Loading...
City Council Minutes 10-10-2005MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday October 10, 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 26, 2005 regular Council meeting. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 26, 2005 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. GLEN POSUSTA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2B. Approve minutes of October 3, 2005 special Council meeting WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 3, 2005 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING. GLEN POSUSTA SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. Consideration of adding items to the agenda. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED THAT AGENDA ITEM #10 BE ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA AS ITEM #5J. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION AS LONG AS NO ONE WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THE AGENDA ITEM. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 011ie Koropchak requested that Council attendance at the Chamber Banquet be added to the agenda and Tom Perrault added discussion of a special meeting on law enforcement. 4. Citizen comments, petitions, requests and complaints. None. 5. Consent agenda: A. Consideration of approving hires and departures. Recommendation: Approve hires and departures for MCC and Parks Department. B. Consideration of approving temporary liquor license for Hi -Way Liquors for a Wine 1 Council Minutes - 10/10/05 Tasting Event, November 18, 2005. Recommendation: Approve issuing a temporary liquor license for Hi -Way Liquors for the annual wine tasting event scheduled for November 18, 2005 at the Monticello Community Center. C. Consideration of calling for a special joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission to discuss the Heritage Development AUAR. Recommendation: Call a special joint meeting of the Monticello Planning Commission and City Council to discuss the AUAR for Heritage Development (The Jefferson) for Monday, October 24, 2005 at 5:30 p.m. D Consideration of preliminary plat and final plat for a commercial subdivision and rezoning from P -S to B-4 for Church of St. Henry First Addition. Applicant: City of Monticello. Recommendation: Approve the preliminary and final plat for Church of St. Henry 1st Addition and approve the rezoning for said plat from PS to B-4. E Consideration of a request for a conditional use permit for a detached accessory structure in an R-4 residential district. Applicant: Kjellberg's Inc. Recommendation: Approve the conditional use permit for an accessory storage building for Kjellberg's Inc. based on a finding that the building should be able to meet each of the conditions of the ordinance and will minimize outdoor storage in the mobile home park and is conditioned on screening of the storage area from surrounding residential areas and that the storm shelter building is not used for storage. F. Consideration of authorizing Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief to attend MN State Fire Chiefs Association Annual Conference October 20-22, 2005. Recommendation: Authorize the Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief to attend MN State Fire Chiefs Association Annual Conference October 20-22, 2005. G. Consideration of conducting two Planning Commission meetings a month. Recommendation: Move to establish a second monthly meeting for the Planning Commission to be held on the 3rd Tuesday of the month at 5 p.m. H. Consideration of a request to allow Prairie Grass planting at Bill Tapper property (formerly H Window site). Recommendation: Approve the request to establish native grass planting at the Bill Tapper property located at the corner of Dundas Road and Edmonson Avenue. I. Consideration of approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids/quotes for parking lot improvements for the Mississippi Drive park. Recommendation: Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the advertisement of bids for the parking lot improvements for Mississippi Drive Park. J. Consideration of recommendation from staff regarding enforcement of ordinance relating to multiple driveways. Recommendation: Accept the recommendations of 2 Council Minutes - 10/10/05 City staff relating to multiple driveways as contained in the Council agenda report of October 10, 2005. Items #5E and #5G were requested to be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE ADDITION OF ITEM #5J AND THE REMOVAL OF ITEMS #5E AND #5G. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 6. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion. #SE: Conditional use permit for detached accessory structure - Kjellberg's Inc. Glen Posusta stated that the agenda item and supporting data did not contain much detail on the request for a conditional use permit. He indicated that since the accessory structure is proposed to be attached to an existing structure, the existing structure should be upgraded to reflect current building codes and handicap accessibility requirements. In addition he noted no curb and gutter requirements were listed, nor were any landscaping requirements listed and the report contained little information one building detail. Glen Posusta stated that other applicants had to do these things to bring their site into compliance and felt this applicant should do so as well. Jeff O'Neill stated staff would bring the plan back to the applicant so it could be updated for landscaping, screening, etc. He suggested tabling this item until the next meeting. GLEN POSUSTA MOVED TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY KJELLBERGS, INC. FOR A DETACHED ACCESSORY USE STRUCTURE IN A R-4 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. #SG:Establising a second monthly Planning Commission meeting: The reason given for establishing a second monthly meeting for the Planning Commission was that with the current level of development activity there was not adequate time with only one meeting a month to work on items such as the comp plan or ordinance revisions. Wayne Mayer wanted to make sure that the second meeting if it is established is not used for emergency public hearings or consideration of other planning applications. Glen Posusta questioned whether there should be a second meeting every month and how these would be noticed. Jeff O'Neill responded the meetings would be noticed only if the second meeting was not being held. Tom Perrault questioned the 5 p.m. start time noting that it would not allow most residents an opportunity to be present at the meetings to provide public input. He felt 6 p.m., the same time as present Planning Commission meeting time would be more appropriate. Brian Stumpf asked if compensation had been set up to cover the second meeting. At the present time, the Planning Commission members receive $50/meeting. Wayne Mayer, stated J Council Minutes - 10/10/05 he does have concerns about the extra staff hours because of the second meeting and labor costs because of overtime. It was noted that the items considered at this second meeting would not be applicant driven so this time would not be charged back to developers. Glen Posusta suggested going with an extra meeting every other month. Clint Herbst concurred noting the Planning Commission showed some hesitation on having the second meeting and he agreed that no public hearings or action on planning applications should take place at this second meeting. If a developer needed a Planning Commission meeting outside the regular meeting, the developer has the option of calling for a special meeting. WAYNE MAYER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECOND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD EVERY OTHER MONTH ON THE THIRD TUESDAY AT 5 P.M. WITH THIS MEETING TO BE FOR GENERAL PLANNING ITEMS ONLY AND NO PUBLIC HEARINGS OR PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW. BRIAN STUMPF SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 7. Public Hearing - Continued 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. Vacation action contingent upon approval of preliminary plat of Monticello Travel Center 2"' Addition. Jeff O'Neill stated that there a number of items relating to this request that they would like to consider simultaneously but at this time there a few issues that have not been taken care of and he was recommending this item be tabled until the next meeting. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE VACATION OF CEDAR STREET RIGHT OF WAY AND VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN THE PLAT OF MONTICELLO TRAVEL CENTER UNTIL THE OCTOBER 24, 2005 MEETING. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Glen Posusta expressed his concern that staff was dragging their feet on this item and he truly hoped this would be taken care of at the next meeting. He would like all issues relating to this project, including signage and any other loose ends taken care of the at the next meeting. He wants to make sure the developer knows what is needed beforehand so they won't find out at the last minute that they had not submitted everything that was needed. 8. Continued Public Hearing on appeal of variance for secondary driveway in an R-1 Zoning District. Applicant: Richard Bastien Central Masonry & Concrete. The applicant requested a variance to allow two driveway accesses to one lot. The Planning Commission reviewed this request and felt with the double fronting lot at this location a second driveway was a reasonable request. The Public works Department appealed 11 Council Minutes - 10/10/05 the variance based on the fact that there were other issues to be looked at in the same area. The City Council is acting as the Board of Appeals in order to make a decision on whether a double fronting lot with access to the back should be allowed a second driveway. If a second driveway is allowed what should the setback be. If this is being treated as a double fronting lot then the setback would be 30'. It was noted that setbacks for accessory buildings on a double fronting lot does not have a standard. For all other uses the side yard setback is 6'. It was pointed out that the applicant has already installed a retaining wall and pad. The Council would need to decide whether to approve the variance with conditions or deny the variance because no hardship exists. Brian Stumpf asked what the right of way was in the area and how far off the curb would the garage be placed. The applicant indicated that the garage would be located 27' from the curb. It is not known what the distance is between the curb and the property line. Clint Herbst felt that if the property owner is going with the 6' setback then a second driveway should not be allowed. If a second driveway is approved, the setback should be 30 feet. Glen Posusta stated that while a survey is not needed for the Council to make a decision, a survey will be required for a building permit. Glen Posusta said the Council has made a determination that a second driveway can only be 16'. He didn't think 16' would be suitable for 32' garage especially since it is placed this close to the road. He felt a survey is crucial since the property owner is crowding one side of the property. Dick Bastien, 1112 West River Street spoke stating that everything he did was because of misinformation supplied by a building department employee. He was told 30' feet from the center of the road plus 6' was the setback required. He is providing 30' feet from the centerline plus 12'. He argued they would not be in this situation had they been given the proper information. The Planning Commission recommended a setback of 20 feet from the lot line. Mr. Bastien stated he would not need a survey had he been given the correct information. Glen Posusta questioned whether staff had been given all the information needed in order to determine what the appropriate setback should be. Glen Posusta said if a survey had been in place this would not be a question now. Clint Herbst asked if any survey work was done as part of the Core Street Project in this area. Bret Weiss responded that the road was reconstructed in its existing location but no survey or plat work was done showing that existing location. Dick Bastien stated that River Terrace had never been surveyed as far as he knew. He stated from the back of the curb to the garage would be 27'. He said he was told by the Planning Commission that he would be able to access the garage from River Street. He added that he had also agreed to the assessment for the second driveway. John Simola stated that in looking at the plat it appears that the street right of way is not the standard 60' width. There was no right of way dimension shown on the plat. Dick Bastien stated he was told that the property line was 32' from the center line. In order to comply with the Planning Commission recommendation of a 20' setback he would have to be 52' from the centerline of the road and to meet that the retaining wall would have to be redone. E Council Minutes - 10/10/05 Mary Poetz, 1112 West River Street, stated she had prepared the handout given to the Council outlining how much the misinformation from city staff had cost them. The cost thus far, not including time, was approximately $9,000. She stated what should have been a two month project has now extended into five months. Glen Posusta stated since the 20' setback recommended by the Planning Commission would put them beyond the existing retaining wall how did the applicant propose to rectify that. Since a 20' setback would require changing the retaining wall Glen Posusta felt the applicant should comply with the 30' setback. Clint Herbst asked about the right of way and how much of the boulevard area was needed. Bret Weiss replied that it would depend on what utilities were located within the right of way. Brian Stumpf felt a survey is still needed in order for a decision to be made. Clint Herbst suggested that if it is determined that the right of way exceeds 60' the city could look at reducing the amount of right of way but a survey still would be needed. Wayne Mayer stated he also has concerns about the width of the second driveway. The drawing shows a 32' driveway not 16' as the Council recommends for a second driveway. Because of the short distance the garage is from Sandy Lane he felt access with a 16' driveway would be difficult. It was noted that the 16' width was at the property line and that beyond the property line the driveway width could be widened. Again it was noted that a survey would be needed to determine where the property line was. The consensus of the Council was that a survey was needed before a decision could be made. The question was whether this item could be tabled until a survey was completed and not exceed the 60 day rule. City Attorney Tom Scott said the City does have the authority to on its own extend the time frame for action to 120 days. There was some question whether that time frame could be met. Tom Scott suggested if that was a concern the applicant could waive the time limit. Mary Poetz agreed to table the item but stated they wanted to talk this over because at this point they are not certain whether they want to invest more time and money into this. TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF A VARIANCE FOR A SECONDARY DRIVEWAY IN AN R-1 ZONING DISTRICT UNTIL THE OCTOBER 24, 2005 MEETING. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED. 9. Consideration of approving a conditional use permit for 896 sq. ft. detached accessory structure in an R-1 Zoning District. Applicant: Richard Bastien Central Masonry & Concrete. TOM PERRAULT MOVED TO TABLE ACTION ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Council Minutes - 10/10/05 10. Consideration of recommendation from staff regarding enforcement of ordinance relating to multiple driveways. Added to consent agenda. 11. Consideration of proceeding with selected biosolids option. The Council conducted a workshop meeting on the biosolids options prior to the regular Council meeting. John Simola, Public Works Director ask the Council to select an option that would define biosolids handling for the City whether the City would go with producing Class A or Class B sludge and whether to produce a dry or liquid sludge. He noted that staff was recommending that the City go with producing Class A sludge and the consulting engineer was recommending a dry product because that would help retain the longevity of the existing facility. Brian Stumpf felt the City should be producing Class A sludge and Clint Herbst concurred noting that it is that permitting for disposal of Class B sludge is likely to become more restrictive. Wayne Mayer stated that there is good argument for staying on the same route the City is on. The problem is the need to acquire an additional 160 acres of land which could cost the City approximately $4,000,000. He noted the cost for the heat drying system is also almost $4,000,000. He felt at this point in time he was leaning toward going with producing Class A sludge using a heat drying process. He stated he would have liked to have the opportunity and time to study how this equipment has operated in other communities where it is being used. Glen Posusta noted the City's experience in the past with new technology and stated he would just as soon let the decision ride until more communities have this system and they know how it works. It was stated that this technology has been used for some time in a number of larger cities. The question was whether a miniaturized version of the system would work equally as well for smaller communities. Glen Posusta stated he doesn't like being the guinea pig when it comes to testing technology. Tom Perrault felt the City should purchase additional land even if they could not purchase all 160 acres at one time. He felt it wouldn't hurt to look at the cost of purchasing more land regardless of the option selected. John Simola reiterated that the heat drying process has been used for some time in many areas. He added that the Council was not deciding at this time what type of heat drying process would be utilized only whether heat drying was the option that would be studied. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO HAVE THE CITY PROCEED WITH PRODUCING CLASS A SLUDGE WHICH HAS BEEN PART OF THE CITY'S LONG TERM PLAN AND PURSUE THE HEAT DRYING PROCESS IN HANDLING THE BIOSOLIDS. In additional discussion Wayne Mayer asked about what type of maintenance costs the City 7 Council Minutes - 10/10/05 could expect with a heat drying system. Bob Brown of Bolton Menk reviewed what would be considered typical maintenance items as well as the life expectancy of the system. WAYNE MAYER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 12. Consideration of a request to rezone in industrial property from I-lA (Light Industrial) to I-2 (Heavy Industrial). Applicant: City of Monticello. The request for rezoning this property came about in an effort to relocate the AVR redi-mix operation to another site in the city. The proposed area for rezoning is in the plat of Otter Creek and is located adjacent to the YMCA property. The site is identified in the Comprehensive Plan as industrial. The industrial park was set up with the intent of attracting high quality developments. The City put in place protective covenants and building standards to ensure high quality development would occur. The question is how does rezoning a portion of this property to an I-2 classification impact the area. Glen Posusta noted when the Planning Commission discussed this item they brought up possibly leaving the site as I-1 A zoning and allowAVR to use the site by a conditional use permit process. Jeff O'Neill stated he had passed this onto Steve Grittman, City Planner. Steve Grittman indicated he didn't feel the conditional use permit would be the best way to handle this. If a redi-mix plant was allowed by a conditional use permit in this area it could be allowed in any I-1 A area. Glen Posusta felt the conditional use permit would give the City more control over what happens out there. Glen Posusta stated the City is in this situation with their backs against the wall and is being forced to do something because they waited until the last minute to work on the AVR issue. He noted that in initial discussions on the interchange project he had brought up the issue of the AVR relocation but nothing had been done until the City was too far into the project to back out. Clint Herbst suggested that the City Attorney prepare an analysis of the pros and cons of handling the AVR relocation to the industrial park as a rezoning request or a conditional use permit. Brian Stumpf stated the City made a good faith effort in trying to work something out with the property owners on relocating. He felt the Council should be helping the property owner and not pushing the business out. There was some discussion on amending the ordinance to allow a redi-mix as a conditional use permit and what steps the City would have to take if they followed that action. Clint Herbst stated that at this time the Council was not talking about a proposed amendment but rather just a listing of the pros and cons for the option of rezoning or a conditional use permit. Wayne Mayer stated his concerns that if the City established a redi-mix as a permitted use in an I-lA district how would the City control this use. Tom Scott stated there would be criteria established and any applicant requesting a conditional use permit would have to meet 0 Council Minutes - 10/10/05 that criteria. Tom Scott said since the City owns the site the City has the right to negotiate what can be built on it. Clint Herbst asked if a provision could be contained in the agreement that if AVR did not relocate to the site the zoning would revert back to I-1 A. Clint Herbst and Glen Posusta will be meeting on Tuesday with AVR. It was also pointed out that there is a potential for a loss of going concern claim that the City would have to consider as well. GLEN POSUSTA MOVED TO REZONE FROM I-lA TO I-2 A SITE IN THE OTTER CREEK INDUSTRIAL PARK FOR THE AVR RELOCATION BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE REQUEST MEETS THE SPECIFIC TESTS FOR REZONING LISTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THAT THE ZONING REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE COVENANTS WILL ENSURE THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THE SITE DOES NOT DEPRECIATE PROPERTY VALUES IN THE AREA. CLINT HERBST SECONDED THE MOTION. In further discussion it was pointed out that the new AVR site would not be like the existing site. Clint Herbst added if the AVR is not located to the site, the property can be zoned back to I-1 A. Tom Scott stated on the loss of going concern claim that he felt it would be a difficult claim to substantiate but he felt the City had to be aware of that potential claim. Wayne Mayer stated that Glen Posusta was correct in stating his concern early about the AVR relocation. He stated his dream for Monticello was to bring industry to the community so residents would not have to be on the freeway for hours to get to work. He added that the City may lose some prospective industries because AVR is located out there. He said he didn't believe he could vote for AVR's relocation to the site because of the perception of the redi- mix facility and the impact that would have on development in the area. Tom Perrault stated that it may not be the ideal site for AVR but the City is in a difficult position and it is possible that AVR may decide that is not the site they want. UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN MOTION CARRIED WITH WAYNE MAYER VOTING IN OPPOSITION. Added Items: Chamber Banquet: 011ie Koropchak informed the Council that the Chamber Banquet was scheduled for October 24, 2005 at 11 a.m. at the Monticello Community Center. Any members of the Council who wish to attend should notify her. Law Enforcement Meeting: Tom Perrault stated that the Police Commission at their last meeting discussed having a joint meeting of the City Council, Police Commission, Fire Department representatives and Sheriff Department representatives to talk about items that could be discussed at a public forum. A tentative meeting has been scheduled for October 27, 2005 at 7 p.m. for these groups to discuss what kind of information and issues the public would like addressed. Rick Wolfsteller noted that the Police Commission was also interested in having the Council purchase some of the speed monitors that are attached to fences so the I Council Minutes - 10/ 1010.5 traffic speed could be monitored. Wayne Mayer also added that the Police Commission expressed interest in having a four-way stop at Cedar Street and School Boulevard. There was some discussion on whether a four way stop or a signalized system would best solve the problem. The concern with the four way stop would be that traffic would be dumped onto the street whereas a signalized system could be linked to the other signals and thus keep a backup of traffic from occurring. Bret Weiss stated he was not sure if the state would allow a four way stop at this location. 13. Consideration of approving bills for October. BRIAN STUMPF MOVED TO APPROVE PAYMENT OF THE BILLS FOR OCTOBER. TOM PERRAULT SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 14. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 9 p.m. Recording Secretary [K