At the Oct. 2 Prescott Plan Commission meeting, members were asked to approve the site plan review for 1415 North Acres Road.

City Planner Carter Hayes shared the property’s background, explaining that Lot 4 of the North Park is zoned mixed industrial. He said River City Stitch is proposing a 4,450 square-foot expansion on a 2,200 square foot retail use for a total of 6,650 square feet on the site.

The addition is proposed to be 34 feet in height with steel siding on the north and west sides of the building. The front façade will be a board and batten metal paneling with stone wainscot and timber beam. The south side will have partial board and batten style.

Hayes said the property is L-2 Basic Landscape for Commercial Development and will include 10 trees and 60 shrubs along the frontage. Impervious surface on the property will be reduced to 68% of lot coverage from the current 77% that it has now. The building expansion will connect to the existing utilities that are accessed off the road expansion from North Acres.

The site plan also displays 22 proposed parking spaces thus meeting the new parking standards of one space per 300 square feet of floor area. The front parking along North Acres Road now meets the setback from the right of way with the added greenspace.

“I think it looks great,” Commissioner Kate Otto remarked.

“Straightforward, meets the setbacks, not in easements,” Commissioner Dave Hovel agreed.

“The north side of the building has many straight feet of no obstacles. In that 400-page code rewrite didn’t we talk about breaking up long straight surfaces?” Commissioner Steve Most asked.

Hayes said it does say that within the code.

“I believe it’s mainly aimed towards the frontage of the building so anything that’s butting a public street that’s what that would be subject to,” he added.

He said the rear and sides of buildings wouldn’t necessarily be subject to that. Hovel pointed out that that would be the side of the building. Hayes agreed and showed that the side in question would be the side facing Clifton Township.

The commission voted to pass the resolution.

Intermodal containers

City Administrator Matt Wolf addressed the Plan Commission about intermodal containers for exterior storage and residential living units. The city recently received questions about having the storage containers permanently at a residence or using them as residential living units. He asked for feedback.

Wolf reminded them that under the new revisions to the City Code, all commercial, multi-family and industrial buildings must be compatible with the primary structure in terms of character, roof shape, building materials, color and architectural detail.

Wolf asked for input on the following three points regarding intermodal containers:

• In Industrial, Commercial or Residential zoned areas, no permanent intermodal containers are accessory structures.
• Intermodal containers can be kept as temporary storage for residential, commercial and industrial buildings if they don’t exceed 120 days on site.
• Any requests for intermodal containers as residential units will be brought before the Plan Commission for consideration to be accompanied with documentation including scaled drawings, sketches, colored renderings and a narrative description of building materials.

“I don’t think we should have any permanent intermodal containers. Don’t all of our buildings have to have at least a roof and a soffit?” Hovel asked.

Josh Gergen said, “What I’m getting at is, couldn’t you have, if they want it to be permanent, couldn’t they then have to come to plan commission and get it approved and have at least a roof and a soffit?”

“So as long as they put a roof on it and sided it, is that what your saying?” Mayor Rob Daugherty questioned.

“I’m saying they would come before council and say this is my plan, I have a roof and a soffit and you know, maybe you don’t side it because it’s already got metal and it looks kind of like a shed with the metal part,” Gergen explained.  

“It kind of looks like a pretty house in the photo,” Otto remarked.

“They can be,” Gergen agreed.

Otto didn’t see why an individual couldn’t have a metal shed on their property if it was an accessory structure. Daugherty asked what the general size of the structures are; Wolf said they vary in size.

Hovel thought the sizes are 10x20 and 10x40.

“The accessory structure must meet the criteria of a roof and overhang and got to come to the Planning Commission,” Hovel said.

Wolf restated, “Basically what you’re saying is we would do similar as number three. We would allow accessory structures, but we would require at least some sort of color rendering or sketches to make sure that it’s meeting those, and we bring that before you for consideration at that time.”

“Are we doing that for every shed though?” Peterson asked, to which the answer was no. “I don’t think we should bring these to council or planning commission either then. Why can’t they go through All Croix?”

Wolf answered, “I think the point we were making is they have to have higher standards in terms of making sure that they have the color renderings.”

He added that they need to be more than just a metal box, which brought up discussion about current ordinances regarding the structures and how sheds are defined. Peterson maintained that as long as it’s an accessory structure and meets city standards, it doesn’t need to go before council or plan commission.

Hovel pointed out that someone could pull a semi, call it a trailer, park it and say it’s a shed. “Well, it’s a shed, it’s really a semi-trailer but it’s a shed,” he said. “Would you want five of these that got the orange and they’re half rusted sitting next to your house? That’s kind of what we’re looking at.”

Wolf said All Croix reviews it from a building code and planning standpoint. Hayes and Wolf handle requests internally so they would be the ones reviewing it, making sure it meets the criteria of character, roof shape, building materials, color and architectural detail. They can continue to do that; in the last two years, a total of four people have reached out. He explained that it’s not extremely popular, but he wanted to cover a conversation with the commission, so they all agree with the decisions in the future.    

Hovel said if they don’t feel comfortable with a proposal in the future, they could still bring it to the council.

“So we would no longer say no permanent. We would say permanent is allowed as long as they are meeting code,” Wolf asked.

Hovel doesn’t see a problem with individuals using them on their property for a short period of time.

“As long as the short period doesn’t become two years,” he added.

Members agreed structures used as a dwelling unit would have to be up to code and subject to review by the Plan Commission.

Ace Hardware

Hayes informed the Plan Commission that Ace Hardware will no longer be moving into the Churchill building due to engineering delays, building design delays, state review times and changing banking requirements.

“We don’t know what the plan moving forward is from the owners of that building,” he said.

He added the owners don’t have a plan at the moment, but the city might hear from them in the future.

The next Planning Commission meeting is Monday, Nov. 6.