Loading...
City Council Minutes 04-12-2004 SpecialMINUTES SPECIAL MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Monday April 12, 2004 - 5:30 p.m. Members Present: Roger Carlson, Glen Posusta, Robbie Smith, Brian Stumpf and Bruce Thielen. Members Absent: None 1. Call to Order. Mayor Thielen called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and declared a quorum present. 2. Purpose of Workshop Session. The workshop was set to discuss a number of issues related to development such as trunk charges and building permit fees. Also proposed for discussion was code enforcement. Building Permit Fees The Council received a copy of the building permit fee schedule which is from the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Building Official, Fred Patch explained that as of March 23, 2003, the State had modified the fee schedule by rule to allow for reduced plan review fees for similar plans. The question that was raised was whether the City was actively making the effort to ensure that the builders were aware of the provision relating to reduced plan review fees for plans that qualified as a "Master Plan." That section of the code was included for Council review. Glen Posusta argued that it was inappropriate for the City to collect the full plan review fees when the City did not disclose that there was an option available to the builder for a paying a reduced amount. The position of Fred Patch is that since it is a provision of the code the builders are aware of it and it is the builder's obligation to submit a plan that meets the criteria for a "Master Plan" thus qualifying for the reduced plan review fee. Glen Posusta felt it was a philosophical question. The City has a monopoly on issuing building permits and he noted a reservation on the part of the City of addressing this provision of the code. He felt this borders on being unethical as he did not believe the builders were aware of this provision. Because the City has no competition there is no effort to get this information out to the public. Brian Stumpf felt that the city competes with other cities for development and that was sufficient motivation to keep building fees at a reasonable level. Glen Posusta stated he had contacted a number of cities regarding this provision for reduced plan review fees and even some of the cities were not aware of this provision. Glen Posusta also questioned Fred Patch's statement that by providing this information to the builders, the city would lose money and for that reason he was not putting the information out. Fred Patch responded that he is doing what is typical of other cities. Special Meeting Minutes - 4/12/04 In 1997 the City looked carefully at the fees they were charging and at that time had set up their fees with a cost of living adjustment factor. Rick Wolfsteller pointed that the City is trying to recoup as much as possible from the developers the actual cost of developing rather than having the taxpayers pick it up. The question is who should pay for development cost? Jeff O'Neill stated that the provision requires the master plan comply with certain criteria and that would mean that there would be less building department time spent in plan review. With a master plan the City would not be getting as much revenue but also would not be spending as much time in plan review. Glen Posusta questioned how closely the Building Department scrutinizes each building plan that is submitted. Both Glen Posusta and Matt Brokl stated that no illegal action has taken place. Glen Posusta's position is that there should be something on the building permit application to make the builders aware of this provision. Fred Patch responded that the builders are aware of it but Glen Posusta felt the City should take the initiative in letting the builders know. The City should be doing what they can to help things along and not setting up roadblocks. Brian Stumpf commented that even with the building fees the City charges, construction has not slowed down. Matt Brokl suggested as part of the application material, you could have a question, "Is this a master plan?" If the box is checked, then the building department know it needs to conduct a review to verify it meets the requirements of a master plan. Mayor Thielen felt that suggestion was simple and could easily be accomplished. Fred Patch reiterated that if the City does this and actively promotes the master plan provision it will reduce the amount of single family fees as well as townhome fees. Glen Posusta pointed out that only the plan check portion of the building fee would be reduced. Matt Brokl suggested that perhaps one reason why builders may not utilize the master plan provision is that might impugn their image as a custom home builder. Jeff O'Neill questioned if the plan check fee was reduced could the building permit fee be increased? The consensus of the Council was that the issue could be resolved by adding a check box to indicate whether or not the builder was submitting a master plan. Glen Posusta felt the city should provide more explanation of the provision Trunk Fees Jeff O'Neill provided background information on the trunk fee policies stating that the purpose in establishing the trunk fees policy was to have the developers pay a proportionate share of the cost. Where platted lots were part of a redevelopment project credit was given for previously charged trunk fees. However if the use of the property was intensified then additional trunk fees would be required. Emerald Estates and Morning Glory were cited as examples. Bret Weiss stated the assumption on this was because a lot was platted it had paid for the trunk fee charges or that the charges were collected as taxes. Bret Weiss said the distinction was undeveloped lots -vs- a platted lot. The compromise was to take credit for the platted lots and if it increased in density anything beyond the number of platted lots then additional trunk charges would be collected. If they need to replat they would get credit for the lot as 1/3 2 Special Meeting Minutes - 4/12/04 developed. This policy would cause the trunk fees for the Schneider development to be half of what was originally proposed. Matt Brokl felt this that this was rare instance for the City where you had platted lots that didn't have utilities. The general feeling was that if the use intensified then additional trunk fees may be collected. Glen Posusta asked how 224 East 4th Street would be handled. Staff replied that if the use was intensified additional trunk charges would be collected. The Council supported the trunk fee policy and its application on platted lots. Code Enforcement Jeff O'Neill explained the information provided on code enforcement and asked for Council direction on where the need is and what kind of effort staff needs to expend. Jeff O'Neill asked how the Council wanted to establish standards and enforce the codes. Either change the code or enforce it. Roger Carlson asked if this was something that could come before the council on a quarterly basis. Fred Patch indicated that there are data privacy laws that would apply to this information. Fred Patch submitted a memo relating to code enforcement. Brian Stumpf stated that a set of procedures has to be followed in getting it cleaned up. Bret Weiss stated there is concern with liability issues when things are stored in street right-of-way. Bruce Thielen stated that no other city would allow building supplies or equipment to be placed in the city right of way. Bruce Thielen stated that the staff is looking for support from the council on their enforcement activities. If the Council has questions on how staff is enforcing the code, staff could provide the council with a list of violations and the council could select which ones would be enforced. Brian Stumpf felt it was important for council members to obey the regulations. It gives the city a bad image if the community leaders do not comply with the regulations and he cited the Amax Storage signs. Fred Patch stated that the conditional use permit covering the sign for Amax storage was poorly written and made enforcement difficult since there was no definition as to what was an existing sign. Fred Patch said the Council could go back and clarify the terms of the CUP for Amax Storage. Fred Patch stated his concern was more with JME which he felt had egregious violations but he felt he could do nothing to enforce the code. Fred Patch stated that because some of the property owners call Council member Posusta, his ability to do enforcement is hampered. Enforcement of the ordinance should not be political. Jeff O'Neill stated there is a mechanism in place where codes can be changed if the Council doesn't believe that a certain provision of the code should be enforced but the City should be consistent in enforcement. Going back to the Amax sign, Brian Stumpf noted that the sign on the telephone was posted some time after the CUP was approved. Although John Simola didn't notice the particular sign in question, he pointed out that any signs in the public right-of-way are a violation of the sign ordinance nor does the ordinance allow signs to be affixed on telephone poles. Fred Patch expressed his concern about people calling the council members when an ordinance violation is being enforced. Staff did not feel that council members should be used as a means to bypass enforcement action. Glen Posusta in his role as council liaison to the Planing Commission could bring areas of code that were considered questionable before the Planning commission to be amended. Special Meeting Minutes - 4/12/04 Matt Brokl stated it appeared to be the consensus of the Council that the staff come up with a list of violations. If the violation is a safety hazard the city has an obligation to take care of it. Bruce Thielen brought up the suggestion of using administrative permits and fines. Fred Patch said he didn't want to do that. Bruce Thielen suggested doing the spring sweep before Junk Amnesty Day and noted that enforcement officers need to be prudent. It was suggested having a community service officer to work in the area of code enforcement. Fred Patch said he could be bring an intern in tomorrow to handle the code enforcement. Glen Posusta asked about Junk Amnesty day and why businesses were excluded. John Simola indicated the City couldn't handle it. Glen Posusta suggested limiting the items, similar to what they currently do. Brian Stumpf concurred with Glen Posusta. John Simola stated as it is now there is between 400-500 residents coming in and the City physically can not handle any more. Glen Posusta suggested another day be set aside for the businesses. John Simola recommended the issue something the recycling committee should look at. John Simola stated a number of communities have quit conducting junk amnesty days such as Otsego. Glen Posusta said people come to him because some times staff makes it difficult for people to come to them to resolve a problem As far as code enforcement, the staff will complete the sweep before Junk Amnesty Day and will come back with a list of violations for Council consideration. Workshop was adjourned at 6:45 p.m Recording Secretary .19