noted a change to the designation to the Commercial and Residential Flex would be more difficult to deny a project that is residential even if it's not a good fit for the parcel. He noted leaving the parcel as Planning Commission Minutes — November 2nd, 2020 Page 11 1 14 Employment Campus gave the City more discretion on the development of that parcel. Schneider indicated that he has owned the land for 15 years and that the economy continues to change. He noted that the flex district would allow some flexibility and felt that having it designated as employment campus would further dissuade people in developing the parcel. He understood the ability to later apply for a Comprehensive Plan update, but noted that the time to make changes would be prior to adoption of the plan rather than amending the new plan. Through the Commercial Residential Flex, it was noted that a Planned Unit Development would be required and allow the City more discretion. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF THE MONTICELLO 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BASED ON FINDINGS IN RESOLUTION PC -2020-034, SUBJECT TO THOSE COMMENTS OR REVISIONS AS STATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SAM MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of a request for a Simple Subdivision and Administrative Lot Combination in a R-1 (Single Family Residence) District to enable a lot line adjustment for public stormwater improvements Applicant: City of Monticello Steve Grittman provided an overview of the item and provided the location of the land use request. Grittman indicated that the proposal is to shift the subdivision line just east of the church's parking lot so that the (expandable) stormwater pond and lift station could be on a single parcel. Grittman provided the recommended proposed adjustment. Grittman noted that the site meets the conditions in the code and that an exception to the platting requirement exists that would accommodate the simple subdivision and lot combination. It is also consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the subdivision is to improve City utility and stormwater management in that region. Staff recommended approval with conditions as displayed in Exhibit Z. Sam Murdoff asked why the City is having to improve stormwater management in that area. Charlotte Gabler indicated that the pond was incorrectly built from twenty plus years ago. She indicated that a trail easement would also be gained along that area along County Road 39. Murdoff asked if part of the issue due to the development of the senior housing project. Gabler indicated that this is something that has been in the works for the past 1.5 years and that calculations were wrong. Flooding issues predated the development of the senior housing facility. Murdoff thought that part of the senior housing design was that it could pump water to that stormwater pond. Grittman noted that the senior housing project has to retain its own stormwater, but eventually it would go that direction. There is no increase in that pond from the senior housing project. Angela Planning Commission Minutes — November 2nd, 2020 Page 12 114 Schumann added that stormwater management is individual to each developed site. Murdoff raised concerns with why the City would want to change the lot line and ownership to include the existing stormwater pond. Grittman noted that the area is in the City's easement and that the pond is the City's. Rather than expanding the easement, it makes more sense that the City has fee title to its facilities. Schumann added that it is a policy decision that has recently been made that in many cases rather than just drainage and utility easements, developers are asked to put regional ponds in outlots so that they become the property of the City, as the City has to maintain the overall regional stormwater system. Paul Konsor asked if the current owners have to sell or convey the land to the City. Grittman noted that the property owners are co -applicants and that they would convey that part of the parcel to the City. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC -2020-351 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SIMPLE SUBDIVISION AND LOT COMBINATION FOR THE SUBJECT PARCELS, CONTINGENT ON THE REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT Z. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. EXHIBIT Z Simple Subdivision and Lot Combination 300 Riverview Drive PIDs155500182202 and 155500182201 1. Conveyance of Parcel B to the City upon approval and recording of the Subdivision. 2. Concurrent recording of Lot Combination and incorporated easements as proposed. 3. Comments and recommendations of other Staff. B. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report Angela Schumann added more information about stormwater management. She noted that the City is part of a group paying close attention to County owned, Ditch 33. She explained that the ditch manages County stormwater, but impacts the development potential in the city, especially on the east side of town. She encouraged the Commission to watch the discussions happening at the County, Township, and City level regarding Ditch 33. Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report as included in the packet. 4. Added Items None. Planning Commission Minutes — November 2nd, 2020 Page 13 114 5. Adjournment SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:34 P.M. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: December 1 st, 2020 le - Attest: Angela Schu#f 4i4, (Jommunity Development Director Planning Commission Minutes — November 2nd, 2020 Page 14 114