Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 04-02-2019MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 2nd, 2019 - 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: Brad Fyle, Sam Murdoff, Marc Simpson, John Alstad, Katie Peterson Council Liaison Present: Charlotte Gabler Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), Ron Hackenmueller 1. General Business A. Call to Order Brad Fyle called the meeting of Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6 p.m. B. Consideration of approving minutes a. Special Meeting Minutes — February 26, 2019 MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES — FEBRUARY 26, 2019. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0 WITH SAM MURDOFF ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. b. Regular Meeting Minutes — March 5, 2019 MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES — MARCH 5, 2019. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0 WITH SAM MURDOFF ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. C. Citizen Comments None. D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda None. E. Consideration to approve agenda MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0 WITH SAM MURDOFF ABSENT FOR THE VOTE. 2. Public Hearings A. Continued Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to Monticello Zoning Ordinance Chapter 5 and Chapter 8, Section 4 related to use, standards and definitions for Event Centers, Places of Public Assemblv. Personal Services, and Commercial Recreation — Indoor. Applicant: City of Monticello Item 2A was originally skipped to allow Sam Murdoff the opportunity to serve as the Vice -Chair on this item. Brad Fyle stepped down from the podium. Planning Commission Minutes — April 2, 2019 Page 116 Steve Grittman introduced the item and reminded the Planning Commission of their motion to table action at their previous meeting. Sam Murdoff asked if the public hearing was continued. Grittman confinned and noted that staff re -posted and published the notice. Marc Simpson asked for clarification if any changes to the proposed ordinance were made. Grittman responded that the proposed ordinance had not changed from the last review. Brad Fyle asked for clarification on where event centers would be prohibited. Grittman explained that the ordinance would prohibit them from located abutting residentially zoned property. Fyle disagreed that event centers could not be located in higher density residential, such as the R-1 and R-2 Districts. Murdoff asked if event centers for permitted uses in any district. Grittman explained that all event center uses would require a conditional use permit. Murdoff asked for clarification on the residential districts. Grittman confirmed that staff would be supportive of allowing event centers abutting higher density residential. John Alstad asked if it was under the purview of the Planning Commission to control the hours of operation. Grittman confirmed. Peterson noted support of allowing event centers to abut R-3 and R-4 districts. She also noted that some townhomes may be located in the R-2 District. She recommended that event centers not be able to locate in the R-1 or R-2 District. Alstad asked for clarification on the hours of operation. Schumann explained that the proposed ordinance was written so that event centers are conditional use permits and the hours of operation would be determined through that approval. MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 719 AS RELATED TO USE, STANDARDS AND DEFINITIONS FOR EVENT CENTERS, PLACES OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY, PERSONAL SERVICES, AND COMMERCIAL RECREATION — INDOOR, BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL BENEFIT THE INTENT OF THE REGULATIONS AND THE PROCESS FOR APPLICATION WITH THE ADDITION OF KATIE PETERSON'S COMMENTS TO ALLOW EVENT CENTERS TO ABUT R-3 OR R-4 DISTRICTS. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. B. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to Planned Unit Development for Indoor Self -Storage Facilities Applicant: Ken Spaeth Planning Commission Minutes — April 2, 2019 Page 2 16 Steve Grittman reminded the board of the applicant's previous approved land use application for Planned Unit Development and Final Plat. The approval allowed the applicant to build up to 8 separate buildings of approximately 7,000 square feet. The applicant would like the buildings and design of the site to remain the same, but to allow some of the units to have self -storage. The applicant asked that each building be allowed up to three separate bays of 2,325 square feet to accommodate self -storage. Staff had an internal discussion regarding Mr. Spaeth's request and recommended that the Zoning Ordinance also be amended to distinguish between commercial self -storage and industrial self -storage. Grittman noted that the size of self -storage was up for discussion, but recommended not larger than 1,000 square feet. Staff researched other cities codes for self -storage and found that most allow up to 1,000 square feet. Grittman provided the proposed ordinance amendments with the definitions for commercial and industrial self -storage. Staff recommended approval of the land use application and was supportive of the amendments to the zoning ordinance. Brad Fyle asked for clarity on the drive aisles, access, and parking of site. Charlotte Gabler asked if the concerns with no self -storage in Otter Creek Business Park would be addressed by the ordinance amendments and land use approval. Grittman noted that the request was not specifically designed to address outdoor storage. The type of use that the applicant was seeking was not typical of self -storage and was more for personal self -storage. Angela Schumann noted that from time to time the City hears requests from businesses looking for areas to store materials and the land use request may be a solution. Sam Murdoff asked for further clarification between the definitions for commercial self -storage and industrial self -storage. Grittman summarized that the main difference was the size of the use and length of the tenancy. It was discussed how staff would be able to regulate the type of storage. Brad Fyle asked if the property was planning on selling each unit off or leasing. It was noted that the applicant may lease some of the space, but would like condo the remaining lots. Fyle asked if a plans were received for a monument sign on the site. Grittman declined, but stated that the applicant would need to comply with the Zoning Ordinance or apply for an amendment to PUD. Katie Peterson asked if the Planning Commission should further define the activities allowed for both types of self -storage. Staff summarized that the definition is tied to storage for a specific business or industrial use. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to speak first. Planning Commission Minutes — April 2, 2019 Page 3 16 Wayne Elam, Commercial Realty Solutions, representing the Spaeth project, explained that the only change from the project that was approved two years ago was for the use of self -storage. No other changes were proposed. Gabler asked if there was any tenants were secured. Elam declined and summarized that the project was unique to the area where the units could be leased or sold out. Sam Murdoff asked the applicant for further clarification between general warehousing and commercial self -storage. Elam explained that the difference for their project was because of the personal self -storage use. Grittman and Schumann provided further clarification the application and the proposed ordinance amendments. Fyle asked if the project would be completed in phases. Elam confirmed and explained that they would complete a spec building to show to interested businesses or tenants. It was noted that the applicant would likely condo a portion of the site at a future time. Peterson asked who would manage the development. Elam stated that the developer would work with the City on the creation of an association document. Murdoff asked if there were any examples of larger self -storage facilities. Elam noted uncertainty. Keith Burnham, Affordable Storage, exampled that when he was looking at developing his business in the industrial park, it was recommended that the applicant consider commercial districts. Burnham noted the high costs of developing in a commercial district for buildings materials when compared to an industrial district. He explained that he would prefer that the minimum of these units be set at 2,000 square feet to distinguish from personal self -storage. Burnham also noted concern with locating such facility in industrial districts and with enforcement of rental leases as proposed in the ordinance amendments. Grittman responded that staff tried to use comparable research when developing the proposed ordinance. Grittman noted that staff were open to having a higher square footage minimum for such units. Peterson asked if the units would be comparable to a Toy Barn facility. Ken Spaeth, applicant, explained that each unit would have utilities and would be much different than a typical self -storage facility. Marc Simpson asked for the reasoning of why the buildings were proposed to increase 2 feet in height. Grittman noted that it would allow tenants and owners of the units more flexibility and allow higher placed door heights. Grittman proposed adding to the proposed ordinance amendment for industrial self -storage to have specific exclusions for retail and business services. Planning Commission Minutes — April 2, 2019 Page 4 16 Elam asked for clarification on this point. Schumann explained that some uses inside the PUD district would require additional review and consideration. Schumann also recommended that the Planning Commission could table action to allow the City's IEDC board to review the application for recommendation. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE APPLICATION PENDING A RECOMMENDATION/INPUT OF THE IEDC. JOHN ALSTAD SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Brad Fyle reminded the Planning Commission that the public hearing would be continued to the next regular meeting. Elam noted that the main areas that this project made this distinguishable is the use and height of the buildings. He noted that with these it should be considered an industrial use. C. Public Hearing - Consideration of a request for amendment to Title 11— Monticello Subdivision Ordinance Applicant: City of Monticello Angela Schumann introduced the item to the Planning Commission. She explained that the City is going through a complete amendment to all City Code. The amendment includes an intense review of the City's subdivision ordinance. Brad Fyle opened the public hearing. Schumann explained that American Legal Processing (ALP) is helping the City walk through the process. She explained that the revisions were necessary to ensure that the code is reliable and accurate. Schumann noted that most of the proposed subdivision amendments were administrative in nature. John Alstad asked how ALP would be involved with the recodification of the City Code. Schumann noted that ALP is already involved in the process of preliminary reviewing code amendments. She explained that once all proposed changes to the code are completed by city staff and ALP, the City Attorney would review. Alstad asked if the Planning Commission could adopt the resolution before approval by the City Attorney. Schumann noted that the Planning Commission could recommend approval subject to the City Attorney review. Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes — April 2, 2019 Page 5 ( 6 Sam Murdoff asked for clarification of the section that discussed lot line adjustments and administrative combination. SAM MURDOFF MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2019-OXX RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE RECODIFIED AND AMENDED MONTICELLO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Angela Schumann noted that the resolution was not included in the Planning Commissions agenda. She explained that a resolution will be created based on her presentation and provided in the City Council agenda packet for consideration. 3. Regular Agenda A. Consideration of the Community Development Directors Report Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Directors Report. She asked the Planning Commission to remember that the Spaeth PUD project was originally approved in 2017 and could proceed as intended. Schumann also noted that the City received four proposals for the Comprehensive Plan Update. Staff would work on setting up interviews with the consultants. The Planning Commission and City Council would be encouraged to attend these interviews. 4. Added Items None. 5. Adjournment MARC SIMPSON MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:46. KATIE PETERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 5-0. Recorder: Jacob Thunander Approved: May 7, 2019 /— Attest: Angela Sch rd in)% community Development Director Planning Commission Minutes — April 2, 2019 Page 6 16