Loading...
Planning Commission Minutes 04-13-1982 . MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, April 13, 1982 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Jim Ridgeway, Ed SChaffer, John Bondhus, and Bill Burke. Members Absent: Joyce Dowling. 1. Approval of Minutes for the March 9, 1982 meeting. A motion was made by Schaffer, seconded by Burke and unanimously carried to accept the minutes as stated. 2. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance Request - Rosewood Corporation. Mr. Howard Rekstad, a partner in the Rosewood corporation, was present to request a variance from Monticello's sign ordinance to allow his corporation to place a for sale sign of 80 square feet on their vacant lot. Present ordinances allow a sign of only 20 square feet. . Mr. Rekstad's request was based on the theory that his property is located adjacent to the freeway and that because traffic moves past that property rather rapidly, it would be necessary to have a large sign which would enable lettering large enough for the fast moving traffic to read legibly. A motion was made by Schaffer to grant the request for six months only, however, this motion died for lack of a second. A motion was made by Burke and seconded by Bondhus to deny the request and the motion passed on a vote of three to one (3 to 1). The planning Commission's concensus for denying this request was that they felt it would be inconsistent with the present sign ordinance in existence within the City of Monticello. 3. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance - Monticello country Club. This item was on the agenda for consideration to allow the Monti- cello Country Club to build a pole type storage building at the Monticello Country Club property which is located in an R-l zone. However, since there was not a representative of the Monticello Country Club present to answer any questions, this item was tabled until the next regular meeting on May 9, 1982 at which time a rep- resentative from the Monticello Country Club could be present to present this proposal and answer any questions which the planning Commission might have. . - I - Planning Commission Minutes - 4/13/82 . 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Amending Monticello Ordinances. At a previous Planning Commission meeting, it was decided to give consideration to amending two Monticello Ordinances at a future public hearing. Monticello ordinance section 10-3-2-(F)-(2) is an existing ordinance which tends to be rather lengthy and wordy, and left room for confusion. Therefore, it was decided that maybe new wording could be given to that ordinance to keep the same meaning but make it more easily understood. As a result, the following ordinance amendment is proposed: No fence, structure, planting, trees or shrubs shall be per- mitted within the visibility area of any corner formed by property lines intersecting with a street or by property lines intersecting with a railway right-of-way. (The visi- bility area referred to above shall be in the form of a triangle with two sides formed by the property lines men- tioned and the third side formed by a straight line connect- ing the two (2) twenty-five (25) foot points on both sides of the corner. . EXCEPTION: 1. Chain link fences with openings of one and five-eighths (1 5/8) inches to two (2) inches and not exceeding a maximum of forty-eight (48) inches in height may be allowed anywhere w~thin the visibility area. 2. Except as provided in Section lO-3-2- (F) (2), fences, plantings, trees or shrubs not over three feet in height may be permitted if not prohibited by other areas of the ordinances. 3. Except as provided in section 10-3-2- (F) (2), fences may be erected on any part of a lot when they are to be located behind the front line of the principal building on that line. 4. Fences over 6 feet in height shall be treated as structures and will require appropriate permits as required. On a motion made by Bondhus and seconded by Burke, this agenda item was unanimously passed and approved, amending this section of the ordinance. . The next ordinance for consideration was Section 10-3-2 (N) where two items were considered to be added to the ordinances which would clarify and add restrictions in so much as the size and location of propane tanks and other fuel storage tanks and also for wood piles. - 2 - . . . planning Commission Minutes - 4/13/82 They were as follows: 5. Propane tanks, fuel oil tanks, and other similar fuel storage tanks which do not exceed 1,000 gallons in capacity and shall not be located within five (5) feet of any property line. 6. Wood piles in which wood is stored for fuel provided that not more than 10 cords shall be stored on any property. NOTE: A cord shall be 4' X 4' X 8'. All wood piles shall be five (5) feet or more from rear and side yard property lines and shall be stored behind the appropriate set back line in front yards. A motion was made by Burke and seconded by Bondhus and unani- mously approved to recommend this ordinance section for passage by the City Council. 5. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Variance - City of Monticello. John Simola, Public Works Director, was present and made a presenta- tion to the planning Commission on his request for a new storage building to be built on the maintenance building property, which is located in an R-l zone, thereby, requiring a variance to be built. The Planning Commission considered those requirements, which are stated in the ordinances, for buildings of this type which are built within an R-l zone which are to be used for public utilities. One main consideration that the Planning Commission had was effective screening around the property. Another consideration was possibly requiring that building to be built big enough to accommodate in- door storage for all materials and equipment. The members of the Planning Commission each expressed their feeling that the City should be more responsible to their ordinances and not request variances. A motion was made by Bondhus, seconded by Schaffer to grant the variance but require that the proposed storage building be either built larger or that additional storage bins be built to accommodate indoor storage for all machinery and materials. All voted in favor of this motion. However, after further discussion of the motion which had previously been passed, a motion was made by Bondhus, seconded by Schaffer and unanimously passed to rescind the previous motion. At this point, Bondhus made a motion which was seconded by Schaffer and unanimously passed to allow the variance for the new building and that an effective screen be built around the perimeter of the maintenance building property which would be consistent with the effective screening which is required by Monticello ordinances. - 3 - Planning Commission Minutes - 4/13/82 . Also, in two years the Planning Commission wants to review the effect of the screening to determine if further requirement should be placed for additional buildings or indoor storage for machinery and materials. \ Lo~en D. e1n Zorling Administrator . - 4 - .