City Council Minutes 01-6-2009 Special Joint Planning CommissionMINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING -JOINT WORKSHOP
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
January 6th, 2009
City Council Members Present: Clint Herbst, Tom Perrault, Glen Posusta, and
Susie Wojchouski
City Council Members Absent: Brian Stumpf
Planning Commission Present: Rod Dragsten, Charlotte Gabler, Lloyd Hilgart, Bill Spartz,
Barry Voight
Planning Commission Members Absent: None
1. Call to order.
The meeting convened at 5:10 PM with a full quorum of the Planning Commission and a
number of City Council present.
2. Consideration to review and discuss a draft amendment to Chapter 3 of the
Monticello Zoning Ordinance related to signs.
Community Development Director Angela Schumann provided an introduction to the
workshop. Schumann explained that the Planning Commission had called for an
amendment to the Sign Ordinance in advance of an anticipated full scale ordinance
revision due to the number of variance requests and inconsistencies within that portion of
the code.
Schumann noted that two public meetings had been held to gather input for the
preparation of a draft amendment. Subsequently, the Planning Commission held two
agenda item discussions on the prepared draft. The Commission recommended changes
during those meetings, which are reflected in the version distributed to the Planning
Commission and Council for this workshop. Additionally, Schumann related that a
presentation to the Government Affairs Committee of the Chamber of Commerce was
held and additional feedback had been garnered during that session.
Schumann stated that the purpose of the workshop was to provide an overview of the
proposed draft sign ordinance to the City Council and to allow the Council members a
chance to ask questions and provide feedback.
Consulting Planner Steve Grittman provided a presentation highlighting the amendment
process to date and the primary changes to the sign ordinance. Grittman stated that the
sign ordinance would become a separate chapter of the Zoning Ordinance, rather than a
chapter included in the ordinance itself. He noted that the intent of the revision is also to
make the ordinance more readable and user-friendly for property owners, staff and City
officials.
Grittman stated that in terms of the structure, the proposed ordinance now includes a set
of definitions, a purpose statement, and a listing of permitted and prohibited signs. Then
two sets of regulations are conveyed, those for residential, and those for commercial
industrial.
Grittman noted that the two areas of most change were in relationship to temporary
signage and dynamic signage. The ordinance provides expanded flexibility for temporary
signage through sandwich boards and use of the Public/Semi-Public District for non-
profit temporary signage. In terms of dynamic displays, the ordinance provides
additional detail encompassing today's technologic advances in signs. Grittman
explained that the Planning Commission was not unanimous on some of the provisions of
the dynamic display regulation. It was also noted that the draft ordinance does provide
some incentive clauses as related to message boards and monument signage.
Grittman concluded by stating that the next step would be to incorporate tables and
graphic illustrations into the document where noted, then to bring that draft to another
public comment session. Pending outcomes of that session, the draft would go to
Planning Commission in a public hearing and finally to the City Council.
Grittman opened the workshop to questions and comments.
Bill Seefeldt, owner of Electro Industries, Monticello, addressed the Council and
Commission, requesting clarification on where "uniformity" discussed by Grittman was
conveyed within the new ordinance. Grittman responded that the uniformity comes in the
way that commercial and industrial districts are addressed and how the regulations are
applied.
Councilmember Posusta inquired about the City's ability to regulate proper orientation of
signage. Grittman indicated that was most likely a content issue, which falls under 1St
Amendment protections. He indicated that it is a gray area. Posusta also asked for
clarification on sandwich board placement and timing. Grittman noted that this
ordinance allows sandwich boards to be placed out every day during hours of operation
for each business. In essence, each tenant of amulti-tenant building could have its own
sandwich board in addition to sharing the 40 days per building of temporary sign
allowance.
Charlie Pfeffer, Pfeffer Companies of Maple Grove, inquired about provisions for pylon
signage. Grittman responded that pylon signage is still allowed and that the freeway
bonus district allowing for additional heights for freeway exposure purposes had been
retained in this draft.
Schumann stated that the draft ordinance would be placed online and that notice of a
public forum on the ordinance would be posted on line and in the newspaper.
3. Adiourn
With no further comments, the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 PM.
Recording Secretary