Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 08-07-2012MINUTES MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 7, 2012 - 6:00 PM Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center Commissioners Present: William Spartz, Brad Fyle, Charlotte Gabler, Barry Voight Council Liaison Absent: Lloyd Hilgart Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Ron Hackeranueller, Steve Grittman -NAC 1. Call to order Bill Spartz called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Consideration to approve Planning Commission minutes a) Special Meeting of July 3id, 2012 BRAD FYLE MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 3, 2012. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0. b) Regular Meeting of July 3`d, 2012 BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 3, 2012 AS AMENDED. BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0. 3. Citizen Comments None 4. Consideration of adding items to the agenda a) November Planning Commission Meeting 5. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapters and Sections as follows: 3.3(D) — Common Yard & Height Requirements 3.4(E) — Single - Family Residential District 3.4(H) — R -3 — Medium Density Residential District • 3.7(H) — Performance Overlay District 3.7(J) — Special Use Overlay District 4.4(I) — Sign Lighting 4.5(I) — Temporary Signs 4.8 — Off - Street Parking 4.9 — Off- Street Loading Planning Commission Minutes 8/07/12 5.1 - Use Table 5.3(C) — Regulation for Residential Uses 5.3(G) — Regulations for Industrial Uses 5.3 - Accessory Uses • 5.4 - Temporary Uses 8.2 — Rules of Measurement • 8.4 - Definitions At the July Planning Commission meeting, staff presented information related to each of the proposed amendments and requested feedback from the Commission. The formal hearing was tabled to the August meeting to allow for the incorporation of feedback and preparation of the final ordinance document. In addition to those amendments reviewed in July, staff has added three amendments. The hearing notice was republished for those additional amendments, which are Section 4.4(I) — Sign Lighting, 4.5(I) — Signs and 4.9 — Off- Street Loading. The following amendments required further consideration. 1. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 4(H) as related to Density Standards for Medium - Density Residential The Planning Commission had requested that staff prepare information relating to options for a higher density R -3 district as well as a new R -4 district. An amended R -3 District would incorporate higher densities overall, with maximum densities allowed under a PUD rezoning. Such an amendment would ensure that densities are not too restrictive in terns of the amount of land required to construct a multi - family structure such as an apartment complex or senior living facility. Densities proposed for a new R -4 District would be similar to the increased allowances in the revised R -3 but allow the City the maximum amount of discretion in where such high density uses are allowed, as any new R -4 proposal would require rezoning. Existing code language allows up to 14 units per acre under performance or PUD standards, and up to 7.3 units per gross acre as a base density. Staff recommended that the code language be revised to allow up to 17 units per acre, and up to 10 units per acre for multifamily as a base density. Steve Gritttnan pointed out that multi- family housing is typically in that increased density range in reality and, as such, the R -3 District does not currently allow for multi - family housing from a functional standpoint. It is essentially a townhouse district. Brad Fyle indicated that he has no problem with allowing for higher density multi- family housing but that he is not in favor of a creating a new zoning district. He stated Planning Commission Minutes 8/07/12 that the R -3 District is workable the way it is and that the PUD would give the Commission an opportunity to determine if there is adequate space for what is being proposed. Charlotte Gabler noted that it would be useful to establish tiers for the R -3 District and to identify performance standards for varying densities if a new zoning district were not created. Steve Grittman indicated that rezoning would provide the most authority and discretion for the Planning Commission but reiterated that either option would be a workable process. Bill Spartz confirmed that the Comprehensive Plan calls for developing opportunities for life cycle housing and posed some development scenarios for consideration. Barry Voight said that he would lean toward rezoning because it offers the greatest flexibility. He also said that the Commission might want to set up a new zoning district in order to achieve their vision of what multi - family housing would look like in the community. Steve Grittman clarified that the density in the R -3 District would still need to be modified in the event that an R -4 District were to be created. He pointed out that it would also be necessary to clarify the purpose of each of the districts. Angela Schumann suggested that it would be an option to table this amendment due to the need for continued consideration of these issues. She suggested that the Commissioners review where R -3 Districts and Performance Overlays currently exist as they consider these issues. 2. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 7(H) as related to the Performance Overlay District Staff determined that, because there are Transition Features in place to mitigate potential land use impacts when commercial and residential uses are introduced adjacent to each other, no amendment to the Performance Zone Overlay district would be necessary. 3. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 3, Section 7(J) — Special Use Overlay District When the code was updated to include the Special Use Overlay District changes, an error was made in assigning Adult Use to the IBC and I -1, rather than I -1 and I -2 Districts. The amendment relates to Table 5 -1, rather to any provisions in Chapter 3, Section 7(J). Planning Commission Minutes 8/07/12 4. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 4 — Exterior Lighting as related to Sign Lighting In reviewing the ordinance requirements for sign lighting for a recent sign permit application, it was noted that the language was written in such a manner as to prohibit any sign lighting from being visible off -site. Staff has proposed an amendment which regulates instead the aiming, shielding and visibility of light sources specifically. (I) Sign Lighting Lighting fixtures illuminating signs shall comply with the standards of this section, and sueh r' exterior light sources shall be aimed and shielded so that direct illumination is focused exclusively on the sign face and the light source is not visible from off -site areas. 5. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 5(I) as related to Temporary Signs Staff recommended the addition of temporary community event signage through the amendments proposed below. A definition for Community Informational Signage is also proposed with the amendments to the Definitions section. Text of amendnaent(s): Section 4.5 (D) - Prohibited Signs Section 4.5 (D)(2) All off premises signs greater than six (6) square feet in area, except that the City may permit certain temporary signs to display messages for Community Informational Signs not related to the premises on which they are displayed. Section 4.5 (I) - Temporary Signs Section 4.5 (I )(5) Any temporary sign permitted under this section shall be require to display messages related only to the activity on the premises on which the temporary sign is located, with the exception that such sign may display messages defined as Community Informational Signs. The display of Community Informational signage shall not add to the number of days of temporary sign display allotted to a particular premises, business, or property y this section, and any such sign shall comply with all other regulations of this Chapter. Staff will review the Interim Ordinance for temporary signage in January of 2013. 6. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4, Section 9 as related to Off - Street Loading 4 Planning Commission Minutes 8/07/12 Ordinance section 4.1(I) — Standards for Required Screening requires that all off - street loading facilities be screened in accordance with the provisions specified in that section. However, the ordinance regulations pertaining specifically to off - street loading contained in section 4.9(E), make no mention of those screening requirements. For ease of interpretation and use, staff is proposing an amendment to create a reference 4.1(I). Text of a`aendrnent(s): (E) Screening Exeept in the ease oAa^'tiple dwellings, -a All loading areas shall be screened and landscaped from abutting and surrounding residential uses in compliance with Section 4.1(I), of this ordinance. If Commission wishes to recommend a less restrictive screening requirement, Chapter 4.1(I) — Standards for Required Screening could be amended to reflect the language in 4.9(E) as follows. (2) Items to be Screened The following areas shall be screened in accordance with this section: (a) Anything specifically called out by this ordinance as requiring screening. (b) Large trash handling and recycling collection areas (e.g., dumpsters and cardboard recycling containers); (c) Loading and sefN4ee areas; All loading and service areas shall be screened and landscaped from abutting and surrounding residential uses and public rights of way. (d) Allowed outdoor storage areas adjacent to a public right -of -way; (e) New construction, demolition, or other site conditions that could be unsafe for pedestrians or vehicles. Bairry Voight asked for a definition of screening and expressed some concern about creating an amendment that may be burdensome. Charlotte Gabler and Bill Spartz agreed that item c would cover what the Commission was looking to do. Brad Fyle indicated that screening should be required at all loading areas. Barry Voight then suggested that the Commission move forward with recommending item e but asked that staff provide more definitive language in regard to screening criteria. 7. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 1— Use Table Planning Commission Minutes 8/07/12 Staff highlighted the following changes to the Use Table. Adult Use is only allowed in the I -1 and I -2 District in the Special Use Overlay. Group Residential Facility, Multi- Family uses are to be amended from "Permitted" to "Conditional'. 8. Amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 5, Section 3(C) for Residential Uses The City has the ability to regulate Group Residential Facility, Multi - Family uses as conditional uses under State Statute, and as such, the City Attorney has recommended that the City amend the ordinance to require a CUP for such uses in the R -2 and R -3 Districts. The City cannot require a Condition Use Permit for a Group Residential Facility, Single - Family. Text of amendment(s): (3) Group Residential Facility Licensed day care facilities qualifying as group residential facilities shall adhere to the following: (f) T4iC Group Residential Facility, Multi - Family uses shall require authorization through a conditional use permit following the provisions of Section 2A(D) of this ordinance. 9. Amendment to Monticello Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 8, Section 4, Definitions A definition for "Community Informational Signage" is also included, per the amendment proposed above. Text ofAmendment(s): SIGN, COMMUNITY INFORMATIONAL: A sign displaying information related to a community event open to public when such event is sponsored or operated by a person or organization in a not - for -profit capacity_ Qualifying organizations shall include any organization established under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3 ) or any other organization or individual registering with the City of Monticello meeting the requirements of this section. Staff indicated that the City Clerk had suggested removing the language "Section 501(c)(3)" and including, in its place, "as a non - profit'. In addition, she had suggested replacing "City of Monticello' with "Secretary of State ". Steve Grittman said that the intent of that language had been to give the City some discretion to allow those that may not be registered as non - profits the opportunity to place informational signage. He noted that City Council may want to adopt policy as to what type of non- profits would be eligible to do so. Staff will adjust the language accordingly for the City Council. 6 Planning Commission Minutes 8/07/12 The public hearing was opened. As there were no comments, the public hearing was closed. Brad Fyle and Barry Voight both indicated that the medium density residential issue required further consideration. Angela Schumann noted that Steve Grittman would provide further review of the Group Residential Facility, Multi - family amendment and, if further clarification were to be required, the amendment would be brought forward at that time. BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE STAFF REPORT OF AUGUST 7TH, 2012 AND AS CODIFIED BY ORDINANCE 561, EXCLUDING CHAPTER 3, SECTION 4 (H). BRAD FYLE SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0. 6. Update on Consideration of a request for Rezoning from B -3 (Highway Business) to B -4 (Regional Business) and a Conditional Use Permit for Cross - Parking and Joint - Parking for a commercial development including a Clinic use. Applicant: Mickle, Bi1UWarnert Commercial Properties Both applicants have withdrawn the requests for rezoning and conditional use pen-nit in writing. 7. Update on Planning Commission Vacancies Angela Schumann highlighted some of the accomplishments of the Planning Commission during Barry Voight's six years of service and thanked him for his reason, logic, common sense, and ability to look at issues from a resident's standpoint. He said that he was honored to have helped shape the community. The other Commissioners also expressed appreciation for his work. The Planning Commission received an application for one of the two open seats on the Commission. Staff proposed scheduling a special meeting to interview the candidate at 5:30 pm on Tuesday, August 21s`, 2012. 8. Community Development Director's Report Zoning Ordinance Amendments — Staff assured the Commissioners that, although the new zoning ordinance continues to require amendments, there is no doubt that it is a functional document. Economic Development Director - Megan Barnett - Livgard resigned from her position as Economic Development Director. Staff plan to distribute high priority tasks on a short term basis and analyze the scope of the position. 7 Planning Commission Minutes 8/07/12 Temporary Signs - Interim Ordinance - Staff will provide a report related to the interim temporary sign ordinance next month. The report will include information about enforcement and violations as well as the number of days the permits were actually used. Building Department - The City has issued 15 new single - family home construction pen-nits so far this year. This is five more than anticipated for 2012. Subdivision Ordinance — A staff group will review the ordinance in detail to provide some focus for revision. The Planning Commission will tour the community on August 2181 at 6 pm to explore how existing standards translate into actual land use prior to beginning the ordinance revision process. Paperless Agendas — Brad Fyle uses his iPad to review the Planning Commission agenda packet and is in favor of saving the cost of printing and mailing. Charlotte Gabler has agreed to explore the option of going paperless as well. Staff is working to provide the Commission electronic access to the agenda at the dias. Industrial Park Land — The IEDC will review the Economic Development chapter of the Comprehensive Plan to make sure that policies and strategies continue to be appropriate prior to considering industrial inventory in the community. Two members of the IEDC were appointed to serve on a task force to review the need for additional industrial park. Charlotte Gabler expressed interest in working with the task force. The first meeting of the task force will be in September. Kjellberg Storage Request Update — Brad Fyle asked for an update on the Kjellberg's outdoor storage request. Staff indicated that the application had been denied by the City Council. 9. Added items a) November Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 6th must be rescheduled due to the conflict with the General Election. Staff will try to reschedule the meeting for Tuesday, November 20`x'. 10. Adiourn BARRY VOIGHT MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:07 PM. CHARLOTTE GABLER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 3 -0. Recorder: Kerry T. Burri Approved: September 4, 2 Attest: Angela SKi irjiaiin, )Community Development Director