Planning Commission Minutes 08-04-2020MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, August 4th, 2020 - 6:15 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Sam Murdoff, John Alstad, Andrew Tapper, and Alison Zimpfer
Commissioners Absent: Paul Konsor
Council Liaison Absent: Charlotte Gabler
Staff Present: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman (NAC), and Ron
Hackenmueller
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 — July 7th, 2020
JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES — JULY 7TH, 2020. ANDREW TAPPER
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
b. Special/Joint Meeting Minutes — July 7th, 2020
JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL/JOINT
MEETING MINUTES — JULY 7TH, 2020. ANDREW TAPPER
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
C. Citizen Comments
None.
D. Consideration of adding items to the agenda
None.
E. Consideration to approve agenda
JOHN ALSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. ANDREW TAPPER
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
2. Public Hearings
A. Public Hearing — Consideration of a request for Amendments to Monticello
Zoning Ordinance to Chapter 3.5, Business Base Zoning Districts, Subsection
(G) Central Community District and Chapter 4.5 Signs related to
transparency of window signage in the Downtown; and Chapter 5.1 Use
Table and Chapter 8.4 Definitions as related to Mobile & Manufactured
Home/Home Park; and Chapters 3.4 Residential Base Zoning Districts and
5.3, Accessory Use Standards as related to building materials references for
accessory buildings.
Applicant: City of Monticello
Planning Commission Minutes — August 4th, 2020 Page 1 1 5
Steve Grittman introduced the item for discussion. He noted the first amendment
would add clarity to Accessory Building — Major classification by adding a
condition that accessory structures will meet the building materials standards
found in Chapter 4.11 (C). This part of the code indicates that certain accessory
buildings are required to have additional fagade materials based on their location
and visibility. Grittman noted that the Planning Commission recently dealt with a
request that related to this issue.
The second amendment involved the sign ordinance related to window signage
and permitting. Grittman stated that window signage is generally allowed without
limit or a permit. There is an exception for window signage in the downtown as
the intent is to protect the architecture character of the area through window
exposure. Staff requested consistency with the code and the downtown plan. A
proposed ordinance amendment would require window signage in the Central
Community District to have a permit and comply with the Monticello downtown
plan. Windows signs in other districts would not be limited or require a permit.
The third amendment related to manufactured homes and manufactured home
parks. The ordinance currently discusses manufactured homes and manufactured
home parks as one. Grittman noted that manufactured homes is a style of building
and manufactured home parks relates to land use, which can cause conflicts.
Grittman notes that the intent of Section 3.11 and 5.1 is to include manufactured
home parks as a land use.
Andrew Tapper explained concerns with approving the Zoning Ordinance
amendment for requiring a permit for window signage. He noted that his
understanding from the Downtown Small Area Study is that the language is
intended for exterior finishes, including signage, but not window signage. He
reiterated his disagreement with requiring a sign permit for window signage as it
is not a part of the cohesiveness of the architecture and overreaching.
Sam Murdoff asked if there was a definition for window signage.
Angela Schumann noted that the language in the Small Area Plan is broad and
that staff have brought forward related ordinances to help achieve the vision of
that document. Schumann noted that the Zoning Ordinance does state that
window transparency in the Broadway District of the Central Community District
(CCD) is a minimum of 50 percent transparency. Schumann noted that the
Broadway corridor is intended to be a very customer, walkable, storefront area,
where people can see into the store and out. Schumann noted that prominent
window signage defeats the purpose of having retail in the downtown. Pine Street
and Walnut/Cedar Street are exempt from the proposed downtown ordinance
amendment. Schumann noted that there are business owners that don't know that
the 50 percent transparency clause exists in the Zoning Ordinance. Schumann
noted that if the ordinance passed; the focus of the permit would be to educate
property/business owners rather than enforce.
Tapper expressed requiring a permit for window signage seemed onerous and
would be a business impediment. Tapper noted that his understanding of the
Planning Commission Minutes — August 4th, 2020 Page 2 15
proposed ordinance would require a permit to place an open sign in the business'
storefront window. Schumann noted that staff could tweak the language to be
more specific with the Downtown Small Area Study.
Grittman provided the window signage definition written into code. Grittman
further explained the amendment and noted that City staff can manage the
permitting process or fees to make it less onerous on the property/business owner.
Sam Murdoff noted that the language, as proposed, may not be the correct trigger
to regulate signage. He explained that an enforcement issue may arise and had
concerns with property/business owners not knowing about the new ordinance.
Murdoff was not opposed to having trigging language to ensure communication
with property/business owners, but explained that the proposed language would
not be the correct process.
Sam Murdoff opened the public hearing. Hearing no comments, the public
hearing was closed.
Grittman asked if the objection was the fact that someone would have to get a
pen -nit. Murdoff and Tapper agreed. Grittman noted that staff could amend the
proposed ordinance to be in compliance with the Downtown Small Area Study
and delete the requirement for a permit. Tapper asked if the Downtown Small
Area Study was codified and enforceable. Schumann stated it may be more
helpful to reference the CCD District code, which requires 50 percent
transparency in the Broadway Subdistrict of the CCD. Tapper agreed.
John Alstad asked what the intent for the permit would be. Schumann stated that
it was for compliance in the beginning, rather than the end. Alstad asked what
would occur if a property/business owner requested more than the allowable 50
percent transparency. Grittman responded that a variance would need to be
approved.
Tapper was concerned with the possibility of the City "picking and choosing"
what type of window signs could be allowed and felt it was overreaching to
require a permit. Grittman noted that the permit would be evaluated against the
code and that the permitting doesn't grant the City any more power generally than
what the code already spells out.
Grittman provided a verbal amendment of the proposed ordinance amendment.
Murdoff asked if that satisfied staff. Staff noted that the permit requirement would
allow staff to address any overuse of window signage prior to installation. Tapper
asked if property/business owners would know about the permitting process. Ron
Hackenmueller stated it would take a while for them to understand the process
and become educated of the permit requirement. Schumann noted that for new
businesses or businesses completing rebranding; they would normally complete a
sign permit application and a revised sign permit application could include
window signage information creating compliance right away.
Planning Commission Minutes — August 4th, 2020 Page 3 15
Murdoff noted that on the sign permit application it could ask the applicant if they
plan to have window signage and the applicant could provide that information
voluntarily. Tapper added that instead it could reference the code section.
Murdoff asked for a better order of the signage code for window signs ensuring
that the maximum area of windows signs is identified first and then that window
signs are not considered part of the maximum sign area.
Murdoff then discussed the manufactured home parks section of the proposed
ordinance amendment. Murdoff was concerned with a potential conflict with
Chapter 3.7(I)(1)(b), Performance Based Enhancement District. Grittman noted
that cities cannot prohibit manufactured homes where we allow single-family
stick -built homes to be constructed. The way the code is written is an illegal
clause because it excludes manufactured homes as a building style. Because we
allow attached housing in this district, staff wanted to make it clear we are not
intending to allow manufacturing home parks. Murdoff thought it was odd to list
out the styles of housing and switch to a land use. Grittman stated that the way the
clause is written and the way the statute operates, unless we create an exception
for manufactured home park land use, we automatically are required to allow
manufactured homes unless we exempt out of it. Murdoff asked if that clause
could be restructured to separate styles and land use.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATION OF
SECTION 1 (ACCESSORY BUILDING MATERIALS) AND TABLING THE
SECTION 2 (WINDOW SIGN PERMITTING), AND SECTION 3 AND
SECTION 4 (MANUFACTURED HOMES AND PARKS) FOR REVISIONS
BASED ON DISCUSSION DURING THE MEETING. SAM MURDOFF
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 3-1 WITH ALISON
ZIMPFER VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
3. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of the Community Development Director's Report
Angela Schumann provided the Community Development Director's Report.
Schumann noted that feedback is being taken from different Boards and
Commissions to create a public, draft Comprehensive Plan that can then receive
additional engagement from the public in a variety of medians.
She also invited the Planning Commission to participate in a Housing Study
Conversation that was being held on August 5, 2020 from 7 to 8 p.m.
4. Added Items
None.
5. Adjournment
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 7:12 P.M. SAM
MURDOFF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Recorder: Jacob Thunander
Planning Commission Minutes — August 4th, 2020 Page 4 15
Approved: September 1
Attest:
Angela �q)iyin#n, Community Development Director
Planning Commission Minutes — August 4th, 2020 Page 5 15