Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes - 06/04/2024Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024 Commissioners Present: Robeck Commissioners Absent: Council Liaison Present: Staff Present: 1. General Business MINUTES REGULAR MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 4, 2024 — 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Chair Paul Konsor, Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Melissa Rob Stark Councilmember Charlotte Gabler Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Ron Hackenmueller, Hayden Stensgard A. Call to Order Chair Paul Konsor called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Roll Call Paul Konsor called the roll noting all present with the exception of Rob Stark. C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items None D. Approval of Agenda ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 412024 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. NO SECOND WAS MADE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0 E. Approval of Minutes • Regular Meeting Minutes —May 7, 2024 PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0 F. Citizen Comments None 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV• Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.012 — Definitions, and 153 091— Use Specific Standards related to Wrecker & Towing Services as a Principal Use including Definitions, Use -Specific Standards, and other regulations as necessary to define and limit the intent or application of the proposed amendment Applicant: City of Monticello Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024 City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the proposed amendment. Steve Grittman mentioned that the current ordinance was written through the lens of a salvage yard use and how that us would coexist with existing neighbors. Salvage yards are no longer an allowed use within the city. Staff felt the language needed to reflect the updated uses of towing. The amendment would reflect how the City would review the proposed conditional use permit proposed next on the agenda. Steve Grittman gave an overview of the updated language including flexibility for future conditional use permit requests. Updated language includes compliance with 100 year floodplain and no dismantling of motor vehicles for parts. He stated that the goal of the amendment is to shift from the salvage yard aspect to the towing aspect, with the understanding a tow yard may hold vehicles for a certain amount of time, then moved and released to another location. Commission Chair Konsor asked for clarity around the height restrictions for fences and if this requires a minimal height. Planner Steve Grittman mentioned that screening fences are often 6ft in height, and up to 8' would be allowable under the code. This would allow for flexibility of needs as related to site screening. Councilmember Gabler asked for clarification around business districts for fence height which is limited to 7' in rear yards, yet this amendment mentions 8'. Planner Steve Grittman responded that a variance would not be needed, as this provision is an exception to the 7' high rule. Commission Chair Konsor asked if other similar services would be affected by this change and if they need to be notified. Planner Steve Grittman answered that being a new code, this would apply to existing wrecking and towing services, and existing businesses would be legally non -conforming. Commission Chair opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item Andrew Tapper shared a concern that if this use was a permitted use, how is this code enforced. Community Development Director Angela Schumann stated that the city ordinance requires a change of use form if a site changes use. If a site was changing to a towing agency, a site plan review would be required with an administrative review process by staff. That may happen prior to or concurrent with a building permit as needed. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-16 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, TITLE XV: LAND 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024 Commissioners Present: Robeck Commissioners Absent: Council Liaison Present: Staff Present: 1. General Business A. Call to Order MINUTES REGULAR MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, June 4, 2024 — 6:00 p.m. Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Chair Paul Konsor, Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner, Melissa Rob Stark Councilmember Charlotte Gabler Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Ron Hackenmueller, Hayden Stensgard Chair Paul Konsor called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. B. Roll Call Paul Konsor called the roll noting all present with the exception of Rob Stark. C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items None D. Approval of Agenda ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE JUNE 4, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA. NO SECOND WAS MADE. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0 E. Approval of Minutes • Regular Meeting Minutes —May 7, 2024 PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0 F. Citizen Comments None 2. Public Hearings A. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello Citv Code, Title XV: Land Usage Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.012 — Definitions, and 153.091— Use - Specific Standards related to Wrecker & Towing Services as a Principal Use including Definitions, Use -Specific Standards, and other regulations as necessary to define and limit the intent or application of the proposed amendment Applicant: City of Monticello 1 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024 City Planner Steve Grittman provided an overview of the proposed amendment. Steve Grittman mentioned that the current ordinance was written through the lens of a salvage yard use and how that us would coexist with existing neighbors. Salvage yards are no longer an allowed use within the city. Staff felt the language needed to reflect the updated uses of towing. The amendment would reflect how the City would review the proposed conditional use permit proposed next on the agenda. Steve Grittman gave an overview of the updated language including flexibility for future conditional use permit requests. Updated language includes compliance with 100 year floodplain and no dismantling of motor vehicles for parts. He stated that the goal of the amendment is to shift from the salvage yard aspect to the towing aspect, with the understanding a tow yard may hold vehicles for a certain amount of time, then moved and released to another location. Commission Chair Konsor asked for clarity around the height restrictions for fences and if this requires a minimal height. Planner Steve Grittman mentioned that screening fences are often 6ft in height, and up to 8' would be allowable under the code. This would allow for flexibility of needs as related to site screening. Councilmember Gabler asked for clarification around business districts for fence height which is limited to 7' in rear yards, yet this amendment mentions 8. Planner Steve Grittman responded that a variance would not be needed, as this provision is an exception to the 7' high rule. Commission Chair Konsor asked if other similar services would be affected by this change and if they need to be notified. Planner Steve Grittman answered that being a new code, this would apply to existing wrecking and towing services, and existing businesses would be legally non -conforming. Commission Chair opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item Andrew Tapper shared a concern that if this use was a permitted use, how is this code enforced. Community Development Director Angela Schumann stated that the city ordinance requires a change of use form if a site changes use. If a site was changing to a towing agency, a site plan review would be required with an administrative review process by staff. That may happen prior to or concurrent with a building permit as needed. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-16 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, TITLE XV: LAND 2 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024 USAGE, CHAPTER 153: ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 153.012 — DEFINITIONS, AND 153.091— USE -SPECIFIC STANDARDS RELATED TO WRECKER & TOWING SERVICES AS A PRINCIPAL USE INCLUDING DEFINITIONS, USE -SPECIFIC STANDARDS, AND OTHER REGULATIONS AS NECESSARY TO DEFINE AND LIMIT THE INTENT OF APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0 B. Consideration of a Request for Conditional Use Permit for Wrecker & Towing Services as a Principal Use in the B-3, Highway Business District Applicant: Nick Christenson City Planner Steve Grittman gave an overview of the site. Steve Grittman stated that this location has been operating as an automobile and storage and repair facility for quite some time. The applicant is looking to clarify the ownership and operation. As staff reviewed the code for this use, staff noted the outdated code as addressed above with the amendment. Staff felt the B-3 district was consistent with the applicant's use of the site. Steve Grittman provided an overview of the request, stating that the intent of the conditional use permit appears to be a compatible use for the existing infrastructure and nearby uses. Steve Grittman reviewed the standards outlined in the proposed ordinance and the conditions in Exhibit Z. These include those related to vehicle storage on site and the screening of vehicles. Nearby uses in this area are highway and automobile uses. Staff found this applicant to be in compliance with the permit requirements. Andrew Tapper asked about the map in the packet, inquiring if the two addresses are one parcel. Steve Grittman agreed with the one parcel as two addresses. He noted it is a multi -tenant building. Chair Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Paul Konsor read into the record the single write-in statement received. The comment expressed concern with moving forward with the operations as it relates to street parking issues. The comment was submitted by the owner of an adjacent property owner, Jay Morrell. Parul Konsor stated that parking was addressed in the application and indicated his thought is that the conditions of approval address the site parking. Paul Konsor asked for clarity regarding parking on the site in relationship to these concerns. He noted it appears that the site plan illustrates just one parking spot. Andrew Tapper echoed this question, requesting clarification on the parking on site in relation to flat-bed towing vehicles illustrated on the street in the picture, and how this 3 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024 relates to the written public comment. He noted the road does see a fair amount of congestion. Paul Konsor inquired whether the site plan provided has adequate parking for the use with the known parking needs in the vicinity. He also inquired if there is a definition of parking. Steve Grittman gave an overview of the city's definition of parking, uses, duration and size requirements, and anything over 24 hours of parking is considered storage. The applicant had indicated to staff that the vehicle equipment for the use would be parked on -site. Applicant Nick Christenson stated the photo in the agenda packet is a bit dated and said there is occasional street parking as operations are occurring. Parul Konsor asked if the site had enough space for movement of vehicles and to keep vehicles on -site. Applicant Nick Christenson responded that towing vehicles are parked inside overnight and that there is plenty of parking on -site, but as tow vehicles are moving on -site, they may be parked on street for a period of time. Paul Konsor stated that it needs to be the understanding that vehicles are to be parked on -site. The applicant responded that there is room for the vehicles to be parked inside the fence. Hearing no other public comment, Paul Konsor closed the public hearing. Councilmember Gabler asked if there were paved surfaces available for outdoor storage, and if it needs to be paved if it is not already. Steve Grittman confirmed that there is a code requirement for paving for storage. He stated that if vehicles are to be stored, the area will need to be paved TERI LEHNER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION PC-2024-17 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WRECKING AND TOWING SERVICES AS A PRINCIPAL USE IN THE B-3 HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION AND SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANAMIOUSLY, 4-0. Paul Konsor stated that this will go to the June 241" City Council meeting. C. Consideration of a Request for Preliminary & Final Plat of Cedar Street Storage; Revocation of an Existing Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development; Development & Final Stage Planned Unit Development; Rezoning to Planned Unit Development Applicant: Bruce Stainbrook El Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024 City Planner Steve Grittman gave an overview of the requests, which relate to a commercial self -storage facility located in The Pointes at Cedar District, approved as a result of the adoption of the Small Area Plan. The self -storage use was approved originally under a conditional use permit for planned unit development. The temporary storage units on the site were approved through an amendment to the PUD for a 10- year interim use permit, in anticipation of expansion. The termination date is forthcoming, and the applicant is seeking approval for a new PUD. The applicant is seeking approval to build another structure along the south property line and pursue expansion. To accommodate this expansion, the proposal is to create a new PUD zoning district that illustrates new structures, replats the property to combine the development properties into a single parcel and then revoke the prior CUP. Steve Grittman stated that the policy question is whether the proposed uses meet the intent of the PUD; whether the result of the project is equal to or better than what would be allowed under the base code allowances. Mr. Grittman noted that the use as developed is an existing non -confirming use under The Pointes at Cedar zoning. Normally, the City would not allow expansion of legal non -conforming uses. The expansion requires the PUD path. Steve Grittman noted that the staff report raises questions regarding screening and buffering on the east and south property lines. With a zero lot line, the applicant proposal would effectively move the buffering and screening i to the public side of the property line. Steve Grittman explained that staff is recommending approval with screening, maintenance and landscaping addressed along the south and east boundary line. He explained that the south side of the building would have a stucco finish, creating a screening of a portion of the site, but a portion of the site would site be visible from other areas of The Pointes. Andrew Tapper clarified that the interim use permit allowing the temporary storage containers is expiring. Steve Grittman confirmed and stated those would be required to be removed regardless of action on the four requested actions. Paul Konsor requested that staff provide an explanation for the four decisions. Steve Grittman walked through the four decisions to be made that evening, the first being the amendment to the code for a new custom PUD zoning district. The second is considering the development and final stage PUD for the property. The third is the preliminary plat. The preliminary and final plat and final stage PUD will go to City Council, and fourth is revoking the previous conditional use permit. 5 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024 Ms. Lehner explained that she has some hesitation in making a change for PUD for this project given The Pointes at Cedar is in its early stages. Andrew Tapper noted that this piece already exists and then evaluating how to address this existing use within the PUD. Andrew Tapper stated his concern over the zero lot line and related screening and fencing. He noted that there is a current fenceline along Dundas and Cedar and how the proposed project will continue or address that fenceline. He asked if the City allowed for an "easement" for screening on the City side of the property line, for allowing the applicant to use public land for screening. There was some discussion about screening requirements for the east boundary versus the south boundary and the timing of the screening improvements. Community Development Director Angela Schumann responded, stating that the proposed wall along the southern boundary will act as a screening tool on its own, and that staff is recommending landscaping for additional screening. The screening recommendation was on the east side, which could be a wall extension or additional landscaping, which would be similar to their location along west Chelsea. Staff stated there could be a screening and maintenance agreement prepared for City Council to use city property for landscaping screening. Paul Konsor noted that this is an existing use, and so the consideration will need to be how to address the expansion relative to The Pointes at Cedar. The Commissioners spoke about how to work with the applicant for a sufficient application, from the aspects of The Pointes at Cedar, and addressing the termination of the interim permit. Chair Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. Byron Bjorklund, applicant for StorageLink, addressed the Commission as the applicant and property and business owner for the subject site. Mr. Bjorklund noted that the concept meeting previously held for the project guided their planning for this proposal. They have also been involved with The Pointes at Cedar as existing businesses. Mr. Bjorklund explained they are trying to fit in with The Pointes project and noted the existing landscaping on north and west side of the existing site. He noted the existing landscaping and fencing on the north and west side of the property. It is their desire to retain flexibility as The Pointes develops. The applicant suggested that the small areas along the south EFIS wall be cemented for a `clean and neat' look. He noted that the south EFIS wall will provide screening from Cedar. The applicant stated they would be willing to vacate Dundas Road as part of their application to be flexible for the project. He reiterated that using cement along the south line will also prevent weeds. The new buildings along the zero lot line will provide a screening shield. L Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024 Andrew Tapper expressed his appreciation that they had been involved with The Pointes project. He asked the applicant if they are comfortable with the property without a separation from the proposed Pointes public spaces. Mr. Bjorklund stated that it is likely that they might to fence the property in the future. They have not done so yet as it is surrounded by agriculture, and noted willingness to shift access points from Dundas Road. He noted that the City will likely want to landscape against the site with the public park, as well. Councilmember Gabler and Commissioner Robeck noted that the PUD provides some measure of ability to continue working with the applicant into the future. Hearing no further public comment, Chair Konsor closed the public hearing. Andrew Tapper stated that he is in favor of the concrete surface at the southerly line. Paul Konsor clarified the comment on future PUD flexibility. He stated that the conditions for the PUD need to be approved with this application. Councilmember Gabler noted that the Dundas Road vacation does create the opportunity for future discussion on the site. Paul Konsor stated that after discussion and clarification, he is comfortable with the proposal. Andrew Tapper asked if there was a single Exhibit Z for all four of the decisions. He stated that if the Commission is comfortable with the concrete on the south side, then they need to discuss the other conditions, including the conditions requiring extensive landscaping, on both the south and east sides. Community Development Director Angela Schumann clarified that there is an area on the southeast portion of the lot that is not covered by the proposed building. The condition is to require landscaping consistent with the biome in that space, as well as the pockets of the buildings. The next condition for landscaping relates to the eastern side, that the screening wall could be extended. Angela Schumann asked the Commission if the maintenance agreement be removed as satisfied with the concrete and state the landscape and southeast and east be a future condition. Steve Grittman responded that it would be difficult to hold the applicant to a future improvement. The current application is the time to apply reasonable conditions. He stated that conditions waived, should be considered as permanently waived. Steve Grittman noted that on the east side, staff had suggested a screening wall as a condition of approval. He also noted that along the south side, it does appear that there would be enough room for plantings and landscaping. He stated that the proposed landscaping both provides an appropriate transition to The Pointes, as well as the flexibility granted 7 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024 by using a PUD. He stated that the City should expect the recommended landscaping as part of the PUD and departure from code allowances. The Commission discussed each of the landscaping conditions, noting that there is little to no room to complete extensive screening on land that is theirs. Commissioner Tapper also noted that it is likely they may want a fence along this line when the land to the south develops as a public park. Andrew Tapper spoke about the anticipated desire for a fence for the applicant to close off the property, once the surrounding property is developed. Paul Konsor commented on the conditions as written. If approved, even if in the future the applicants wanted a fence, the approved conditions would require that the landscaping should remain. Andrew Tapper proposed two modifications to Exhibit Z in #3 and #4 to strike the words "extensive" and "intense". The other Commissioners agreed, stating that there is a gray area for interpretation of the language for landscaping, as long as the landscaping is consistent with The Pointes Community Development Director asked the Commissioners to clarify that they wanted to have no requirements along the east wall as there is no room for landscaping. The Commissioner clarified that the point of condition #4 was to require a full screening wall along the east side of the property, similar to their site along west Chelsea Road. Andrew Tapper noted that would not be consistent with the existing fenceline along Cedar. Paul Konsor asked what the direction would be if this were a new project. Commissioner Lehner stated it was likely that there would be additional setback, requirements for screening and landscaping. Teri Lehner noted that if they denied the new building, they could require the screening. However, as an existing business, that may not be the right decision. Commissioner Lehner indicated that the best -case scenario would be to remove condition #3, but add some landscaping along the southeast portion of the site, and then some type of screening on the east side of the property. In likelihood, this would not match The Pointes biomes. Teri Lehner stated that she has come full circle in that what is discussed as the recommendation is the best -case scenario. Commissioner Tapper asked if the City required the construction of the east screening wall, could the construction be delayed until development of The Pointes adjacent. Steve Grittman stated that is possible but would be a monitoring exercise and development agreement requirements. Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024 The Commission discussed the timing and requirement for installation of the east wall at length, particularly as an existing business. Community Development Director Angela Schumann reminded the Commission that there are multiple touch points, securities and compliance checks for planned unit development. They discussed striking the words "extensive" and "intense" in the conditions. Ms. Schumann clarified that the Commission is not seeking improvements along the east side of the property. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO TABLE ALL FOUR DECISIONS UNTIL FURTHER REVIEW. Teri Lehner added that the City then would take on the role of building the buffer they deem necessary. Regarding the buffer on the south side is on the property owner with the landscaping, line #4 is removed, and the City would be in charge of building the screening. This allows the development to move forward and for the City to take steps it deems necessary for screening. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-18 RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF A ZONING AMENDMENT CREATING THE CEDAR STORAGE PUD ZONING DISTRICT AND REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM POINTES AT CEDAR DISTRICT TO CEDAR STORAGE PUD ZONING DISTRICT. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIEDED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-19 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT STAGE PUD FOR CEDAR STORAGE ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z STRIKING ITEM #4 COMPLETELY IN EXHIBIT Z. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0 PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-20 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CEDAR STORAGE ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBT Z AND STRIKING #4 COMPLETELY FROM EXHIBIT Z. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0 PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-21 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REVOCATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PUD FOR THE FORMER AMAX SELF STORAGE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z, STRIKING ITEM #4. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0 Community Development Director Angela Schumann reminded the applicants to reach out with any questions, and that this would appear on the City Council agenda on June 24 and with the unanimous nature of the motions, it would likely be placed on the consent calendar. 01 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024 D. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV: Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Sections 153.012 — Definitions, 153.028 — Specific Review Procedures & Requirements, 153.090 — Use Table, & 153.091— Use -Specific Standards related to Contractor's Yard — Temporary, & Extraction of Minerals/Materials as Principal Interim Uses including Definitions, Use -Specific Standards, & other regulations as necessary to define and limit the intent or application of the proposed amendment Applicant: City of Monticello City Planner Steve Grittman gave an overview of the draft ordinance amendment. He indicated that staff recommends tabling the measure as it would give City staff more time to receive comment from other departments. Chair Paul Konsor asked if the action would be tabling and continuing the public hearing until July. This was confirmed by staff. Councilmember Gabler requested a map as it relates to both the City and Monticello Township regarding extraction points. Community Development Director Angela Schumann spoke about the use table and the zoning map, noting the use is allowed in agricultural district and limited industrial districts as an interim permit only. The ordinance is proposed to prohibit mining in residential and commercial districts. ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO TABLE THE AMENDMENT TO THE MONTICELLO CITY CODE, TITLE XV: LAND USAGE, CHAPTER 153: ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTIONS 153.012 — DEFINITIONS, 153.028 —SPECIFIC REVIEW PROCEDURES & REQUIREMENTS, 153.090 — USE TABLE, & 153.091— USE -SPECIFIC STANDARDS RELATED TO CONTRACTOR'S YARD — TEMPORARY, & EXTRACTION OF MINERALS/MATERIALS AS PRINCIPAL INTERIM USES INCLUDING DEFINITIONS, USE -SPECIFIC STANDARDS, & OTHER REGULATIONS AS NECESSARY TO DEFINE AND LIMIT THE INTENT OR APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0 E. Consideration of an Amendment to the Monticello City Code, Title XV: Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.091, Use -Specific Standards, as related to Day Care Centers as a Principal Use in the Industrial & Business Campus (IBC) District Applicant: City of Monticello Community Development Director spoke about the need for a public hearing as a clerical error to correct a mistake from a secondary use to a principal use in IBC districts. Paul Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item. 10 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024 Hearing no comments, Paul Konsor closed the public hearing. PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-23 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ADMENDMENT RELATED TO THE USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS TO THE DAY CARE CENTERS AS A PRINCIPAL USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL AND BUSINESS CAMPUS BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. TERI LEHNER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0 3. Regular Agenda None. 4. Other Business A. Building Department Presentation Andrew Tapper stepped out of the meeting. Chief Building Official Ron Hackenmueller gave an annual overview of the Department of Building Safety and Code Enforcement. He noted staffing changes moving the fire inspection under the department. He explained 2023s valuation of permits was $76 million dollars and total building permits issued at approximately 1,300 permits. New construction housing permits of 22 single-family detached, and 22 family attached units were reported. Ron Hackenmueller indicated that 36% of all permits were completed online. For the rental licensing program, for the prior year, there were 460 properties with a total of 1932 rental units. Paul Konsor asked if complaints and reports are anonymous, and Community Development Director Angela Schumann stated that she would follow up on the current compliant system. B. Community Development Director's Report Report was given on actions sent to City Council. Angela Schumann also noted that the Rental Connections meeting was held and was successful, fire prevention was a topic of discussion. Hayden Stensgard announced his departure plans for a new role in the City of Dayton. S. Adjournment Meeting adjourned by consensus. 11 Planning Commission Minutes - 6/4/2024 Recorded By: Tyler Bevier Date Approved: 12/3/2024 ATTEST: Angela q^rfiann, Community Development Director 12