Planning Commission Minutes 03-11-1980
.
.
.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 11, 1980 - 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Ridgeway, Dave Bauer, Dick Martie, John Bondhus,
Ed Schaffer, Loren Klein (ex-officio).
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
1. Approval of Minutes - February 19, 1980.
Motion was made by Dick Martie, seconded by John Bondhus and unanimously
carried to approve the minutes as presented.
2.
from Provisions of Home Occu ation
Shirley Harris, who was previously granted a variance for a beauty shop
in her home at 412 Ramsey Street, which is zoned R-2, would like to
further her variance request to allow her one part-time girl to work
in her shop.
Prior to opening the shop in her home at 412 Ramsey Street, Ms. Harris
was employed in a beauty shop owned by John Gossen. It was due to the
fact that Mr. Gossen planned to close the shop that Ms. Harris requested
to open her own shop in her home. At this time, there is another
beautician who also had worked in Mr. Gossen's shop who would like to
work out of Ms. Harris's home on a part-time basis. Ms. Harris feels
this would be beneficial to both her and the part-time girl as far as
allowing more flexibility.
Ms. Harris indicated that the individual who was considering working part-
time in Ms. Harris's home had now changed her plan, and as a result, she
was now withdrawing her request at the present, but may be coming to the
Planning Commission in the future should another individual be interested.
As a result of the withdrawl, no action was taken on this item.
3. Consideration of a Variance Request and Subdivision of Lots - Lee Hatfield.
Gary DeBoer. on behalf of Mr. Lee Hatfield. is requesting a simple subdi-
vision of lots. This subdivision is of Lots 4 & 5, Block 39, Townsite
of Monticello.
Currently. there is a home located on the southerly part of Lots 4 & 5.
and the proposal would be to divide off the northerly part of Lots 4 & 5
to create a separate. buildable lot.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3/11/80
.
The proposed lot would be 10,032 square feet, and the remalnlng lot would
be 11.728 square feet. Both of these would exceed the 10.000 square foot
requirement which is necessary in an R-2 zone.
Current ordinance requires that a 30' setback be used on the rear yard.
and in this case. only 271 is available. Also. the present ordinance
requires an 80' frontage. while this lot provides only 76'. However.
you may want to consider that at the last Planning Commission meeting,
a recommendation was made to allow a lot with only a 68' frontage.
A motion was made by Dave Bauer. seconded by Ed Schaffer and unanimously
carried to recommend approval of this subdivision and the variance request
with the provision that the certificate of survey be provided for the
subdivision.
4. Review of City Council IS Request for Information from the Planning Commis-
sion Relative to Monticello's Sign Ordinance.
At their February 25. 1980 meeting. the City Council decided to request
the Planning Commission. along with its Planner. review further the
Monticello Sign Ordinance.
.
Reason for the further consideration of the sign ordinance is that under
the present ordinance, all non-conforming signs. including billboards, must
be removed by August 21. 1980. unless there occurs an ordinance amendment.
As a result of a vast amount of input received from property owners and
sign companies. the City Council decided to review the matter further
before it makes a definitive decision whether or not to continue the
ordinance as it exists or make some modifications.
Del Blocher, with Blocher Outdoor Advertising, reviewed his February 25.
1980 letter with the Planning Commission. in which he made certain sugges-
tions as to how the City of Monticello's ordinance could be modified rela-
tive to signs. According to Mr. Blocher. some of the key issues would
be compensation for removal of existing billboards if the City decided to
leave the ordinance as is. and also. the Council may want to consider amor-
tizing out certain types of sign structures. for example - those that have
wooden poles. etc. - and require steel poles.
Mr. Blocher further indicated he was not aware of any city in Minnesota
that had been successful in amortizing out billboards. Most cities he
indicated either have prohibited billboards from the inception of any
type of zoning ordinance. or have grandfathered in those existing bill-
boards. and only disallowed future billboards.
By consensus. the Planning Commission decided to take the matter up of
the sign ordinance at its next regular meeting. April 8. 1980. and
advertise the meeting as a public informational meeting. The purpose
of this type of meeting would be to receive input not only from sign
.
- 2 -
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 3/11/80
. companies and property owners whose land might have a sign on it, but also
other interested parties, citizens, etc., it was decided that a notice would
be put in the paper to encourage people to submit their input, or actually
attend the meeting itself.
5. Consideration of Review of Monticello Ordinances Relative to the Planning
Commission and Planning and Zoning, and also Comprehensive Plan.
John Bondhus indicated that he felt the Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed
more frequently, and suggested that the Plan be reviewed in sections in the
coming months. Mr. Bondhus further indicated he felt that some of the
ordinances, specifically in reference to the Planning Commission, such as
the ordinance calling for hearings at 7:45 P.M. when actually they take
place at 7:30 P.M., along with the requirement that each Planning Commis-
sion be sworn in, be reviewed to determine if it was necessary, or if
these type of ordinances should be eliminated. There was some discussion
on the merits of periodic review, and additionally, it was mentioned
that possibly the City should review the home occupation ordinance
relative to types of occupations that are allowed in residential zones.
Although no definite dates were set up for review of these items, it was
felt that since the Planning Commission was currently reviewing the sign
ordinance, that maybe these other items could be taken up in the near future.
.
Meeting adjourned.
d: 1Fmber UJ~
City dministrator
GW/ns
.
- 3 -