Loading...
City Council Minutes 10-11-1983MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL October 11, 1983 - 7:30 P.M. i Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Dan Blonigen, Ken Maus, and Jack Maxwell. Members Absent: None. 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of the Minutes. Motion by Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and carried unanimously to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held September 26, 1983. 4. Consideration of Resolutions Pertaining to T.H. 25 and Bridge - Minnesota Department of Transportation. Mr. Jim Weingartz of MN/DOT, Brainerd office, was present to explain the new proposal submitted by the State of Minnesota. Weingartz noted that the main difference is that the River Street/Highway 25 intersection is now proposed to be open. He stated that initially the State of Minnesota did not see a River Street opening as desirable; MN/DOT reconsidered,based upon comments of the residents of Monticello, and the new proposal is to open up River Street for full traffic service. He indicated that the rest of the project had not changed and that MN/DOT was requesting that the City make a determination so that the project may either move ahead or be stopped. He indicated that in order to meet schedule, the final action cannot be delayed much longer. The Mayor opened the floor for public comment. Mr. Robert MacDonald, owner of the Monticello Mall, asked a general question stating that under this new proposal, is there still considerable public opposition. Mayor Grimsmo invited comment from anyone who wished to address the new proposal and Mr. MacDonald's question. Mel Wolters raised the question concerning the bank's position with the altered proposal. Wolters indicated that he was aware that the bank was the most vocal opposition to the old proposal; and now that it had been revised, he would like to hear their position restated. George Phillips, representing Wright County State Bank, stated that the bank was still concerned about the loss of access in the middle of the block. He stated that the bank has no quarrel with the mall and that they had no formal position on the suggested relocation of Highway 25. He stated, however, that the bank was still of a position that a median would cut off service to customers. He hoped that the State had yet - 1 - Council Minutes - 10/11/83 another proposal that would solve the problem but would eliminate the center median. Mary Brion spoke in support of Phillip's position. Ed Schaffer raised the question concerning why the State simply doesn't move Highway 25 northwest. He stated that there was no need for more traffic through town. Mr. Weingartz of MN/DOT indicated that the relocation of 25 was simply not a feasible question and was not a part of the State's overall plan. Jenny Hoglund presented a petition and several letters as exhibits to the Council. She spoke in support of the current proposal and indicated that requests for safety measures had been initiated as early as 1977/78. Bob MacDonald presented a petition from 37 business people supporting the project and an additional support letter. The Mayor closed public comment at this time and requested comment from Council members. Councilmember Maxwell stated that he would like to see the project go providing that two or three alterations still be incorporated into the project. He stated that he can't, in good conscience, vote for this proposal with the alley closures as they are presented. He stated that he could not support the project so long as it has a raised median between River Street and Broadway and between Broadway and Third Street. The Mayor asked him if that meant he would vote against the current resolution but he would vote for an amended resolution including a proposal that the center be striped rather than raised. Maxwell indicated he would. Council - member Fair indicated that this was not the issue. She stated that the resolution intended to be presented for adoption was to either support or oppose the proposed layout. She commented on why this decision had been delayed since the last meeting so that downtown business concerns could meet with MN/DOT people to try and reach a compromise. She said she felt this had been achieved in that the State had conceded the River Street crossing, which was of major concern at the last meeting. She stated she was in favor of the proposal exactly as laid out. She went on to state that the proposed budget, which would come up later in the meeting, reflects a committ- ment to economic development and that quality highway systems were essential to achieving economic development. Councilmember Maus stated that he was the one who had suggested total relocation at an earlier businessmen's meeting, but that it was not meant to be diversionary. Still, he said that he thinks there will eventually be a bridge upstream. He stated that his main objection is that the design reflects the State's convenience and their design wishes, and not the City's wishes. He stated that the system is primarily designed to handle the transient traffic; and he was of a position that the system which is most usable by the local community should be installed first, with the transient needs being addressed thereafter. Fair stated that as near as she could tell the entire - 2 - Council Minutes - 10/11/83 objection came down to the loss of three alleys in the downtown, and that the businesses should not suffer any loss due to the median by simply being creative in their own parking areas. Councilmember Blonigen stated that based on tonight's presentation he thought the City could live with the project if the City was willing to get involved with alley and parking re -adjustments. He stated that he was really of a position that the median isn't really necessary. Mayor Grimsmo commented saying that he shares and has been aware of many of the concerns. He stated that his original position was in favor of the striping rather than the median. He indicated he appreciated the State's concession in opening River Street, but is still sorry that the median can't be removed. Mr. Weingartz indicated that the reduction in accidents/ increase in safety conditions would not be substantial enough by doing center striping only to warrant the expense of the project. He stated that current statistics in similar conditions show a 35% reduction in traffic accidents with the raised median, but only a loo reduction with painted lanes. He stated that the State's position was that the loo reduction was not a substantial enough reduction to warrant a major reconstruction of the highway. Administrator Eidem reported that Mr. Jerry Jensen of Holiday Corporation, who could not attend, strongly supported the proposal as presented. He stated that Holiday Corporation had a substantial investment that they were interested in protecting and that they were in full favor of the proposal as submitted. Councilmember Blonigen indicated that since the State is apparently designing the project to accommodate total traffic, he was giving Weingartz advanced notice that he will raise several questions over the cost sharing formula. Blonigen stated that since the design was less to accommodate local traffic than transient traffic, he felt that the City's share should be reduced. Maus indicated that he simply would not accept the position that if the City opposes this proposal that the State would totally abandon the project. He said that the State wants to replace the bridge and should be receptive to further negotiations. Mayor Grimsmo raised the question of lighting on the bridge and what the cost formula would be there. Weingartz indicated that the standard formula is for the State to pay for the cost of installation and the City would then assume the cost of minor maintenance and the electric bills. He indicated that if the City was unwilling to participate in the program at all, the bridge would not be lighted. Councilmember Fair introduced and moved the adoption of the following resolution: Proposed Resolution For Layout Approval, Resolution 1983 #83 (The full text is on record in the office of the City Administrator), seconded by Grimsmo. Voting in favor: Grimsmo and Fair. Voting in the opposition-: Blonigen, Maus, Maxwell. Motion failed, resolution not adopted. Motion by Maus to submit a request to MN/DOT that the - 3 - Council Minutes - 10/11/83 reconstruction of Highway 25 be studied further, and further request that a new proposal be presented to the City which would eliminate the raised center median. Motion seconded by Blonigen. A question was directed to Weingartz on what this meant to the overall project. Weingartz indicated that technically the bridge was a separate project from the street improvements and thus, the Council could conceivably approve the bridge layout but could also deny the street layout proposal. Maus raised the question as to whether or not this was the end of the entire project. Weingartz indicated not necessarily. Maxwell indicated that he would favor a position that would account for the building of the bridge first, and the building of the highway second. He said he feared a sub- stantial traffic jam would occur wherein traffic would be traveling on a four -lane highway and coming to a two-lane bridge. Weingartz indicated that a four -lane bridge that would have to narrow to a two-lane highway would create just as bad of a traffic jam, and in fact,in the State's position it would be worse considering the alignment of the new bridge. The Mayor closed discussion. Voting in favor of the motion: Blonigen, Maxwell, Maus, Fair. Voting in opposition: Grimsmo. Motion carried. Maus stated that the intent of his motion is to keep the project alive but to keep negotiations open with the State in the ultimate hope of having the raised center median removed. Motion by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and carried unanimously that the City include in its communication with the State a statement indicating that the City is in favor of the bridge improvement and does not wish to have the project abandoned but only to negotiate the center island issue. 5. Public Hearing_- Construction 5, Inc. - Consideration of Request to Vacate Streets.^ Mr. Gus LaFromboise of Construction 5, who is proposing development in and around Blocks 42, 43, 49, 48, and neighboring areas, was present to request the vacation of Hennepin Street from the railroad to Lauring Lane, and perhaps all the way to the freeway, as well as vacation of a portion of Seventh Street and portions of Washington Street. Staff explained that their review of the request had led to lengthy discussion on the extension of Lauring Lane, said extension proposed to run through part of Construction 5's property. Staff indicated that before a sound decision could be made with respect to the overall vacations that the final alignment of the Lauring Lane extension be determined, and the property exchange be negotiated. Staff indicated that one problem with the proposed extension of Lauring Lane was that it may have to cross over a portion of the Malone property. Mr. and Mrs. Bill Malone were present to state that - 4 - Council Minutes - 10/11/83 they were not in favor of the Lauring Lane alignment since it would require taking a portion of their property as well as putting a street very close to their residence. The Malone's did indicate, however, that Eleanor Malone, the owner, would like to discuss negotiation on a small corner of the property but insists that she be present to do so. The difficulty, they indicated, is that Eleanor Malone has left the state and will not return until July of 1984. John Badalich, OSM, for information purposes discussed three alternatives to the extension of Lauring Lane. He indicated that alternative #1 was the most desirable from an engineering standpoint but did present some problems if the Malones were re- luctant to sell a small portion of their land. He stated that #2 was the best alternative in the event that Malones are reluctant to give up land since the land requirement was very minimal. He indicated that #3 was the least desirable primarily due to engineering standards and final configuration. Administrator Eidem indicated for the Council's information that any street vacation must, according to statute, be in the best public interest. He also noted that, by vacating only Hennepin Street between the railroad and Lauring Lane at this time, the City is releasing some of its leverage in negotiating for property to accommodate the Lauring Lane extension. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Motion by Maus, seconded by Maxwell, and carried unanimously that Hennepin Street from the Burlington Northern right of way to the northerly line of Lauring Lane be vacated and that the property be offered to Construction 5 for the appraised price of $24,000.00. Motion carried. 6. Public Hearing - Consideration of Adopting Assessment Roll for Delinquent Sewer and Water Bills. Rick Wolfsteller presented to the Council a list of names of persons who are currently 60 days or more delinquent in sewer and water bills and other City charges. He requested adoption of this roll so that it may be certified to the County Auditor and have the amounts placed upon the tax rolls for the property in question. Motion by Blonigen, seconded by Fair, and carried unanimously to adopt the following assessment roll and have it certified to the County for placement upon the tax rolls of the property. The Mayor requested that items 7 and 8 on the Agenda be reversed. 8. Consideration of Conditional Use Request - Assembly of God Church. There being no objection, Pastor Nordby came before the Council - 5 - Council Minutes - 10/11/83 to reopen discussion on their application for a Conditional Use for a day care center in their church building. Prior to explaining the proposal, Pastor Nordby indicated that the church is considering lowering their asking price for the building or they might even consider a trade for the Monticello Senior Citizen Building. However, tonight's presentation related to using the building as a preschool day care center. Pastor Nordby cited all of the State regulations and confirmed that the proposal could meet them. Councilmember Fair questioned whether or not a public hearing had been properly held. Staff indicated that they were sure such a hearing had been held. It was agreed by concensus that the conditions attached to the permit would be that all regulatory agencies of the State and other jurisdictions be met and further that the permit will be effective until July 1, 1984, at which time it will be reviewed. Again, Fair raised the question as to whether or not all of the neighbors had been notified about the public hearing that was held since she had heard no comment on this project at all. Zoning Administrator Anderson indicated that he was sure that notices had been sent out. Motion by Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and carried unanimously to grant a Conditional Use Permit under the condition that all regulatory agencies requirements be met and said permit shall be effective until July 1, 1984. Motion carried. 7. Consideration of a Sideyard Variance Request - Robert and Mary Saxon. This item had been delayed since the September 26 Council meeting and the Saxons re -appeared upon the request of the City Council. Saxon's request is for a Variance to sideyard requirements so that they may place a 24 x 32 foot garage, which would be detached. Councilmembers Fair and Maus both expressed considerable concern over the retaining wall on the hill that goes down into the City park. Several questions were asked concerning the possible under- mining of Mr. Saxon's foundation where he would put his garage in this location. Councilmember Fair asked in light of what has happened earlier in the meeting regarding the Highway 25 and bridge proposal, could the Saxons wait just two more weeks. She suggested that each Councilmember make a thorough study of whether or not this property would be considered valuable to the City regardless of the outcome of the 25 project. Mayor Grimsmo indicated that Karen Hanson, Senior Citizen Director, had said that they were involved in a grant application process, the funds for which may be eligible for parking lot development. Mr. Saxon indicated that his original plan was to be completed by November 1; and since he could not complete that at this time, construction has been delayed until spring. However, he stated that he still would like a decision as soon as possible. The Council requested that the Saxons return for the regular Council - 6 - Council Minutes - 10/11/83 meeting on October 24 and a final decision would try to be reached at that time. No other decision taken at this time. The Mayor recognized Jenny Hoglund, who requested that the discussion relating to Highway 25 be reopened or a special meeting be set to hear their concerns. Several persons spoke relating to the earlier decision of the Council. They stated they felt that their concerns had not been heard, that support for the project far outweighed opposition to the project, but the Council vote went the other direction. The Mayor asked if Mr. Weingartz of MN/DOT had anything new to add or had any alterations to the proposal been agreed upon in the past few minutes. Mr. Weingartz indicated that he was not able to make final decisions on the behalf of the department and thus, nothing new was really able to be presented. The Mayor in- dicated that he would not reopen the discussion at this time since official action had been taken. 9. Consideration of Report Concerning Repairs to City Hall Roof. Council members Blonigen and Maus and Zoning Administrator Anderson reported on a meeting that had been held earlier that afternoon with the architect and contractors on City Hall. They explained that the source of the leakage had been narrowed considerably and that another meeting had been set for Thursday, October 13, to make the final determination. Blonigen indicated that the original roofing contractor should be approached to rectify the matter as a part of an overall roof repair job. The Council authorized Gary Anderson to enter and reach final negotiations on a solution to the roof leakage problem. 10. Consideration of a Resolution to Adopt the 1984 Municipal Budget and Setting the Tax Levy. Motion by Blonigen to adopt the following resolution: Resolution Adopting 1984 Budget and Setting the Tax Levy, Resolution 1983 #81, (The full text is on record in the office of the City Administrator). The motion was duly seconded by Maxwell with the following voting in favor: Fair, Blonigen, Grimsmo, Maus, and Maxwell. The following voted in opposition: none. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Consideration of a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing and Author- izing Preparation of Assessment Roll for Meadow Oak. John Badalich of OSM, Consulting Engineers, addressed the public improvement done in the Meadow Oak Subdivision. He discussed the assessable cost and the City cost and explained how the final determin- ation was made. It was explained that a public hearing is required prior to adoption of the assessment roll. Motion by Blonigen, - 7 - Council Minutes - 10/11/83 seconded by Maus, to adopt the following resolution: Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed, Ordering the Preparation of Proposed Assessment, and Calling for a Hearing on the Proposed Assessment, Resolution 1983 #82 (The full text is on record in the office of the City Administrator). Voting in favor: Grimsmo, Fair, Blonigen, Maus, and Maxwell. Voting in the opposition: none. Motion carried unanimously. 12. Consideration of Plans and Specifications and Authorization for Bids for Pump House #2 Addition. John Simola, Public Works Director, submitted to the Council final plans and specifications for the construction of an addition to pump house #2. Motion by Blonigen, seconded by Maxwell, and carried unanimously to approve the final plans and specifications and authorizing a request for bids. 13. Consideration of Change Order #3 for Meadow Oak. John Badalich explained that there was an additional $1,000.00 mobilization charge by Metrocurbing, a subcontractor on the Meadow Oak Improvements, due to a delay in the issuance of the railroad crossing permit. Councilmember Fair asked who was the responsible party in the permit delay. Badalich responded that it was primarily the railroad who had delayed action and that their communication had not been relayed to the curbing subcontractor; and as such, the contractor came in, did a portion of the work, left the job, and returned resulting in an additional $1,000.00 charge. Fair also asked would this $1,000.00 charge be assessable to the project, and Badalich indicated it would. Motion by Fair, seconded by Maus, and carried unanimously to approve Change Order #3. 14. Consideration of Request to Increase Seating at Guy's Bakery. Administrator Eidem explained that staff had originally placed a limit on seating to 16 chairs when Guy's Bakery made application to enter their current site. He stated that the seating was based upon the zoning and parking requirements for the nature of the business. He further indicated that due to the amount of business, the bakery had requested additional seating and that he had directed their request to the downtown parking committee since it related directly to traffic flows. He reported that the parking committee had okayed an increase of eight additional seats. Motion by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and carried unanimously to grant Guy's Bakery an increase in seating capacity for eight additional chairs. Mm Council Minutes - 10/11/83 15. Mark Irmiter, manager of Highway Liquors, came before the Council to request permission to acquire two new cash registers for the liquor store. He indicated that it had been appropriated for the 1984 budget, but upon discussion with Councilmember Maus felt that acquisition would be more prudent at this time in order to prepare for the holiday season. Eidem reported that the bid price for two machines would be $15,507.00. Motion by Maus, seconded by Fair, and carried unanimously to purchase two NCR model numbers 2126 cash registers for the price of $15,507.00. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Thomas A. Eidem City Administrator - 9 -