Loading...
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