Loading...
City Council Minutes 09-26-2005MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday September 26, 2005 - 7 p.m. Members Present: Clint Herbst, Wayne Mayer, Tom 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 September 12, 2005 regular Council meeting. Tom Perrault noted the following corrections: 1) On the vote on agenda item #5H Wayne Mayer and Tom Perrault voted in opposition. 2) On the vote for approving the hardcourt at 4t' Street Glen Posusta and Wayne Mayer voted in opposition. TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING WITH THE CORRECTIONS NOTED. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2B. Approve minutes of September 12 ,2005 Budget Workshop meeting GLEN POSUSTA MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE BUDGET WORKSHOP OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2005. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2C. Approve minutes of September 12, 2005 biosolids workshop. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 12, 2005 BIOSOLIDS WORKSHOP. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. The following items were added to the agenda: 1) Discussion of city vehicle use; 2) Update on the water tower; 3) Update on storm shelters in mobile home parks; 4) Discussion of the compost facility and 5) Consideration of a mortgage subordination agreement between the City of Monticello and TCF National Bank. 4. Citizen comments, petitions, requests and complaints. Lee McDougall, 101 Hillcrest Circle asked to have an opportunity to speak on agenda item #12. Council Minutes - 9/26/05 Daryl Tindle, 1707 River Street West addressed the Council about concerns with the compost facility the City operates. He stated that the compost facility generates excess traffic and noise. There is an odor emanating from the facility when the compost is turned. In addition there is debris flying from the trailers and vehicles bringing their material to the compost site. He also questioned the environmental impact of the grass clippings and possible leaching into the creek. He is requesting that the Council consider moving the compost site. The Council informed Mr. Tindle that this information would be forwarded to John Simola, Public Works Director. Bob Grabinski, 1610 Oak Ridge Circle spoke about a concern with the Carlisle Village pathway which he indicated is under water. He also discussed the ditch adjacent to his property stating with the utility contractors working in the area and since the turn lane into his property was widened, the area has been washing away. He questioned who is responsible for getting the situation corrected. Bret Weiss responded that he has contacted the contractor about getting the road shoulder problem corrected. As far as the pathway, Bret Weiss indicated that the pathway was not built at the right elevation. He noted that a lot of water goes through the area and the City intends to install an outlet for the area to handle the water. Glen Posusta stated that it appears that the water is being trapped in the area of the pathway. Bret Weiss said there is a grading problem and the recent rains have kept this corrective work from getting done. Wayne Mayer stated that when a utility company is working in the right of way there should be a permit given so that the City has some kind of handle on what is being done in the right of way. He asked that this item be brought back at the next meeting. He added that the City of Plymouth has a policy dealing with utility work in public right of way. Bret Weiss said that information on a right of way policy has been forwarded to the Public Works Director. Bob Grabinski asked when the contractor would be coming back to do the striping and markings on the roadway. Bret Weiss will check into that. A group of residents were present to address the Council about their concerns on the proposed pathway from Falcon Avenue to School Boulevard. Philip Frederick, 5400 Falcon Avenue and Linda Barthel, 5401 Falcon Avenue spoke for the group. They agreed that there is a need to upgrade the crosswalks on School Boulevard but they are concerned about what is being done especially the proposed 8' pathway between the two holding ponds. They circulated a petition in the neighborhood with a number of options listed. Most of the residents preferred the option to construct a 6' chain link fence along the south side of School Boulevard from Eider Lane to Pelican Lane. They felt this would keep the pathway users from going down into the water area. Since the crosswalk is already constructed the next best option would be to have the pathway area remain grass instead of being paved. They felt this would discourage a lot of traffic from using the pathway. Jeff O'Neill responded that the options submitted by the residents could be looked since the proposed pathway improvement would not be done until Phase II of the crosswalk improvements. Philip Fredrick noted that the pathway which runs between the two houses is only 10 feet from 2 Council Minutes - 9/26/05 his bedroom window and there is traffic on the pathway at all times of the night including some vehicle traffic. The pathway easement is 15 feet and runs along only one lot. The Council viewed pictures of the proposed pathway area. Philip Fredrick said there is 35 feet between the two ponds. Bret Weiss stated that while the grade is steep it is not as steep as other pathways in the city. Glen Posusta suggested putting a culvert in at the location of the small tree in the easement area to see if this would correct the situation. Brian Stumpf suggested that the Council look at the options presented and do some further study of the pathway. Both Philip Fredrick and Linda Barthel felt that paving the pathway would be the worse thing the City could do since it would create safety issues. Glen Posusta stated that the pathway is being put in so students could safely get to School Boulevard. There was some additional discussion on what could be done to slow traffic on the pathway such as using crushed rock, creating level areas at various points along the pathway or weaving the pathway. Bret Weiss said since this portion of the project is not being done until next year the City has time to look at different options. Philip Fredrick said the residents would appreciate an opportunity to provide input on the study of these options. The Council indicated that the City would contact Mr. Fredrick and Ms. Barthel when staff will be meeting on this item. 5. Consent agenda: A. Consideration of approving hires and departures. Recommendation: Ratify the hires and departures for MCC, Building, Streets and Public Works Departments. B. REMOVED FROM AGENDA C. Consideration of approving County Cooperative Construction Agreement for the CSAH 18/I-94 Interchange Project No. 2004-1C. Recommendation: Approve the Cooperative Construction Agreement between Monticello and Wright County for the CSAH 18/I-94 Interchange. D. Consideration of continuing the public hearing on consideration of vacation of Cedar Street right-of-way and vacation of drainage and utility easements in the plat of Monticello Travel Center to October 10, 2005. Recommendation: Moved to continue the public hearing on the vacation of utility easements relating to the Monticello Travel Center Addition to the October 10, 2005 Council meeting. E. Consideration of approving final payment to Granite Ledge Electrical Contractors, Inc. for the Trunk Highway 25 at School Boulevard Signal System, City Project No. 2004-19C. Recommendation: Authorize final payment in the amount of $7,775.20 to Granite Ledge Electrical Contractors, Inc. For the Trunk Highway 25 and School Boulevard Traffic Signal System, City Project No. 2004-19C subject to receipt of final paperwork. F. Consideration of approving Change Order #2 for Cedar Street Reconstruction and 7'h Street Reconstruction, City Project Nos. 2000-18C and 2001-7C. Recommendation: Approve Change Order No.2 in the amount of $10,000.00 for Bauerly Brothers, Inc. 3 Council Minutes - 9/26/05 G. Consideration of approving final payment and accept improvements for Jefferson Commons Pond Grading, City Project No. 2004-33C. Recommendation: Accept the improvements and approve the final payment of $21,352.57 to Cowan Grading and Excavating, Inc. subject to receipt of the final paperwork. H. Consideration to approve entering into a License Agreement between the HRA, the City and Rocky Mountain Group, LLC. Recommendation: Move to approve entering into a license agreement between the HRA, the City and Rocky Mtn Group, LLC. I. Consideration of executing BNSF Railway pipeline license for CSAH 18/1-94 Interchange Project No. 2004-1C. Recommendation: Approve execution of the BNSF Railway Pipeline License and direct staff to submit both copies of the document along with the required payment to BNSF. J. Consideration of calling for a special city council meeting to award the contract for CSAH 18/I-94 Interchange Project, Project No. 2004-1C. Recommendation: Consider calling a special meeting for 5 p.m. on October 3, 2005 for the purpose of awarding the contract. K. Consideration of approving Change Order No. 1 for Jefferson Commons Pond Grading, City Project No. 2004-33C. Recommendation: Move to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $18,783.05 for Cowan Grading & Excavating, Inc. L. Consideration of approving final payment and accept improvements for Cedar Street Reconstruction and 7" Street Reconstruction, Projects Nos. 2000-18C and 2001-7C. Recommendation: Accept the improvements and approve the final payment of $19,852.22 to Bauerly Brothers, Inc. subject to receipt of the final paperwork. M. Consideration to approve entering into a mortgage subordination agreement between the City of Monticello and TCF National Bank. Brian Stumpf moved adding the subordination agreement to the consent agenda as item #5M and asked that the special meeting called for in agenda item #5J be set at 6 p.m. instead of 5 p.m. Wayne Mayer asked that items #5G and #5K be removed and Glen Posusta requested that item #51, be removed. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE ADDITION OF ITEM #5M AND THE REMOVAL OF ITEMS #5G, #5K AND #5L. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion. #SG and #SK - Approval of change order and acceptance of work for the Jefferson Commons Pond Grading. Wayne Mayer noted that there appeared to be a discrepancy in the final project costs listed in the agenda items. In one place it was listed as $70,173.50 and $70,623.60 in another and he questioned which was the correct amount. Bret Weiss explained 0 Council Minutes - 9/26/05 that while the change order added a certain dollar value of work to the project, not all construction items were used in the quantity amount listed in the contract. WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR JEFFERSON COMMONS POND GRADING AND FINAL PAYMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE JEFFERSON COMMONS POND GRADING, CITY PROJECT NO. 2004-33C. GLEN POSUSTA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY SL Approve final payment and accept improvements for Cedar Street Reconstruction and 7" Street. Glen Posusta asked about the restoration work on Cedar Street. It was noted that this project covered a different portion of Cedar Street. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO ACCEPT THE IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVE THE FINAL PAYMENT OF $19,852.22 TO BAUERLY BROTHERS, INC. SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF THE FINAL PAPER WORK. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Public Hearing - Consideration of vacation of drainage and utility easement for 1580 Oak Ridge Circle - Keith and Katrina Geissler. Jeff O'Neill reviewed the request for vacation of a portion of the 10 foot drainage and utility easement to allow for construction of an additional garage stall. It was noted that the ordinance requires a total of 20 feet in side yard setbacks with a minimum of 6 feet on the garage side. In this case if the Council approves the vacation, the other side yard setback would need to be 14 feet and it was suggested that this be noted in the motion. Mayor Herbst opened the public hearing. No one was present who spoke for or against the proposed vacation. Mayor Herbst then closed the public hearing. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT FOR 1580 OAK RIDGE CIRCLE, LOT 2, BLOCK 7, OAKRIDGE ADDITION. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 8. Public Hearing - Consideration of vacation of drainage and utility easement over Outlot B in the plat of the Church of St. Henry. Jeff O'Neill explained that with the realignment of 7" Street and the relocation of the pond, it is proposed to vacate the drainage and utility easements over Outlot B in the plat of the Church of St. Henry. Any replacement easements will be acquired with the platting of the Church of St. Henry lst Addition which will be coming before the Council in October. Mayor Herbst opened the public hearing on the easement vacation. Dan Lemm, 11380 Cameron Avenue NE asked if there was going to be road access to Outlot B. Clint Herbst 5 Council Minutes - 9/26/05 indicated there was. Mayor Herbst then closed the public hearing. GLEN POSUSTA MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION VACATING THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS OVER OUTLOT B IN THE PLAT OF THE CHURCH OF ST. HENRY CONTINGENT UPON PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE CHURCH OF ST. HENRY IST ADDITION. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 9. Public Hearing on appeal of variance for secondary driveway in an R-1 Zoning District. Applicant: Richard Bastien Central Masonry & Concrete. Staff requested that the public hearing on the appeal of the variance be continued until the October 10, 2005 Council meeting. Mayor Herbst opened the public hearing. TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPEAL OF THE VARIANCE FOR A SECONDARY DRIVEWAY IN AN R-1 ZONING DISTRICT FOR RICHARD BASTIEN CENTRAL MASONRY AND CONCRETE UNTIL THE OCTOBER 105 2005 MEETING. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 10. Public Informational Meeting on multiple driveways and fence encroachments. During the 2005 phase of the Core Street Reconstruction program, the City encountered a number of properties where there were multiple driveways. City ordinance allows one driveway access per residential property. In addition it was noted that there were several instances of fences encroaching into the public right of way. The purpose of the public meeting was to determine what action the City wanted to take in regard to these violations and to allow the residents an opportunity to comment on the situation. Jeff O'Neill reviewed the various locations of the multiple driveway and fence encroachments. He noted that some of the driveway conditions existed prior to either annexation into the City or establishment of the City's zoning ordinance. The Council needs to determine if the ordinance should remain as is and staff should take enforcement action against the existing ordinance violations or change the ordinance as it relates to driveway access. Brian Stumpf commented on the double curb cuts and stated if a second curb cut is to be allowed, the second curb cut should be a lesser width than 24 feet. He felt 16 feet was the maximum width for the second curb cut. On one of the fence encroachments it was noted there are branches hanging over the road and the fence is there to show that there is a driveway there. Brian Stumpf felt this fence encroachment should be left as is. The Council felt that when the fence was destroyed any replacement fence should be constructed at the proper setback. D Council Minutes - 9/26/05 Brian Stumpf s position is that the second curb cut should be no more than 16 feet and to leave the encroachments in place until something changes. Clint Herbst questioned why the City would allow a garage structure on both sides of a residence. Jeff O'Neill stated that property owners request this because on most lots both garages will not fit one side. He felt if the property owners elect to have a second curb cut they should be assessed based on two curb cuts and that any second driveway must be hard surfaced. Clint Herbst stated it was difficult after the fact to go back and correct these problems so he felt the City should just try to minimize their impact. The consensus of the Council was: 1) that a second curb cut should be 16 feet at the maximum; 2) the second driveway should be hard surfaced; and 3) what is in place will be allowed to re- main. The Council discussed how requests for a second curb cut should be handled. While they did not want to encourage property owners to seek an additional curb cut they did realize that for some properties because of their size it may be a reasonable request. Steve Grittman suggested that if the Council wanted to look at this on a case by case basis, a variance process would be the best method. Doug Herre, 1101 West Broadway asked if his secondary driveway on Willow Street would be acceptable. Clint Herbst responded that what is existing will be accepted but the second driveway would have to be hard surfaced. The Council emphasized that the property owners will be assessed for the Core Street project based on the number of driveways. GLEN POSUSTA MOVED TO FORWARD THE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THIS MEETING TO STAFF AND ASK STAFF TO PREPARE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE OCTOBER 10, 2005 COUNCIL MEETING. BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 11. Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit to allow operation of a real estate office in an existing building in a PZM (Performance Zone -Mixed) District and a request for a variance from required parking standards as regulated by the Monticello Zoning_ Ordinance. Applicant: Professional Brokers Realty. City Planner, Steve Grittman provided background information on this item. Originally the applicant requested a conditional use permit to allow a real estate office in a PZM District. The Planning Commission felt the proposed use for the lot was not appropriate and recommended denial. The Council concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The applicant then sought a variance to forego the commercial parking lot thus making the use more residential in nature. The Planning Commission at their September meeting denied the variance The applicant is appealing the denial of the variance and is asking Council to consider granting both the variance and the conditional use permit. Brian Stumpf commented that he didn't feel the parking issues and traffic concerns for a real estate office would be that much different than what would be generated by a residential use. Clint Herbst stated that this is a residential area and commercial activities should be kept out of residential areas. He cited not allowing the expansion of the public works facility as an example V/ Council Minutes - 9/26/05 of the Council's efforts to keep non-residential uses out of residential areas. Letichia DeChene-Fulda, 505 Elm Street stated that the real estate office would have three staff and there would be agents who would occasionally utilize the office. Clint Herbst asked why they didn't locate in the downtown area. She noted that what was available downtown was very limited. The applicant's reason for requesting the variance is because the neighbors would not approve of construction of the needed parking stalls. Glen Posusta felt the problem was an issue of fairness. In similar cases, the City has required the property owner to supply the needed parking or contribute to a fund for parking if they could not supply the required parking on site. In this case the City is not requiring that they supply the parking or contribute to the parking fund. He noted that the overflow parking would be located across the street which he didn't feel was appropriate. Wayne Mayer agreed that parking standards need to be met. Currently there is no parking on the side of Elm Street where the property is located and if users have to park on the other side and cross the street there is a safety concern. Tom Perrault felt that this corner lot was at a very busy location and he didn't feel the lot was suitable as a residence but would be better utilized as a business use. He felt if this use is not what the Council wants in this area they should rezone the property to something other than PZM. Clint Herbst felt with the completion of Chelsea Road and 7t" Street there will be a very different look to this area. Wayne Mayer asked Steve Grittman to explain the hardship condition for a variance. Steve Grittman stated that you need to establish a finding that the unique condition of the property that makes it a hardship to comply with the zoning ordinance. If you can make reasonable use of the property then the hardship is difficult to validate. In this case the Planning Commission and staff didn't feel the hardship criteria was met. Susie Wojchouski, 111 Club View Drive stated the property in question belonged to her mother and she stated that the Council wasn't looking to the future with the use of this area.. With the development going on around the area she felt this would be a better area for commercial use. Lee McDougall, 101 Hillcrest Circle stated he looked at the property and he felt that it was a nice set up for this type of business. Clint Herbst reiterated his belief that you shouldn't push commercial uses in a residential area especially in light of the fact that the downtown area has vacancies. Dale Lemm, 11380 Cameron Avenue stated that Ruff's Auto, a commercial use was on the site long before it was zoned. He also noted that the house would have to be upgraded for handicap use. Tom Grossnickle, 1113 West River Street, stated that they have a business use in a residential E Council Minutes - 9/26/05 area which has worked out well and has not detracted from the residential nature of the area. Wayne Mayer asked how they addressed the parking issue. Tom Grossnickle stated they have twelve parking stalls with curb and gutter. Wayne Mayer stated having no parking other than the existing driveway is what concerns him most. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMERCIAL OFFICE USE IN THE PZM DISTRICT BASED ON THE FINDINGS THAT THE USE WOULD NOT CREATE COMPATIBILITY ISSUES WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL AREA, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT COMPLIES WITH THE FOLLOWING: 1) ADDITION OF CURB AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PARKING LOT; 2) CONSTRUCTION OF A PARK- ING LOT TO ACCOMMODATE AT LEAST 10 PARKING SPACES OR RECEIVES A VARIANCE FROM THIS STANDARD; 3) ADDITION OF BUFFERING AT THE PERI- METER OF THE SITE TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S BUFFER YARD ORDINANCE; 4) APPROVAL OF THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION BY WRIGHT COUNTY; AND 5) LANDSCAPING SCREENING OF THE PARKING AREA FROM SURROUNDING RESI- DENTIAL PROPERTY AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION FAILED WITH TOM PERRAULT AND BRIAN STUMPF VOTING IN FAVOR THEREOF AND WAYNE MAYER, CLINT HERBST AND GLEN POSUSTA VOTING IN OPPOSITION. GLEN POSUSTA MOVED TO DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AS FOLLOWS: 1) THE PROPOSED USE IS LOCATED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD DOMINATED BY LOW DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL HOUSES; 2) THE PZM DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR BUSINESS USES IN AREAS OF TRANSITION TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, OR MIXING OF COMMERCIAL AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES; 3) THE USES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD DO NOT SUPPORT THE CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL USE AS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE; 4) THE PROPERTY, IF CONVERTED TO BUSINESS USE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUIRED PARKING SUPPLY AS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE; 5) THE PROPERTY REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT BUFFERING AND LANDSCAPING TO SCREEN THE USE AND ACTIVITY FROM THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; 6) NO HARDSHIP EXISTS TO SUPPORT THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE PARKING REGULATIONS AND 7) THE PROPERTY CAN BE PUT TO A REASONABLE USE UNDER THE PZM REGULATIONS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE AND TO DENY THE VARIANCE FROM THE CITY'S PARKING REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICES BASED ON A FIND- ING THAT NO HARDSHIP IS PRESENT THAT WOULD QUALIFY THE PROJECT FOR VARIANCE CONSIDERATION. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH TOM PERRAULT AND BRIAN STUMPF VOTING IN OPPOSITION. X Council Minutes - 9/26/05 12. Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance regarding the regulation and outdoor storage of commercial vehicles. Applicant: City of Monticello. Building Official, Fred Patch provided the background information on this amendment which is proposing to prohibit race cars in a residential area as well as dealing with commercial vehicles in residential areas. In 2000 the Council and Planning Commission looked at a similar type ordinance but did not adopt the ordinance at that time. Fred Patch reviewed the differences between the 2000 ordinance amendment and the one being proposed now. He noted the designation of a commercial vehicle under the 2000 ordinance was based on a vehicle plate designation of F or greater. The current proposal defines a commercial vehicle as anything exceeding eight feet in height and twenty-two feet in length. The current ordinance also addresses race car which was added as a result of complaints about race cars being stored in a residential area. Brian Stumpf felt the proposed ordinance amendment was too restrictive for property owners. Clint Herbst stated that the amendment doesn't prohibit someone from storing this type of vehicle in their garage. Glen Posusta felt there should be some limitation on recreational vehicles that are stored in the yard. He added that as a commercial storage facility he was restricted from outside storage. Lee McDougall, 101 Hillcrest Circle stated the difference is that this property is for his own private use and is not a business for profit. Glen Posusta stated that the restrictions on commercial property is because the City does not want it to look like a junk yard and he didn't feel residential property should either. Mr. McDougall asked how the City arrived at the determination that a race car was not a recreational vehicle and he cited different ordinance definitions of a recreational vehicle. He also pointed out in the Monticello ordinance vehicle racing is listed as commercial recreation. He felt if the City took his race car away they need to take away the boats and vehicles from other people. Wayne Mayer said one of the concerns is that the ordinance didn't go back to explain what is a recreational vehicle. City Attorney, Tom Scott stated that the discussions were on commercial vehicles and race cars so the he did not attempt to address the issue of recreational vehicles in this ordinance amendment. Fred Patch noted that Section 2(4) uses language as to vehicles being licensed and operable. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO DENY THE ORDINANCE RESTRICTING THE PARKING OF CERTAIN VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AMENDING CHAPTERS 2, 3, AND 6 OF THE MONTICELLO ZONING ORDINANCE, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR RACE CARS AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. Wayne Mayer said when the Council first initiated discussion on this item he asked an ordinance is not enforceable why is it on the books and he is asking if this ordinance is 10 Council Minutes - 9/26/05 enforceable. Tom Scott replied that there was no problem with the commercial vehicle portion of the ordinance but there was a caveat on the race car which is what is the rationale for distinguishing between a race car and other recreational vehicles. He questioned whether the Council wanted to look at the broader issue of recreational vehicles. He stated that the ordinance only addresses those items that were brought up the Council and he did not expand the ordinance to anything beyond that. Clint Herbst felt that all recreational vehicles should be housed or covered and agreed that any ordinance in place should have some teeth in it and be enforceable. It was pointed out that while the property owner has a right to use his property he does not have the right to make it into an eyesore. Tom Perrault felt commercial vehicles parked on the streets were a safety issue. The Planning Commission approved the amendment unanimously. Sandy Suchy a Planning Commission member, stated that she didn't feel commercial vehicles or race cars belonged in a residential area. She agreed that the race cars were singled out even though many recreational vehicles don't belong in a residential area. Brian Stumpf questioned if the commercial vehicles cannot park in residential areas where are they suppose to park. He felt if the ordinance was approved the City should look at designating an area where commercial vehicles could park. Beth Larson, 1702 West River Street, has a dump truck parked in their driveway and stated the Council was not looking closely at the property owner's rights in this case. She said that the Council, regardless of the action they take, cannot make all the residents happy but they should not take away a property owner's rights. Chris Larson added that even if parking was available somewhere else he would not feel comfortable leaving his rig unattended. UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN, COUNCILMEMBERS PERRAULT AND STUMPF VOTED IN FAVOR THEREOF AND COUNCILMEMBERS POSUSTA, HERBST AND MAYER VOTED IN OPPOSITION. MOTION FAILED. Wayne Mayer asked again about the enforceability of the ordinance and asked if the race car portion is or is not enforceable. Tom Scott said he is comfortable that the ordinance is enforceable. He asked if the Council wanted to look into recreational vehicles and come up with a more complete definition of a recreational vehicles which would make the ordinance more enforceable. Tom Scott felt the City could articulate reasons why race cars are different but to be more ironclad the Council should look more at recreational vehicles. Wayne Mayer felt if it was licensed and road operable then you have defined race cars. Tom Scott said the proposed ordinance is enforceable but there is the potential for argument that the City is singling out race cars. Tom Scott suggested the Council direct him to fine tune the ordinance and bring it back at the next meeting. WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO LOOK AT FIRMING DEFINITIONS AND TERMS FOR RACE CARS AND ALSO LOOK AT OTHER RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. GLEN POSUSTA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION 11 Council Minutes - 9/26/05 CARRIED WITH BRIAN STUMPF VOTING IN OPPOSITION. 13. Review update of report on modifications to trunk utility fees and park dedication fees. Consulting Engineer, Bret Weiss updated the Council on modifications made to the trunk utility fees after the July 25, 2005 workshop. There were several areas that needed to be reviewed and clarified. Growth Rate - The Council agreed to using the same number of units (300 units for 10 years and 380 units for 5 years) that is being used in the biosolids discussion. Acre or Unit Charge - The City currently uses acreage for calculating trunk fees and they are recommending the City stay with that. Assessment of Fees - When a final plat has been approved 100% of the trunk fees is payable. The City has allowed these fees to be assessed generally over a ten year period. The consulting engineer is recommending that the City continue to allow the assessment of fees but over three years instead of ten. Storm Sewer Ponding - It is proposed to separate the trunk fee into pipe and ponding fees. Transfers of SAC fees to Sanitary Sewer Trunk Fees - At the present time the City is trans- ferring 30% of the SAC fee collected to the trunk sanitary sewer fund. They are proposing to reduce that by 10% and continue to decrease it gradually by 1 % per year over 20 years. Biosolids -Bret Weiss noted that the biosolids treatment option is estimated at $2.7 million which is a significant expense and does have the potential to drive the SAC charges and trunk fees up. Assignment of credits and upfronting costs for trunk Fees - The engineer is recommending that the City give credits for trunk improvements at the end of the development projects not at the beginning. They are also recommending that the Council look at each development on an individual basis to determine whether the developer needs to upfront the cost of the trunk improvements. Currently Assessed Lots - Bret Weiss noted that there is about 680 lots that have been assessed trunk fees at the current rate. Water Treatment Plant - It is proposed that a water treatment plant be constructed in 2025. This improvement will increase the water trunk fees significantly up to $3,300 per acre. Bret Weiss suggested that some of the cost of the plant be funded by an increase in the user fees. If the City does not include the water treatment plant in the trunk fees, the water trunk fee would drop to about $1,900 per acre. 12 Council Minutes - 9/26/05 Sanitary Sewer Trunk Fee - Bret Weiss was proposing an increase in the trunk fee from $2,228 per acre to $3,720 per acre. Bret Weiss submitted a survey showing what is charged by other cities and pointed out that Monticello is on the high side but not the highest. He also noted there are a lot of differences in how communities arrive at what they charge in fees. The idea is to generate enough revenue to pay for the improvements made to the system. The Council questioned whether the acre or unit charge was the best means for collecting trunk fees. They felt that by going with a unit charge it may discourage developments with high densities. Bret Weiss stated that when the calculation was done based on three units per acre, the acreage charge worked better for the City. It was suggested that if a development came in that had more than 50% of the units as multiple structures the City should consider looking at a per unit charge. Bret Weiss said they could look at other unit options but he felt the key is to show that the cost is justified. He stated the City needs to have enough land area to pay for the cost of the project. Wayne Mayer asked if increasing unit costs would it serve as an impediment to apartment complexes. Bret Weiss will bring something back that addresses those developments that exceed three units per acre density. Clint Herbst voiced the opinion that new development should be bearing the cost of the trunk improvements. Brett Weiss noted that the City's user fees are too low and do not include enough to cover maintenance or replacement costs. Tom Perrault agreed that the developers should be paying their share but that all should pay fort items such as water treatment plant and biosolids treatment. 14. Consideration of review of items relating to Hidden Forest Subdivision pertaining to site grading and utility improvements, finance plan and utility pipe design. Jeff O'Neill provided background information on the item and stated the staff would like direction from the Council relating to the project. It was pointed out that the proposed plat contains R-1 and R-1 A lots adj acent to a wetland area. This property is in the ditch #3 3 area and it is proposed to construct a storm sewer outlet to the river to resolve the concerns with water entering into ditch #33. The developer has also requested that the Council approve a request for annexation of the property into the City. One of the issues to be addressed by the Council is the use of HDPE pipe. Bret Weiss noted that the City has normally required ductile iron pipe for watermain installation. He added that HDPE pipe is often used in situations where there is limited space and directional boring is done and that may be the case here. Bret Weiss stated the would want to make sure that the concerns of the Public Works Director and Sewer/Water Superintendent about the use of HDPE pipe were addressed. Another issue was the granting of a grading permit and extension of utilities. The City had a number of concerns about issuing a grading permit at this stage in the development plan which include work beginning late in the season, no delineation of what erosion control measures 13 Council Minutes - 9/26/05 would be implemented, since there is no outlet for the pond what options will be considered if the pond should overflow, pond design issues have not been resolved and there is no approved street and utility plan. There are issues with financing and easements as well. Bret Weiss stated this was brought before the Wright County Board and it was very specifically stated that there could be no building in the County Ditch 33 area without the outlet being in place. If that has changed he would like it verified by the County that they would allow this. Wayne Mayer agreed that someone from the County has to sign off on this requirement. It is proposed that the developer will pay the full cost of extending sanitary sewer and water service to this site which is estimated at $1,281,00. The developer was interested in getting storm sewer outlet constructed and this is estimated at $700,00. The first phase will contain 56 lots. Because the trunk fees go up each locking in now will tie it up at the current rate. Another option would be to lock in the trunk fees for the entire development. Brian Stumpf asked what type of additional credits the developer was looking at for storm sewer. The developer is asking for an additional $113,000 in storm sewer credits. Brad Paumen spoke regarding his development stating they were putting a lot of extras into the project to increase its value such as the parks and wetland amenities. He felt that the getting the ditch 33 issue resolved was a key step. The developer will carry the cost of the storm sewer outlet pipe which is about $700,000. He added they are also paying for the trunk lines to get utilities to their property. He felt what their development was adding to the community will offset any credits given by the City.. Brad Paumen stated that the use of HDPE pipe is a big issue for them noting that conditions on the site such as trees, driveways and other obstacles make HDPE a practical choice. Brad Paumen stated that they have builders who want to get their models in and they are looking at a minimum amount of grading, approximately 600 feet. Clint Herbst felt the only one at significant risk was Brad Paumen. Glen Posusta felt that with the amount the developers committed to it would be difficult for him to back out. Wayne Mayer asked if the City was back to approving everything on contingency. Bret Weiss also noted the need to get the Biegler agreement and easement signed. GLEN POSUSTA MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO INCLUDE HDPE PIPE AS AN ALTERNATIVE FOR BOTH SEWER AND WATER APPLICATIONS. CLINT HERBST SECONDED THE MOTION. Wayne Mayer asked for the recommendation of the City Engineer. Bret Weiss stated that this may be a situation where the use of HDPE pipe would be allowed because of the tight construction area. He did not feel its use was practical for every project in the City. Wayne Mayer asked if the developer did not construct the storm sewer outlet what would be the cost to the City to do it. The City has given more than ample credits on the balance of the trunk fees. UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN MOTION CARRIED WITH TOM PERRAULT ABSTAINING 14 Council Minutes - 9/26/05 BECAUSE A RELATIVE WAS INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT. GLEN POSUSTA MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ISSUE GRADING AND UTILITY DEVELOPMENT PERMITS SUBJECT TO COMPLETION OF CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH TOM PERRAULT ABSTAINING. GLEN POSUSTA MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BASED ON PROVIDING A CREDIT AGAINST TRUNK FEES RANGING FROM FULL CREDIT OF $15207,400 TO A CREDIT OF $870,700. CLINT HERBST SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH WAYNE MAYER VOTING IN OPPOSITION AND TOM PERRAULT ABSTAINING. On the issue of annexation because the Township did not receive sufficient notice of the annexation request, the Council delayed consideration of the annexation request until the October 3, 2005 special meeting. Glen Posusta stated he was surprised the property had not yet been annexed. Wayne Mayer said when you stuff on contingency it has a tendency to come back and bite you. He asked if this item was placed on the agenda to expedite thing and did it by-pass any other committees. Normally the City would have a final plat in place and the annexation resolution would be approved with the final plat and development agreement. Wayne Mayer said there are processes and procedures in place and because there was a shortcut taken is why the developer is in the position they are in tonight. 15. Consideration of an ordinance establishing a policy relating to outside employment for certain city employ Rick Wolfsteller provided background information on the ordinance amendment relating to outside employment by city staff. The Personnel Committee met and addressed this issue, reviewed the concerns and directed the city attorney to prepare the amendment for presentation to the full Council. The proposed amendment would apply to certain department heads and administrative staff. Since this would affect existing employees the Council would need to establish a date for implementation or whether existing situations would be grandfathered in. The amendment is limited to a few staff positions and the Council should determine if any other positions should be added. Glen Posusta suggested that any department head be included and Clint Herbst felt it should apply to all salaried positions. It was discussed whether the concern was with employment with another city or because there could be a conflict of interest. Glen Posusta said the practice of doing similar work for two companies doesn't happen in private practice and it shouldn't in government either. Some discussion on what is a conflict of interest. Brian Stumpf said this was the second ordinance amendment they looked at tonight that was as vague as it could get. He said he would not tell a city employee what to do on his own time. Clint Herbst asked if there was any problem in including all city employees. Tom Scott said this gets at top level positions and is not based on any conflict that is occurring. It deals with top 15 Council Minutes - 9/26/05 level positions in the City that have a lot of public contact and public visibility. People at the top level should dedicate their full time to the City and should not be doing similar jobs on a full or part-time basis for another government entity. It is reasonable to expect that employees give full time to their job. He stated that this ordinance does not deal with conflict of interest. Tom Scott said if you look at expanding this to more employees the Council should reconsider the ordinance. Wayne Mayer asked if they could make a blanket statement rather than list the position stating something to effect that any employee holding a position in the City cannot hold a similar position in another city. Tom Scott felt the Council would want to look at the ordinance further fi they wanted to extend it to other employees or define conflict of interest. Tom Scott said this ordinance gets at the fact that top level positions because of their professional judgement, visibility, and hours work it is a reasonable expectation of the employer that employee cannot perform the same or similar functions for another government entity on a full or part-time basis. Tom Scott said other issues may be handled through the personnel policy. Glen Posusta felt they should look at other issues because the potentials is out there. Tom Perrault question # 6 of the findings. Tom Scott said the findings are for the Council to consider but the language of the ordinance state full or part time. Tom Scott said the Council has to identify the problem they are addressing and then decide if the findings address their concern. Glen Posusta ask Tom Scott to clarify if the Council could address conflict of interest in the employee handbook. Wayne Mayer asked again if the policy is enforceable. Tom Scott said it was enforceable. WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO ADOPT A POLICY AMENDMENT REGULATING OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT FOR CERTAIN CITY EMPLOYEES AS PRESENT. GLEN POSUSTA SECONDED THE MOTION. Tom Perrault asked if #6 of the findings could be removed and to suggest that the time frame for implementation would be the end of the year. WAYNE MAYER AMENDED HIS MOTION TO REFLECT THE DELETION OF #6 FROM THE FINDINGS AND A DECEMBER 31, 2005 DATE. MOTION CARRIED WITH BRIAN STUMPF VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Added items: Storm Shelters Mobile Home Park - Clint Herbst wanted an update from the staff on this item. Jeff O'Neill said they were going to tie enforcement of the code to the conditional use permit request from Kjellbergs. Clint Herbst said there must be some level of enforcement by staff on a regular basis.. Clint Herbst asked what they would do about other mobile home parks like River Terrace wait for them to build something and then require enforcement.. The City needs to check on a regular basis and make sure they are in compliance. City Vehicles - Glen Posusta felt city vehicles should stay in the city unless they were being used to conduct city business. He did not believe they should be going home with city employees. It was explained that some of the employees are on call and take the truck home because it contains all the equipment needed if they have to respond. Rick Wolfsteller stated he is aware of only one individual 16 Council Minutes - 9/26/05 that the Council had authorized to take a city vehicle home and asked if the Council was aware of any others they should let him know. The individual that the Council authorized to use the City vehicle was done as part of his compensation package. Clay Stockpile - There is a clay stockpile that is to be used for lining a number of ponds within the City. The stockpile of material needs to get off the Jefferson Commons property. The City has a price of $15,000 from Schulender and $20,000 from Randy Kramer. They will haul the clay to the Featherstone pond site and the developer will line the pond. Council had no problem with this. 16. Consideration of approving bills for September. Glen Posusta questioned the bill to Specialty Turf and questioned why that was not purchased locally. TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 17. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Recording Secretary 17