City Council Minutes 03-28-2005MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING — MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday March 28, 2005 — 7 p.m.
Members Present: Clint Herbst, Wayne Mayer, Torn Perrault, Glen Posusta and Brian
Stumpf.
Members Absent: None
1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Herbst called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. and declared a quorum present. The Pledge
of Allegiance was said.
2A. Approve minutes of March 14, 2005 rel4ular Council meeting.
Tom Perrault noted two corrections: 1) Agenda Item #5M — Glen Posusta seconded the motion
and the motion passed unanimously; 2) Agenda Item #I I -Kramer House — Tom Perrault voted
in opposition on the motion.
TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 14, 2005
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING WITH THE CORRECTIONS NOTED. GLEN POSUSTA
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2B. Approve minutes of March 14, 2005 Workshop meeting.
GLEN POSUSTA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 14, 2005
WORKSHOP MEETING. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3. Consideration of addinj4 items to the agenda.
Glen Posusta added a discussion of the Motor Vehicle Building to the agenda. Brian Stumpf
asked that agenda items #10 and #11 be moved to the consent agenda. Tom Perrault requested
that item #11 remain on the regular agenda.
4. Citizen comments, petitions, requests and complaints.
Mayor Herbst noted that a number of residents were present concerning the feasibility report
for the Chelsea Road Extension and he stated they would have an opportunity to speak on that
item when it came up for discussion.
5. Consent Agenda.
A. Consideration of new hires and departures. Recommendation: Ratify the hires and
departures for the MCC and Liquor Store as identified.
B. Consideration of approving appointment of EDA Commissioner. Recommendation:
Approve the appointment of Susie Wojchouski as commissioner of EDA with her term
to expire in December 2008.
C. Consideration of renewing uniform contract with Aramark Uniform Service.
Recommendation: Approve a new contract with Aramark Uniform Service for two
years beginning April 29, 2005 based upon rates contained in the proposal at an
estimated annual cost of $6,750 excluding tax.
D. Consideration of accepting feasibility report and setting a public hearing date for the
Chelsea Road Extension (901h Street to CSAH 39), School Boulevard (Chelsea Road to
1,330 feet south) and Northwest Lift Station and Forcemain, City Project No. 2005-
11C. Recommendation: Accept the feasibility report for City Project No. 2005-11C
and set the public hearing for April 11, 2005.
E. Consideration of adopting a resolution requesting MnDOT to install advanced
intersection signing on TH 25 for Dundas Road, City Project No. 2005-19C.
Recommendation: Adopt the resolution requesting MnDOT to install advanced
intersection signing on TH 25 for Dundas Road.
F. Consideration of accepting feasibility report and ordering public hearing for
School Boulevard Sidewalk and Median Improvements (Deegan Avenue to Edmonson
Avenue), City Project No. 2004-31 C. Recommendation: Accept the feasibility report
and order the public hearing for April 11, 2005.
G. Consideration of adopting first amendment to the Otter Creek Pre -development
Agreement. Recommendation: Move to adopt the Otter Creek Pre -development
agreement relating to design and funding of storm sewer facilities.
H. Consideration of approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for
bids for the Trunk Sanitary Sewer Extension, Southeast Interceptor/Bondhus Segment
and Appurtenant Improvements, City Project No. 2000-12C. Recommendation:
Adopt a resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for
bids for the Trunk Sanitary Sewer Extension, Southeast Interceptor/Bondhus Segment
and Appurtenant Improvements, City Project No. 2000-12C.
Consideration of calling for a special meeting on CSAR 18/I-94 Interchange, City
Project No. 2004-01C. Recommendation: Move to call for a special meeting on the
CSAH 18/I-94 Interchange, City Project No. 2004 -OIC to be held on April 4, 2005 at
5:00 p.m.
Wayne Mayer asked that items #5C, #5D and #5E be pulled from the consent agenda. Glen
Posusta requested that items #5F and#5H be pulled from the consent agenda.
GLEN POSUSTA MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE
REMOVAL OF ITEMS #5C, 4513, #535 #5F AND #5H AND THE ADDITION OF ITEM #10.
WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
#SC Uniform Contract: Wayne Mayer asked if there are other vendors who provide this
�- service. Public Works Director, John Simola indicated that over the years the City had a
number of vendors provide the service. After researching costs staff is recommending a
contract with Aramark Services. Wayne Mayer asked if any consideration had been given to
providing a clothing allowance rather than contracting with a vendor. John Simola noted there
is a contract allowance in the union contract that allows up to $400.
WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO APPROVE A CONTRACT WITH ARAMARK UNIFORM
SERVICES FOR A TWO YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING APRIL 29, 2005 BASED UPON
THE RATE IN THE PROPOSAL DATED MARCH 9, 2005 AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF
$6,750 EXCLUDING TAXES. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
#SD Feasibility Report Chelsea Road Extension: Jeff O' Neill provided some information
on the scope of the proposed project which would extend Chelsea Road from 90th Street to
CSAH 39 and to extend School Boulevard south from Chelsea Road for 1330 feet. He noted
this project was integral to the development of the Chadwick property and the City owned
industrial park. Jeff O'Neill also reviewed the increase in the estimated cost which was the
result of the proposed landscaping along Chelsea Road ($120,000); excavation of poor soils
($90,000); improvements to CSAH 39 required by the County ($80,000) and retaining wall
and guardrail in the area of Chelsea Road adjacent to Otter Creek ($55,000). Jeff O'Neill also
indicated that John Chadwick had additional information on the tree planting.
Clint Herbst stated that a number of residents were present because of their concerns about
where Chelsea Road comes onto CSAH 39 and the layout of future right of way as shown on
Figure 4 of the report. Jeff O'Neill replied the Chelsea Road alignment attempted to reduce the
number of 90 degree turns. Glen Posusta stated that the residents were concerned about the
volume of traffic going through the area and he asked why the proposed future right of way
was not being put in now. Clint Herbst pointed out that there is housing in the area of the
proposed future right of way and there is also the cost issue of going over Otter Creek. At this
time the traffic volume is not that great so the need is not there to do it immediately.
Jeff O'Neill stated that Heritage Development wants to make CSAH 39 more of a collector
street. Costs and the question of need was why the future right of way was not included in the
project at this time. Wayne Mayer asked if any consideration was given to having Chelsea
Road intersect with CSAH 39 at 110th . He stated this would be the leading edge of the
Heritage Development. Jeff O'Neill stated it was not considered because of the number of
homes affected, the distance involved and also concern about channeling traffic from Heritage
Development through the Bondhus residential development.
Mayor Herbst then opened the discussion up to allow for comments from the residents.
Jerry Crocker, 3109 County Road 39 NE, owns part of the land where the proposed future
right of way would extend. He suggested the City look at how this going to affect the present
land owners. He felt the City should be working with the land owners on this. Clint Herbst
stated that a public hearing is being proposed on this project for April 11, 2005 so residents
would have another opportunity to speak at that time.
( Brian Stumpf stated his concern about the future right of way is because of the impact it would
have on the current property owners. Jerry Crocker said he would feel more comfortable if
there was no reference to any future right of way in the feasibility report. Jeff O'Neill
responded that this future alignment of Chelsea Road is something that could benefit the
community but it is not cast in concrete that this future alignment will happen. Brian Stumpf
added that the future alignment is not being considered as part of this project.
Audrey Hoglund Ross, 3058 County Road 39 NE also owns property that is affected by the
proposed future alignment for Chelsea Road. She suggested that Chelsea Road intersect with
CSAH 39 at 110th. She pointed out that there are power lines in that area making the property
less desirable for development but suitable for roadway purposes. Clint Herbst stated that it was
not a bad idea since at this time the City has more control over the site. He added that it would
be very expensive for the City to go across Otter Creek. Audrey Hoglund Ross felt it was safer
to have the intersection at 110th rather than Dalton Avenue. Brian Stumpf noted that with the
Heritage Development there may be an interchange at Orchard Road and if that is the case there
will not be as much traffic going on CSAH 39 and Chelsea Road. Clint Herbst stated that these
are ideas that the City would want the engineer to look at.
John Chadwick, 11430 Zion Circle, Bloomington, developer of property in the area stated that
this project was being fast tracked as far as time. He noted that there are areas of bad soils
that would need correction. He added that under his agreement with the City he is obligated to
pay 79% of the street costs. He stated that the report incorrectly identified the zoning for the
area as C/I when the zoning is actually B-4. He also said he had concerns about section 4.9 on
page 8 and how the proposed landscaping work would affect his costs.
Steve Schillewaert, 3085 CSAH 39 is a property owner that will also be affected by the
proposed road. He questioned why the road had to be curved and why it could not have the 90
degree turns. He felt the future right of way should be taken out of the project as he felt
specifying this as a future right of way would effectively eliminate the City from looking at any
other options.
Clint Herbst noted at this time the YMCA is just beginning to think about the development of
their property so it would be premature to be planning for streets in that area. Glen Posusta
stated at this point the City doesn't know what will happen with the YMCA site but the City
does need to get Chelsea Road extended for the industrial park and the Chadwick development.
Steve Schillewaert reiterated his concern that by showing this future right of way in the report
now, it impacts how he can use his property. It doesn't make any difference when alignment
happens, it impacts his property. Brian Stumpf stated he would like to see the reference to a
future right of way eliminated from the feasibility report. Clint Herbst agreed and added that if
the City looks at alternative alignments at some point in the future the property owners will be
contacted. He also noted that he does not expect the road will carry that much traffic that the
road alignment could not worked out to accommodate those homes.
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
EXTENSION OF CHELSEA ROAD FROM 90TH STREET TO CSAH 39 AND SCHOOL
BOULEVARD FROM CHELSEA ROAD TO 1330 FEET SOUTH AND THE NORTHWEST
LIFT STATION AND FORCEMANIN, CITY PROJECT NO. 2005-11 C WITH THE
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE REFERENCE TO FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY FOR
CHELSEA ROAD AT CSAH 39 WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE REPORT AND TO SET
A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF APRIL 11 2005. GLEN POSUSTA SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Glen Posusta said the City will have the engineer look at the options the residents suggested
when studying any future alignment.
#SE Dundas Road Signing: Kevin Kawlewski provided background information on the cost
of the signs and proposed installation. Wayne Mayer asked if the signs would be on both sides
of the intersection. Kevin Kawlewski indicated they would be. The signs are estimated to cost
between $300-$400 each.
WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION REQUESTING MNDOT TO
INSTALL ADVANCED INTERSECTION SIGNING ON TH 25 FOR DUNDAS ROAD.
TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
#SF School Boulevard Median Improvements: Glen Posusta questioned paragraph #2 in the
report. He felt that the project should be including the traffic signal at School Boulevard and
Cedar Street and questioned whether the $1.2 million estimate included the cost of a traffic
signal. Glen Posusta stated he was under the impression that Wal-Mart was paying for this
signal. John Simola stated he had talked with Chuck Rickart of WSB and he indicated that
there would be a future light but at this time the intersection does not meet warrants for a traffic
signal. John Simola was of the understanding that Wal-Mart had paid for a portion of the
signal. Glen Posusta questioned why the City was doing the project if they were not putting the
signal in.
Charlie Pfeffer representing Ocello stated that Ocello and Wal-Mart have pre -paid for the
improvements to School Boulevard and they have agreed to each pay half for the signal at
Cedar Street once the light meets warrants. Brian Stumpf questioned who determines when
the signal goes in. Kevin Kawlewski said the engineer determines when warrants have been
met.
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO ACCEPT THE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE SCHOOL
BOULEVARD SIDEWALK AND MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS AND TO SET A PUBLIC
HEARING FOR APRIL 11, 2005. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Glen Posusta asked why the City had to make improvement on Deegan Avenue and requested
that the engineer bring this information forward at the public hearing.
#SH Sanitary Sewer Interceptor (SE/Bondhus): Glen Posusta asked that this be tabled
because of a number of issues such as AVR. In previous conversations with John Bondhus he
had talked about running the pipe through his property instead of zigzagging around it. Clint
Herbst stated that John Bondhus had mentioned that to him as well. Kevin Kawlewski said
they had talked to Mr. Bondhus and he indicated that the problem with going through the
property is that Mr. Bondhus is proposing to expand his building and because of that he would
prefer that the sewer line go around his property rather than have the line running under his
building.
Glen Posusta was also concerned about the number of trees that would be destroyed in the
process of constructing the project. He felt the alignment should be done going through areas
without as many trees. Glen Posusta said he would like to table this item at least until the next
meeting to get some of these questions answered. Wayne Mayer stated he had walked the area
and he noted the tree line is in the high area. He agreed with Glen Posusta that this item should
be pulled. Kevin Kawlewski said they did look at staying on the south side but there was
storm sewer and paving in that area that would have to be replaced if the line was constructed
there. Kevin Kawlewski indicated that in going across the Bondhus property the line would be
20'-25' deep. Wayne Mayer felt that the alignment of this pipe should dictated by the property
owner not the City. Glen Posusta said that 60'-70' away from the track there are no trees.
Glen Posusta felt this item should be tabled until John Bondhus could be talked to and the City
Engineer could address these other issues. Kevin Kawlewski stated that tabling the item for
two weeks would still allow them to make their construction schedule.
GLEN POSUSTA MOVED TO TABLE APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE TRUNK SANITARY
SEWER EXTENSION UNTIL THE APRIL 1 1, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING. WAYNE
MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
7. Public Hearing — 2005 Street Reconstruction Proiect, City Proiect No. 2005-01C, accept
feasibility report, conduct public hearing and order preparation of plans and
specifications.
Kevin Kawlewski from WSB & Associates made a presentation outlining the scope of the
project, estimated cost of the improvement and how the project would be funded. Clint Herbst
asked if the engineer had reviewed the letter submitted by Tom Bose regarding the project.
Kevin Kawlewski stated he had an opportunity to talk with Tom Bose on this.
Kevin Kawlewski stated that the proposed project is part of a program to reconstruct streets
within the City. The scope of the project for 2005 has been cut back from what was originally
proposed. Under the current proposal the City would be widening River Street to 32 feet and
the other streets to 28 feet. The street surface would be reconstructed and curb and gutter
would be installed in those areas that currently do not have it. The project would include storm
water improvements and repairs to sanitary sewer and water mains as needed. It is also
proposed that a sidewalk or bituminous pathway be constructed along River Street.
The merits of installing a concrete sidewalk versus an 8' bituminous trail was discussed. While
the initial construction cost for concrete sidewalk would be higher ($43,000 for the sidewalk,
$19,000 for the bituminous trail), the concrete sidewalk would have an expected life of 40
years and the trail would be about half that. In addition the sidewalk is generally maintained by
the property owner as far as snow removal and the trail would have to be maintained by the
City.
Kevin Kawlewski reviewed the project cost of $1,207,750 which includes $667,000 in street
improvements, $36,850 sanitary sewer improvements, $100,150 water main improvements and
$403,750 for storm sewer improvements. Funding for the project would come from the
sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer utility funds. There would be a $500,000 contribution
from the Street Reconstruction fund and approximately $241,550 to be assessed against the
property affected by this project (approximately 58 lots). The $241,550 represents the 20% of
the project costs that is necessary to be assessed if the City is going to bond for this project.
Kevin Kawlewski reviewed the assessment procedures. Single family residential will be
assessed the same rate based on their access. If a property has two accesses they would receive
two assessments. New improvements such as service replacements would be charged to the
property owner at full cost. Kevin Kawlewski stated that the assessment rate if 20% of the
project cost was assessed would be $4,165/lot; if 30% of the project cost was assessed the cost
would be $6,247/lot and if 40% of the cost was assessed it would be $8,239/lot. He noted that
when the street reconstruction program commenced a residential rate was set at $2,500 per lot
and that flat rate was adjusted annually for construction price index. If the City was using that
same formula the cost per lot would be $5,370/lot. Kevin Kawlewski also reviewed a typical
assessment as it would appear if spread over 10 years at 5.25% interest.
John Simola asked on the storm sewer whether the sale of a city owned lot no longer needed for
storm sewer use was included in the project costs figures. Kevin Kawlewski said no. Brian
Stumpf asked if the street improvement cost included the construction of the sidewalk. Kevin
Kawlewski indicated it did.
Glen Posusta asked about the Council's wish to keep the lot cost down. Kevin Kawlewski
stated that they showed a 20% assessment because that is the amount needed if the City is
going to bond for the project. Glen Posusta felt the City should be picking up more of the cost.
Brian Stumpf added that the City had previously talked about increasing the amount of the
annual levy for the street reconstruction fund.
Brian Stumpf felt the cost savings by going with bituminous trail instead of sidewalk should be
considered and he noted that there are grants available for trail construction that the City could
apply for. Jeff O'Neill stated that the application date has passed to receive any funding for
this project. John Simola stated that the pathway is more conducive to biking and for that
reason is wider, 8 feet while the sidewalk would be 6'. He added that with sidewalk the
property owner is required to keep it clear of snow and free of obstructions. John Simola felt
the concrete sidewalk would be more cost effective. Tom Perrault questioned whether the
pathway was needed. He stated he didn't see any more intensive use than what is there now.
He questioned why the City should put the assessments for a sidewalk or pathway on the
homeowners and have the City incur the cost of maintaining it. Tom Perrault said he didn't
feel the need for a sidewalk or pathway in this area. Clint Herbst agreed with Tom Perrault but
felt the homeowners should make the determination if they wanted a sidewalk in the area.
Clint Herbst felt by increasing River Street to 32 feet you a providing an area for walkers.
Mayor Herbst then opened the public hearing.
Ed Solberg, 1204 Sandy Lane asked when construction was planned to start. Kevin
Kawlewski indicated it would be mid-June or July. He also asked about his sprinkler system
- and how that would be handled when the street is widened since a portion of his system could
be in the right of way. Kevin Kawlewski indicated he was not sure how it would be handled
but would check that out.
Cathy Grott, 925 West River Street, asked about scheduling as she has a wedding planned and
would prefer not to have to deal with a torn up street at the same time as the wedding. Kevin
Kawlewski said they would have a better idea after the construction meeting with the contractor
as to when things would be happening. Cathy Grott also asked about disconnecting services
and Kevin Kawlewski indicated it would only be done if it was in need of repair. She also
asked if the City was going to allow homeowners the option of having their driveway done
when the street work was done. Kevin Kawlewski stated in the past the City's construction
observer had handled that but the City didn't have formal procedures in place for having
private work done as part of a construction project. Clint Herbst suggested that City look at
doing this on future projects. Kevin Kawlewski noted that the property owner could have the
driveway cost included in his assessment amount or they could pay for it directly.
Kim Mitchell, 1104 West River Street felt if the City widened the street, they didn't need the
sidewalk. She also wanted to know if she would be notified when construction starts as she has
some trees and lilacs she wants to move before the work starts. She noted that they have water
standing on their property and asked how that would be addressed.
Mary DeMars, 825 West River, stated they live on the east side of Chestnut Street and wanted
to know if they would be assessed. Kevin Kawlewski said they would not be assessed but they
were notified so that they would be aware of the construction activity in their area.
Jim Melville, 1137 West River Street asked about the widening of the street. Kevin Kawlewski
indicated that River Street would be widened from 28' to 32'.
Arlene McIntire, 1120 West River Street, asked how her lot, which is 125' would be assessed.
Kevin Kawlewski stated that unless she had more that one driveway access she would receive
one residential assessment. He added that an assessment would be held when the project was
completed and at that point costs would be finalized. Arlene McIntire wanted to know if the
City allowed the option of partially pre -paying the assessment. The City Administrator will let
her know the City's policy on that.
Dave Brouillard, 1128 West River Street. stated he has a corner lot and wanted to know how
that would be assessed. Kevin Kawlewski said unless they had driveway access on both
streets there would only be one assessment. He also asked about the type of curb that would be
installed and whether it would be the surmountable type. Kevin Kawlewski said they would
look at that and he pointed out that the B 16 and surmountable curb are similar in price. Mr.
Brouillard also indicated he had plantings he wanted to move before things were torn up and
asked if they would be getting individual notice as to when the work would start. Kevin
Kawlewski indicated that there would information on the project sent out to the property
owners.
Dan Grue, 1136 West River Street also stated his concern about the sidewalk. He felt there
was not a lot of traffic in the area and questioned the need for the sidewalk. Kevin Kawlewski
stated that it was the Council's decision on whether the sidewalk is constructed. Kevin
Kawlewski said that the trail that is being proposed is part of the comprehensive plan. Jeff
O'Neill said under City's design standards the sidewalk would be required. Clint Herbst
stated that while he agrees the sidewalks are an amenity to the neighborhood he felt with the
street being widened, the sidewalk wasn't justified. Clint Herbst suggested that the City could
delete the sidewalk from the project and if the property owners wanted it they could petition for
it. Brian Stumpf said that the Council has to determine if safety issues are involved that would
require a sidewalk be installed.
John Simola stated that the City will be working with Xcel to improve the lighting in that area
and this work is not included in the project cost. Clint Herbst then closed the public hearing.
Clint Herbst said he would like more input from the residents on whether they want the
sidewalk or not. Clint Herbst stated he thought the City was going to aim for an assessment
amount of $2500 per lot and thought that is something they should pursue. If the City couldn't
bond for the project they should use their street reconstruction funds or other funds to make up
the difference. Glen Posusta concurred that the assessment should be between $2,500 and
$3,000.
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO ACCEPT THE AMENDED FEASIBILITY REPORT AND
ORDER PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2005 CORE
STREET PROJECT NO. 2005-1 C WITH THE CITY GETTING ADDITIONAL INPUT
FROM THE RESIDENTS ON WHETHER THEY WANT SIDEWALK AND TO ASSESS
20% OF THE PROJECT COST FOR BONDING PURPOSES.
John Simola stated the Council needed to make a decision on the storm sewer ponding. If the
City decides to go with storm septors, the City lot could be put up for sale. Kevin Kawlewski
stated that septors are significant space savers.
BRIAN STUMPF AMENDED HIS MOTION TO ADD THAT STAFF IS DIRECTED TO
WORK WITH XCEL ENERGY ON STREET LIGHTING IN THE PROJECT AREA AND
TO LOOK AT ELIMINATING THE STORM WATER PONDS.
Clint Herbst asked for clarification on the $2,500 per lot. Brian Stumpf said he didn't think that
was a possibility but by reducing the sidewalk and storm water ponds, they could reduce the
cost significantly. Clint Herbst said he was not in favor of bonding for this project and he
suggested that Brian Stumpf reword his motion to state "and to assess up to 20% of the cost"
Glen Posusta agreed that there was no reason to bond for this project.
BRIAN STUMPF AMENDED HIS MOTION TO READ "TO ASSESS UP TO 20%OF THE
PROJECT COST FOR BOND PURPOSES. CLINT HERBST SECONDED THE MOTION.
Brian Stumpf stated that as part of the last two street reconstruction projects, the City had
looked at new street signs for the area and he would like to add that to his motion.
BRIAN STUMPF AMENDED HIS MOTION ADDING THAT THE CITY LOOK AT NEW
STREET SIGNS FOR THE PROJECT AREA. CLINT HERBST SECONDED THE
AMENDED MOTION.
Tom Perrault asked for clarification on the sidewalk being removed. Clint Herbst said the
decision would be made based on input from the residents. Kevin Kawlewski said the project
would be bid with sidewalk and without sidewalk.
Kevin Kawlewksi further explained that the storm sewer septors are fairly new having come
along in the past ten years. They take up less space and offer similar treatment. The cost for
the septors is about $15,000 each. In this particular project going with septors would lessen the
storm sewer costs.
UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN ON THE AMENDED MOTION, MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.
8. Consideration of authorizing staff to initiate the Comprehensive Plan update process by
preparing a draft work plan and associated cost estimate.
This item was tabled until after consideration of other agenda items.
9. Consideration of establishing a date for a Council/Staff goal setting and team building
session.
Clint Herbst stated he would like to see one session for the goal setting and team building
rather than two. Jeff O'Neill stated that the consultants had a number of Saturdays in April
open for such a session. It was noted that public notice would have to be given of the session.
The Council's preference for scheduling would be April 91h and if that was not possible then
April 16th or 23ra
10. Consideration of approving plans and specifications for new one million Gallon water
tower and authorize advertisement for bids.
This item was approved with the consent agenda with the Council approving the plans and
specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids for two types of water towers based on
the ability to award either type based on the low bid for the type of tank chosen.
11. Consideration of proposal from Bolton & Menk, Inc. to study two alternatives for
biosolids treatment at the Monticello Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Bob Brown of Bolton & Menk was present to provide information on the options for biosolids
treatment that they were proposing to study. The two methods that they will be studying are
the ATAD process and the heat belt dryer system. They will also be looking at whether the
existing facility can be retrofitted to include whatever biosolids treatment process is utilized.
Brian Stumpf asked which method was the most commonly used in the area. Bob Brown
indicated it was the ADAT method. Brian Stumpf questioned the need to study both processes
if one is more commonly used. John Simola said the dryer system could reduce the City's
need for farm land for sludge application. Brian Stumpf said if there is a reason to study both
options then he felt comfortable doing that but if one was a clear preference he felt the City
should just move on it. Glen Posusta said he didn't have a problem with the City buying more
land because the land will always increase in value. He felt the land spreading might be just as
effective. Wayne Mayer said his concern is as the City grows how much more land would the
City need for sludge application.
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL FROM BOLTON & MENK
AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO COMPLETE THE
WORK AS SET FORTH IN THE PROPOSAL. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
12. Consideration of letter to YMCA expressing City interest in collaborating with the
YMCA/County, State and others to preserve the natural character of land in the Long
Lake/Lake Bertram area.
Jeff O'Neill stated that YMCA officials met with some Council and staff to outline the
YMCA's interest in selling some of their property to fund their programs. There is 1200 acres
of land that could be sold. The YMCA wants to talk about how this land could ultimately be
developed. This could include preserving certain areas for park land and selling less desirable
areas for development. Jeff O'Neill felt the YMCA would benefit by annexation into the City
and being served by utilities. At this point the YMCA is requesting a letter from the City
showing their interest in becoming apart of this project. Jeff O'Neill stated that other entities
such as the County could also be involved in this preservation project.
Clint Herbst felt that the YMCA would be quickly gobbled for development and it was
important for the City to look at preserving certain area for park and recreational use. It was
noted that the County has expressed some interest in working together on this.
GLEN POSUSTA MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A LETTER TO THE YMCA
IDENTIFYING THE CITY'S INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN A PROCESS THAT
WILL RESULT IN SETTING ASIDE MAJOR PORTIONS OF THE YMCA PROPERTY
FOR PUBLIC ENJOYMENT. BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE MOTION WITH
DISCUSSION.
In discussion, Brian Stumpf said with Heritage being developed it would be prudent for the
City to work cooperatively with other entities on preserving this area. Wayne Mayer asked for
clarification on how much of the 1200 acres that they would be preserving. He felt this was a
pristine piece of property and it would be a travesty to have any area around this for
development. Clint Herbst said there are certain areas that are less desirable for park land but
he agreed the property around the lakes should be preserved 100%. Tom Perrault disagreed
with that stating that he believes that there are people who would like to have a nice house on a
lake and there is not place in town at the present time for that. He felt there should be a mixed
use for this area.
UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN, THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
13. Consideration of renewal of contract at the Elk River Landfill with Waste Management
of Minnesota, Inc.
Public Works Director, John Simola provided the background information notice the contract
has generally run for three year and the current contract value is $37.53/ton not including taxes.
The total contract runs to $156,000/year. The cost per ton is proposed to be increased $1 /per
ton per year for each year of the contract. John Simola noted Elk River is one of the few
landfillsin the area so the City is limited as far as who they can contract with. Wayne Mayer
asked the City about the contract being in excess of $50,000 statute amount. Tom Scott said
this was not the type of contract that would be subject to the competitive bidding law.
WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE THREE YEAR LANDFILL DISPOSAL
AGREEMENT ADDENDUM WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT/ELK RIVER LANDFILL
AS OUTLINED EFFECTIVE UNTIL APRIL 1, 2008. BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
14. Consideration of a request for an amendment to a CUP for Development Stage PUD and
consideration of a revised preliminary plat for Carlisle, a 239 residential subdivision.
Applicant: Shadow Creek Corporation.
Scott Richards from Northwest Associated Consultants provided background information on
this item. He noted when Carlisle Village was originally approved the plat area contained some
land that was not owned by the developer. The developer is coming back with a revised
development minus the half acre of land that was owned by someone else. In addition to the
change in land area, the applicant is also seeking approval for changes in the R -1A building
size requirements and changes to the townhouse design for the R-2 portion of the development.
Scott Richards reviewed the changes and noted that the preliminary plat is consistent with the
original plan except for the lots along the southern boundary which are shallower. The
proposed plat contains the same number of lots even though the land area has been reduced.
The developer meets the minimum standards of the district. However, since this is a planned
unit development the developer is expected to exceed standards. Staff's feeling is that the
applicant is not meeting the objectives of the planned unit development.
The Planning staff believes that in order to meet the density of what was originally approved
and to have greater tree preservation, the developer would need to eliminate 5 lots which are
identified in the staff report to the Council as Lots 12, Block 5; Lots 2 and 7, Block 6; and Lots
3 and 8, Block 4. In addition staff recommended shifting the cul-de-sac on 82"d Street more to
the north. The Planning Commission, however, went with a recommendation to eliminate only
two lots, one along the southern boundary and the triangular lot (Lot 12, Block 5).
Regarding the R-1 A standards, the applicant is requesting approval similar to what the City
approved for the Hillside Farms plat. That approval allowed for 2 story homes to be
constructed with a foundation size of 1,100 square feet and 2,200 square feet of finished space.
Planning staff noted that the conditions of the Hillside Farm plat are not present in this
development and did not recommend variations from the R-1 A regulations. The Planning
Commission, however, agreed to the applicant's requested changes which include 1660' main
floor finish/2000' total finish for a rambler; 1400' finished at grade or 2000' total finished for a
split level; 1200' finished main floor/2300' total finished for a two story structure; a minimum
of a 700' garage; a roof pitch of 7/12 or greater and 20% of the front fagade being brick or
stone. The Planning Commission added a notation that no split levels are allowed outside the
already platted First Addition.
Another amendment request to the PUD is for a new townhouse design for the R-2 area. A
different builder with a different townhouse design is involved the development and the
developer is requesting approval of the change in the townhouse design. Because the buildings
with the revised design encroached on each other at the corners, Planning staff had
recommended removal of buildings #25 and #29 on the interior and # 17 and # 10 on the outside
loop The Planning Commission did not designate removal of a set number of units but only
requested assurance that the spacing in the original plan is maintained in the revised plan.
Wayne Mayer stated when a PUD is granted there is a major benefit being provided with the
development and he questioned what benefit if any would the City see out of this plan. He
noted that the staff report indicated that the developer is only meeting minimum standards and
he wanted to know which standards are the developers exceeding the requirements for.
There was some discussion on the number of units to be eliminated . Planning staff felt one
unit from each of the four buildings was to be eliminated.
Lucinda Farr, representing the developer, spoke stating that the only difference between this
and the previously approved version is that they lost 1/2 acre of land on the southerly boundary
line. She didn't know where the City came up with eliminating five lots when the plat only lost
I/2 acre. She said under this plan 60% instead of 52% of the trees are preserved. She indicated
that they would eliminate one unit from the townhouse area. The footprint of the units has been
improved under the revised plan. She stated that she promised the Planning Commission that
the units would not be any closer together than they were on the original plan. Clint Herbst
asked how they the original plan could have been approved and now with the revised plan staff
is asking for a reduction in units. Clint Herbst also stated his concern about the number of
townhomes in the community.
Wayne Mayer asked about buildings #10, #17, #25 and #29. Lucinda Farr responded that one
unit had been taken out of building #29. The developer had not agreed to eliminate a set
number of units but rather to eliminate units necessary in order to keep the same spacing as the
original approved development plan. She stated she is meeting the intent of the original plan
and she was not sure why the City was asking her to do more
Glen Posusta said that the original development plan had received all the necessary approvals
and he didn't think it was appropriate to require additional changes.
Planning Commission member, Sandy Suchy stated since the land area of the development had
changed, the building requirements for the R-1 A were proposed to be changed and the design
of the townhouse units were to be different and these were significant changes she felt the
Planning Commission could look at this as a new approval. Since the developer was not being
bound by the conditions of the previous approval neither should the Planning Commission in
their review of the development. She pointed out that the developer is only meeting minimum
standards and is not exceeding any standards.
Glen Posusta said that the land that was lost from the plat was in the Rl-A area and the
townhomes are in the R -2A area. Jeff O'Neill stated that even with the loss of acreage the unit
count didn't change and the tree count remained the same. Glen Posusta sated that by reducing
the R-1 A area by two lots the City is losing $900,000 in tax base so he questioned why the City
would also want to cut units from the R -2A.
Wayne Mayer said with a PUD the developer should be doing more than the minimum. Brian
Stumpf said this development has gone through the Planning and Zoning and Council a number
of times and the City needs to make a decision.
Lucinda Farr stated they eliminated one lot in the townhomes and nothing in the R-1 A but they
are still preserving more trees. Clint Herbst asked why the cul-de-sac couldn't be moved
further to the north. Lucinda Farr said doing that would cause more loss of trees. Jeff O'Neill
stated that 1200 trees was the count used in both tree preservation plans.
ON DECISION #1 TO APPROVE A REPLAT FOR CARLISLE VILLAGE WAYNE
MAYER MOVED THAT THE CITY RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REPLAT BASED
ON A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT CHANGES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE
CITY'S REQUIREMENTS FOR R-1 A, R -2A, R-2 AND PUD DEVELOPMENT. ON
DECISION #2 TO AMEND THE CARLISLE VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW ALTERNATIVE TOWNHOUSE DESIGNS IN THE R-2
PORTION OF THE PROJECT THAT THE CITY MOVED TO DENY THE PUD
AMENDMENT BASED ONA FINDING THAT THE CHANGES ARE NOT CONSISTENT
WITH THE CITY'S EXPECTATION FOR PUD IN THIS AREA AND THAT BOTH THE
ARCHITECTURE AND PROXIMITY OF BUILDINGS TO EACH OTHER RESULT IN A
PROJECT THAT ODES NOT MEET THE PUD ORDINANCE OBJECTIVES. ON
DECISION #3 AMENDMENT TO THE CARLISLE VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW CHANGES IN THE BUILDING SIZE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE R-1 A AREA, THAT THE CITY DENY THE AMENDMENT BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE R-1 A REGULATIONS ARE TO ENSURE
HIGHER END HOUSING IN THE AREAS OF THE COMMUNITY GUIDED FOR R-1 A
DEVELOPMENT AND THAT A COMPROMISE TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS
WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS
AND POLICIES.
MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Clint Herbst stated that the primary concern is that the proposal that is submitted to Council is
what is actually going to be constructed. He agreed with Sandy Suchy that there are minimum
requirements of the R-1 A district that need to be preserved. Clint Herbst said he would also
like to see removal of one lot from the southerly boundary area.
ON DECISION #1 TO APPROVE THE REPLAT FOR CARLISLE VILLAGE, GLEN
POSUSTA MOVED TO APPROVE THE REPLAT BASED ON THE CONDITIONS
LISTED IN EXHIBIT Z BASED ON A FINDING THAT WITH THE LISTED
CONDITIONS, THE PROJECT WILL MEET THE INTENT OF THE CITY ORDINANCE
WITH REGARD TO R-1 A, R -2A, R-2 AND PUD DEVELOPMENT.
At this point there was discussion whether the conditions for approval listed in the Planning
Staff's recommendations be used or the conditions for approval listed in the Planning
Commissions recommendation be used. Scott Richards felt the Planning Staff
recommendations contained more detail and should be used just changing those particular items
noted by Planning Commission action. Using the Planning Staff recommendations #1 would be
to redesign the plat to eliminate one lot from the southerly border (Block 6) and to eliminate
number #7 which stated that one unit each of buildings # 10, # 17, #25 and #29 from the
townhouse layout would be eliminated.
Lucinda Farr stated this was the first time she had an opportunity to review the recommended
conditions of approval for the Carlisle Village replat and amendment to the PUD and
questioned the roof pitch requirement listed under 42. Clint Herbst suggested that if she felt
changes were necessary to #2, the Council may reconsider items #I and #7.
GLEN POSUSTA AMENDED HIS MOTION ON DECISION #1 MOVING TO APPROVE
THE REPLAT BASED ON THE CONDITIONS LISTED BELOW BASED ON A FINDING
THAT WITH THE LISTED CONDITIONS, THE PROJECT WILL MEET THE INTENT OF
THE CITY ORDINANCE WITH REGARD TO R-1 A, R -2A, R-2 AND PUD
DEVELOPMENT.
1. Redesign of the plat to eliminate one lot from the southerly boundary (Block 6)
2. Provide sample building drawings for R-1 A portion of the project. Building plans are to meet or exceed
those standards approved by the Commission as follows:
Roof construction Incorporating:
• Multi-level roofs, varying elevation with cascading roof planes.
• Roof pitch of 7:12 and greater.
• Roof coverings providing dramatic roof shingle texture at least equal to "Horizon Shangle",
"Timberline" or handsplit cedar shakes.
• Soffits and gables that extend at least 12' from the exterior wall plane.
Exterior Wall Finishes:
• At least 20% brick, stone, or approved equal on any fagade facing a public street.
• Fenestration/window and door placement and detailing on any fagade facing a public street that:
■ Interrupts any wall plane exceeding 12 feet in length.
■ Provides shapes and character to wall planes (such as transom lites, round top shapes,
small lites/bars and muntons, and the like)
■ Garage doors without door with flat surfaces (such as paneled garage doors without
door lites)
■ No more than two (2) feet of exposed plain concrete block, plain concrete or treated
wood foundation above grade.
3. Building plans for theR-2A portion must meet or exceed the standards as outlined in the staff report.
4. Verify the participation of the Davidson property owners in the plat.
5. Abide by the tree preservation program established at the time of the original plat and PUD approval, as
well as the other conditions of that project approval. A formal review of the revised grading and tree
preservation plan by the city's forester for this project will be required. Adherence to the
recommendation of the forester to preserve the 60% tree preservation ratio will be required.
6. Redesign the townhouse buildings to meet the higher standard of architectural quality as discussed —
varied rooflines, varied building walls, improved materials (more stone and/or brick), emphasized front
entry areas, recess and de-emphasized garage doors.
7. Compliance with the building requirements forR-lA building (as amended).
8. Provide revised landscape plans reflecting the changes to the plat as approved.
9. Provide revised plan sets for all plans reflecting the final approved preliminary plat with conditions met
prior to submission of final plat application. The developer is to also submit a booklet containing all
relevant approved standards for building design and district landscaping requirements.
10. Compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer in their report dated February 16, 2005.
H. . The developer enter into an amended Development Agreement reflecting the conditions of approval.
CLINT HERBST SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH WAYNE
MAYER AND BRIAN STUMPF VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
ONE DECISION #2, AMENDMENT TO THE CARLISLE VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW ALTERNATIVE TOWNHOUSE DESIGNS IN THE R-2
PORTION OF THE PLAT, CLINT HERBST MOVED TO APPROVE THE PUD
AMENDMENT AS OUTLINED IN THE CONDITIONS NOTED ABOVE, BASED ON A
FINDING THAT THE CHANGES ARE CONSISTENT WITH ORIGINAL APPROVAL
AND RESULT IN A HIGHER LEVEL OF BUILDING AND SUBDIVISION DESIGN PER
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S PUD ORDINANCE. GLEN POSUSTA
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH WAYNE MAYER AND BRIAN
STUMPF VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
ON DECISION #3, AMENDMENT TO THE CARLISLE VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW CHANGES IN BUILDING SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE R -IA AREA, GLEN POSUSTA MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT FOR
THE R- I A PORTION OF THE PROJECT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS AND BASED ON THE FINDING THAT THE R -IA
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT WELL-SUITED TO DEVELOPMENT IN THIS
AREA:
Building plans for the R-lA homes must meet or exceed the amended R-1 A building standards
specific to this development as follows:
a. No split entry homes in the R- I A area outside of the 1 st Addition.
b. Two-story and modified two-story residential dwellings must meet:
i. A minimum finished first floor size of 1200 square feet;
ii. A minimum of 2300 square feet finished area.
iii. Full basements.
C. Rambler residential dwellings must meet:
i. A minimum main floor size of 1600 square feet.
ii. A minimum of 2000 square foot total finished area.
d. All other lot and building requirements as identified within the R-lA District Zoning
Ordinance.
BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH WAYNE
MAYER VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
8. Consideration of authorizinu Comprehensive Plan update.
Jeff O'Neill provided background information on the need to update the City's comprehensive
plans. With the annexation agreement in place the City is experiencing development pressure.
Having updated documents will make the planning process easier.
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO AUTHORIZE CITY STAFF TO WORK WITH THE
PLANNING COMMISSION IN PREPARING A PROPOSAL OUTLINING THE SCOPE OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND PROVIDE COST ESTIMATES.
TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Added Items:
Glen Posusta brought up the deteriorating condition of the motor vehicle building. Rick Wolfsteller,
Brian Weldon and Fred Patch have been studying what options could be used to put the building in
better condition. It is estimated to take between $20,000 and $30,000 in repairs to the building. Fred
Patch also noted that the building is not ADA compliant as far as the entrances. Staff will prepare of
list of work needed to be done on the building, get costs for the work and submit it to the Council at a
future meeting.
Glen Posusta asked about semi -trailer parked on School Boulevard. The trailer belongs to SW Wold
and has been parked there for a long time. Fred Patch stated that builders routinely do that but if the
Council wished to pursue enforcement, they would do so.
15. Consideration of approving payment of bills for March.
The Council questioned bills for Diversified Products and Granite Ledge Electric. Wayne
Mayer asked if the monthly list of bills could be submitted in account order rather than by
vendor.
BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF BILLS. WAYNE MAYER
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
16. Adiourn.
TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 10:0 P.M. GLEN POSUSTA SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Recording Secretary