Loading...
City Council Minutes 03-12-1984MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL March 12, 1984 - 7:30 P.M. Members Present: Arve A. Grimsmo, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen, Fran Fair, Ken Maus. Members Absent: None. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 27, 1984. 3. Citizens Comments/Petitions, Re uests and Comj2laints. Mr. John Sandberg was present to comment on what he thought was a large amount of sign variance request the Council has considered over the past number of years. Mr. Sandberg noted that presently the Planning Commission and City Council are considering ordinance amendments to facilitate multiple use buildings such as Metcalf and Larson's professional building, etc. It was his opinion that if sign ordinance variances are continually granted, maybe the City Council and Planning Commission should look at changing the sign ordinance for all businesses or otherwise eliminate variances and stick to the Ordinance as written. 4. Consideration of a Proposal to Rehabilitate Highway 25 and the Mississippi River Bridge. For the past few months, the City's Consulting Planner, Howard Dahlgren, has been working with the MN/DOT representatives and local business interest to arrive at a solution that would be agreeable to all parties regarding the proposed Highway 25 improve- ments. Mr. Dahlgren was present at the meeting to explain that the meetings have resulted in what he determines to be a workable solution for the planned improvements from I-94 to the Mississippi River. Mr. Dahlgren noted that two traffic engineers were hired by his firm to review the MN/DOT plans, which initially called for four lanes of traffic from I-94 to River Street with raised channelization barriers and left turn lanes. Businesses located along Highway 25 from Third Street to River Street previously opposed plans for raised islands that would eliminate left turn lanes into mid -block accesses. The Minnesota MN/DOT felt that mid -block left turn accesses would create traffic hazards and would not be the proper way to improve Highway 25. - 1 - Council Minutes - 3/12/84 Mr. Dahlgren summarized to the Council the solution arrived at between the MN/DOT and property owners as follows: 1. Highway 25 would be improved from Fourth Street intersection to River Street with two lanes of traffic in both directions with a center striped median that could be used for left turn lanes from both directions. 2. Highway 25 from Fourth Street to I-94 would be constructed with four lanes of traffic with left turn lanes at intersections with a raised concrete median barrier. 3. The proposal for a striped median from Fourth Street to River Street would only be acceptable by MN/DOT if there was only one mid -point access on each of the blocks, which would result in the Wright County State Bank and the National Bushing property sharing one common access point, and also the Northwest Medical Clinic eliminating their driveway and using one access point,which is currently an alley. 4. The public sidewalk from Fourth Street to River Street would now be 9 feet wide instead of the originally proposed 5 foot sidewalk. Mr. Jim Weingartz of the Minnesota Department of Transportation noted that his Department felt comfortable with the plans as amended and felt that this would be a workable solution to the problems. In addition he noted that MN/DOT still plans to hopefully start con- struction on the Highway 25 improvements in 1985 with the bridge being started in 1986. Representatives of the Wright County State Bank, National Bushing Auto Parts, and the Northwest Clinic all indicated their approval of the proposed layout and agreed to work on a solution for a common access at mid -block for their properties. In addition, Mr. McDonald, owner of the Mall property, also felt the elimination of a left turn lane into the Mall would be no problem provided Seventh Street is accommodated with a stop light. Questions were raised as to whether MN/DOT had ever considered the possibility of installing a street light on Fourth Street, especially for additional pedestrian traffic in this location. Mr. Weingartz noted that at the present time this location does not meet MN/DOT's requirements in either traffic volume or accidents to warrant a stop light. This intersection, along with others, would be reviewed at later dates to determine when such stop lights are necessary. - 2 - Council Minutes - 3/12/84 Motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution requesting that MN/DOT proceed with the improvements of Trunk Highway 25 and agreeing to enter into an agreement with the State whereby the City of Monticello shall pay its share of the cost of the requested improvements. Motion was also made by Maxwell, seconded by Fair, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution approving the preliminary layout plans as presented for improvement of Highway 25 consisting mainly of the raised median from the railroad tracks to I-94 with the Fourth Street to River Street portion being a striped median. See Resolution 1984 #4 and #5. 5. Consideration of Acquiring the Bob Saxon Property as an Addition to East Bridge Park. Last fall Mr. and Mrs. Saxon appeared before the Planning Commission and Council to request a variance to build a garage. At that time, the City postponed any decision on the variance request because of the proposed reconstruction of Highway 25 and the new Mississippi Bridge. The notion at that time was that the Saxon property would make an adequate replacement property for the land lost because of the bridge construction. During preliminary negotiations, Mr. Saxon had requested $70,000 for his property while an informal appraisal by the City placed the value at approximately $54,000. Because the City was aware that the State of Minnesota would reimburse the City in part for the land they would be taking, the City post- poned any decision on the acquisition of Saxon's property until it could be determined what amount the State might reimburse the City. Recently, the State of Minnesota completed an appraisal of the Saxon property at $55,000, which would likely reflect an amount the City could expect in reimbursement for acquiring this property in exchange for the park land given up for the new bridge. MN/DOT also presented an agreement for exchange of land that the City would have to enter into to receive funds for acquisition of re- placement park lands. The agreement also stipulates that the band shell in East Bridge Park would be moved or relocated by the State and that the City would accept liability for use of the pedestrian walkway under the new bridge. Mr. Saxon was contacted regarding MN/DOT's appraisal of $55,000 for his property, and an offer was made for this amount for his property. Mr. Saxon was generally agreeable to the $55,000 price for his property provided an additional $4,500 extra was included to cover his relocation cost, to cover his cost in purchasing his new home. In addition to the total $59,500 asking price, Mr. Saxon also wanted to have the right to salvage some of the interior items such as carpeting, a newly installed bathtub, and some new cabinets from the home. - 3 - Council Minutes - 3/12/84 Some concerns were expressed by Council members over offering Mr. Saxon salvage rights to items within the home,as this would then leave the home unrentable by the City. It was noted that the house would not have to be torn down immediately for park expansion but could be developed later after the bridge is completed and the bandstand is relocated. In addition, it was felt that an offer of $59,500 should be sufficient and is con- sistent with the appraisals obtained without any salvage rights. As a result, motion was made by Fair, seconded by Maus, and unanimously carried to offer Mr. Saxon $59,500 for his property for park replacement purposes provided the house is left intact suitable for rental purposes if necessary. It was noted that if the City should decide within the next 30 days not to rent the house but to tear it down, Mr. Saxon would be given an opportunity to remove items he requested. Motion was also made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to enter into an agreement with MN/DOT for the exchange of land that would provide approximately $55,000 for the City to purchase replacement property contingent upon language being inserted in the agreement that would relieve the City of any liability for design flaws or construction flaws not under the City's control. This additional wording was recommended by the City Attorney after re- viewing the agreement. 6. Consideration of a Request for a Conditional Use and a Variance Request to Allow Signs in Excess of Ordinance Requirements, Applicant - Metcalf and Larson. At the February 27 Council meeting, the Council recommended that the Planning Commission hold a special meeting to further study the Conditional Use and Variance Request application submitted by Metcalf and Larson for sign variances. The City staff, through the City Attorney's office, prepared an amendment which was adopted into an interim rule amending the City's sign ordinance addressing the conditional use requirement for multiple businesses within one building and sign area allotment. City Administrator explained to the Council that it was the staff's opinion the ordinance section regarding multiple businesses within one building had an error and should have referred only to shopping centers. The present ordinance allowed multiple businesses to only have a 5% of the gross silhouette area as sign area to be divided amongst all the occupants whereas a single occupant in a single building would be allowed 20%. The interim rule amending this ordinance section was intended to clarify the error in the ordinance without officially going through a public hearing process. However, at the special Planning Commission meeting, the interim rule was challenged by a Monticello citizen, John Sandberg, as to - 4 - Council Minutes - 3/12/84 its legality. As a result, the Planning Commission did not adopt the interim rule but recommended that the proper public hearing notice for an ordinance amendment be instituted to clarify this matter. It was noted by the City Administrator that a public hearing to consider an ordinance amendment for this section has been scheduled for Monday, March 26, at 6:00 P.M., and that no action is necessary by the Council at this time. 7. Meadow Oak EIS Scoking Meeting. The public comment period on the Meadow Oak Environmental Assessment Worksheet closed on February 29, and the City Council, as the responsible governmental unit, is supposed to consider all comment received during the comment period and then determine the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement that is required by the Environmental Quality Board. In order to avoid having to do an Environmental Impact Statement, Mr. Dickman Knutson was present at the Council meeting and indicated that they plan to reduce the size of their project in Meadow Oaks by approximately 60 units so that they come under the threshold for a mandatory Environmental Impact Statement. With the present size of the proposed Meadow Oak Development, the developers have no choice but to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, but with the proposed 60 unit reduction, an EIS would no longer be mandatory. The developers would still have to again prepare a revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet addressing the same issues which would again be open for public comment. At the end of the comment period, the new Environmental Assessment Worksheet on the reduced project would come back to the City Council for a determination as to whether or not the developer must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. If, at that time, all technical data is clearly indisputable and answers all of the environmental questions, the Council may determine that an EIS is not necessary and the project may proceed. It was noted that the City Council can still require the developers to completely address any problems with storm water runoff or any contributions of runoff to County Ditch 33 even without an Environmental Impact Statement being required. Councilman Maus suggested that since a major concern with the Meadow Oak development seems to be related to storm water runoff and whether the proposed ponding areas within the development can actually hold all of the runoff, possibly the City should consider having a third independent engineer review the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and the development in general to see what their opinion is. He felt that if a third independent party substantiates - 5 - Council Minutes - 3/12/84 the present claim that the development would not contribute any water to County Ditch 33, this should satisfy the City Council and Township residents concerned over this issue. Township resident Gene Bauer indicated to the Council that he would feel better if the present 18 inch culvert leading into County Ditch 33 from Meadow Oak Development was removed, as then he would know that Meadow Oaks runoff could not enter County Ditch 33. Mr. Bauer also had concerns over the accuracy of the engineering studies done on the Meadow Oak Development, as he feels the preliminary reports have different figures on the amount of water that could be retained in the holding ponds and questioned why the City Engineer would prepare alternatives for runoff water if the ponding area was considered adequate in the first place. As a result of the discussions, motion was made by Maus, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to formally direct the developers of the Meadow Oak Subdivision to prepare a new Environmental Assessment Worksheet on their reduced development size and direct the City Administrator to obtain the services of an independent engineer to review the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and the development in general to see if there would be any problems with storm water runoff. All cost associated with the independent engineer would be the responsibility of the developers as part of the EAW . 8. Consideration of Waiving the Fee for a Liquor License on a Proposed Project Mr. Stuart Hoglund was present at the Council meeting and noted that he has recently applied for a liquor license for his proposed motel project he is planning in the near future. The City's current ordinance requires that before a liquor license can be held for an applicant, the applicant is required to pay on a pro rata basis the annual fee, in this case amounting to $1,650 for the last half of the license period ending July 1, 1983. Mr. Hoglund requested that he would have no use for the liquor license until after the renewal period beginning July 1, 1984, and requested that the half year fee for the first half of 1984 be waived. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by carried to waive the license fee for the for the first half of 1984 but to accept for an on -sale liquor license effective i L/ GCI �'— Rick Wolfste , er Assistant Administrator - 6 - Maus, and unanimously on -sale liquor license Mr. Hoglund's application July 1, 1984.