Loading...
City Council Minutes 05-27-1986MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, May 27, 1986 - 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Arve Grimsmo, Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Jack Maxwell, Dan Blonigen. Members Absent: None. 2. Approval of Minutes. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held May 12, 1986. 4. Public Hearing - Consideration of Granting a Variance to Parking Lot Design for the Monticello -Big Lake Hospital District. The Monticello -Big Lake Hospital requested two variances to allow for the expansion of their Hospital parking lot and the parking lot for the new ambulance garage. The first variance requested was to allow the parking lot expansion to have the curb on the property line rather than 5 feet away as provided in the ordinances. The reason for the request was that in order to design the maximum number of spaces and to still have the depth required for each space, the curb would have to be at the property line. In addition, they requested a second variance to allow the parking spaces on the north side of the proposed lot to be 18=2 feet deep rather than the required 20 feet due to the sharp topographical change of the property on the north side. Hearing no comments from the public, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the two variance requests for the Hospital District parking lot expansion. 5. Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Setting a Public Hearing on Public Improvements. Previously, the City sold bonds to cover the expenses of the interceptor sewer project now underway. The City's Bond Consultant, Springsted, Inc., recommended that any appurtenant work as part of this project should be financed separately if part of the cost was to be assessed to benefiting property owners. As part of the interceptor project, a few streets are being reconstructed with curb and gutter and permanent street paving that will be assessed to benefiting property owners, and it is also recommended by the Bond Consultant that it would be most cost efficient for the City to combine this portion of the work with the City's share of the Highway 25 improvement project in a single bond issue. By declaring the two projects as a single project, an additional public hearing on the improvements would have to be held on June 9 with proper notices being sent to all property owners affected by the interceptor appurtenant work and to the property owners abutting on Highway 25. on Council Minutes - 5/27/86 To meet the requirements of issuing a bond for these improvements, at least 200 of the project cost would have to be assessed, which at the present time seems feasible. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to adopt a resolution setting a public hearing on public improvements relating to the interceptor sewer project appurtenant work and the rehabilitation of Trunk Highway 25 for June 9, 1986. See Resolution 86- 13. As a result of the new public hearing on June 9, Agenda Item #5 relating to a public hearing for possible assessment to an additional benefiting parcel along Fifth Street was eliminated, as it will be covered under the June 9 public hearing. 6. Discussion on Water System Improvements. Public Works Director, John Simola, informed the Council that recently drilling of test wells on the City property at the reservoir on Chelsea Road has been completed to determine whether this area would be adequate for a new well site for the City of Monticello. It was noted that the reservoir site encountered fine sands in the water bearing area below ground that would not yield the best well pumping capabilities, and the well driller indicated that for an additional $1,500.00, they would try to develop the well further to see if a better gallons per minute capability could be achieved at this site. The well driller agreed to perform the development at his own risk if the City decided not to choose this site. Further tests were recently completed, and it is the opinion of the City Engineer and the well driller that the site could be developed into a 1,000 gallon per minute well with some additional gravel being placed around the well casing. It was recommended by the City Engineer that this site be chosen for a future well, as it is adjacent to our underground storage reservoir and would be the most appropriate site for a new well. Based on the City Engineer's recommendation, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, and unanimously carried to proceed with the design of our proposed water improvement systems based on a new well being located at the underground reservoir site. In addition, the extra $1,500.00 in cost associated with developing this well would be payable to the well driller. 7. Consideration of Amending the Comprehensive Plan. In June of 1984, the City Council officially adopted the Comprehensive Plan as revised. The final document was recently printed and assembled now that all of the graphics were available. The City Administrator recommended that certain amendments to the Guide Plan be adopted after holding an additional public hearing on the revisions. The majority of the amendments have to do with updating the inventory of existing conditions such as a new nursing IWAI Council Minutes - 5/27/86 home, a new Fire Hall, and a new middle school that were not part of the existing inventory at the time of the adoption of the Plan. An additional amendment was recommended that related to the number of units of multiple housing that would be allowed as a percentage of total single family units. It was recommended by the City Administrator that the Plan be amended to allow up to 450 of total single family building sites being usable as multiple housing sites. An additional amendment also was recommended in regards to a position statement on annexation and planning. A section of the Comprehensive Guide Plan relates to the Orderly Annexation Area, and it was suggested that new language be inserted to clarify the City's annexation position that rather than the City pursuing annexation of areas in the OAA area, the City invite property owners to petition for annexation and after the City can determine which lands would be annexed into the City, the City would be able to plan for its extended future and could develop its own utilities for this area only rather than planning for a larger area that may never become part of the City. Mayor Grimsmo noted that he was not necessarily in agreement with closing off the City's borders to future annexation but would like the City to pursue annexing areas such as the new school site and the area for the proposed water tower site on Monte Hill at the present time, and to take those that petition for annexation in the future on an individual basis to see whether they can fit into the City's future plans. Councilmember Blonigen and Councilmember Fran Fair agreed that the City should direct its planning efforts and utility expansion efforts for the future on a certain area that the City would encompass and to stop spending money on planning and enlarging City utilities to serve future areas that may not want to become part of the City. Basically, it was the consensus of the Council that the City maybe wouldn't close off its borders to future annexation, but would plan and build utilities to only serve its present population; and if adjacent areas do petition to become part of the City, the City would have to determine at that time whether or not utilities are available to serve them; and if not, it would be up to the property owner to pay for all improvements to handle them or the City would deny their annexation petition. After further discussion, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to set a public hearing for June 23 for the purpose of amending the Comprehensive Plan relating to these language changes. 8. Consideration of Initiating Annexation Procedures. At the last Council meeting, a petition was received from Mr. Jim Boyle to annex 120 acres lying immediately adjacent to the southern border of the City and adjacent to County Road 118. Since that meeting, -3- Council Minutes - 5/27/86 Mr. Boyle has also petitioned to have an additional 110 acres annexed. In addition to Mr. Boyle's property, the Council discussed additional lands continguous to the City limits leading to the Monte Club Hill for annexation to provide for the City's future water tower site. Also, a small peninsula of land lying between Meadow Oak Subdivision and the Mississippi River was recommended for annexation to square off the City's border since this property is now surrounded by City limits. The Council reviewed three or four recommendations on areas that could be petitioned for annexation and agreed that Mr. Boyle's 230 acres, along with the small peninsula of land north of Meadow Oak Subdivision, and the area of land lying east of the Monte Club Hill road to the southerly portion of the Orderly Annexation boundary adjacent to the Meadow Oak Development be also considered for annexation at this time. The additional land surrounding the Monte Club Hill was included in their discussion since it was felt the new middle school site would create a demand for additional expansion in this area. As a result, motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigen, to adopt a resolution indicating an intention to annex certain lands to the City of Monticello which would be presented to the Municipal Board, who shall then designate a public hearing date on the request. Voting in favor was Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Grimsmo, Blonigen. Voting in opposition was Maxwell, as he felt the City should only consider the Monte Club Hill site and Boyle's property at this time. See Resolution 86-14. 9. Consideration of Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Relating to Signs. Recently, the City has seen a substantial increase in the use of portable signs and decorative attention getting devices by area businesses. The existing ordinances prohibit portable signs except under extremely restrictive conditions, and it was recommended by the City staff that the portable sign section of the ordinance be rewritten to provide more flexibility in allowing portable signs and banners, etc., but still allow the staff to have standards to control the placement of signs. The proposed ordinance amendment provides better definitions of portable signs, banners, streamers and pennants, etc., and allows for an annual permit to be issued to businesses that wish to use these devices. In addition, the new ordinance would allow for portable signs to be used 20 days per year rather than the current 10 days at one time, allowing the business owner to apply in advance for special days. Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to adopt an ordinance amendment relating to portable signs as amended. See Ordinance Amendment #150. IM Council Minutes - 5/27/86 10. Consideration of a Request to Allow a Residential Lot Split with the Two Lots when Split being Less than the Minimum Lot Square Footage Requirement. Applicant, Del Emmel. Mr. Del Emmel recently purchased a 66'x 165' residential lot at the corner of Chestnut and West River Street. Mr. Emmel noted that he is able to purchase the adjoining half lot on River Street and would like to subdivide the lot in half into two residential lots that would be 8212' x 99' in size or approximately 8,167 sq.ft. each. The two proposed lots would be less than the minimum size requirement of 12,000 sq. ft. and result in a variance of almost 4,000 sq.ft. per lot. Mr. Emmel noted that although the lot may be smaller than the City currently requires, adjacent properties along Chestnut Street all have smaller than 12,000 sq.ft. lots, and he felt this subdivision would be appropriate for the area. Councilmember Blonigen noted that the City has allowed new developments such as Meadow Oak to only have lots as small as 8,000 sq. ft. or less and felt this request would not be much different; but other Council members were concerned about a precedent it may set by allowing such a small lot compared to the City's requirements. The Council also discussed whether a 12,000 sq. ft. lot is too large a requirement under the present conditions and whether the direction is leaning toward smaller residential lots in the future. A motion was then made by Fran Fair, seconded by Bill Fair, to deny the split of the residential lot because the lot sizes would be far short of the minimum required. Voting in favor was Bill Fair, Fran Fair. Opposed was Grimsmo, Blonigen, and Maxwell. As a result, the denial was defeated. At this point, Public Works Director, John Simola, noted that if this lot is allowed to be split creating an additional lot on Chestnut Street, the City should possibly consider installing a water main along Chestnut, as the only way to serve this parcel would be to run a small copper service line from River Street, which is not the best situation in his opinion. He noted that currently all of the interior lots facing Chestnut Street have received water services from either Broadway or River Street with long service lines and problems could result in the future with the City having to repair and replace the street when problems occur. It was his recommendation that the City Engineer and himself review this area for possible water main installation as part of the improvements being completed at the present time. If a water main was installed, a portion or all of the cost could be assessed to property owners along Chestnut Street who have not previously received a water main assessment. As a result, it was the consensus of the Council to not take any action on Mr. Emmel's request of his lot subdivision at this time but to hold an additional public hearing on June 9 to consider this area for a water main extension and the resulting assessments that could occur. -5- Council Minutes - 5/27/86 11. Consideration of Amending a Conditional Use Permit to Allow Construction of a New Parking Lot with Four Variances. Applicant, The Seestrom Company. The Seestrom Company was previously granted a conditional use permit under the City's new PZ -M Zoning district to allow for their electrical company to be located in a house at the corner of Washington and Broadway. Mr. Seestrom requested an amendment to his conditional use permit to allow for a construction of three parking spaces on his property as required in a different location than previously approved. The design was recommended by the Planning Commission and agreed to by Mr. Seestrom that would result in no additional variances required. Motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to approve amending the conditional use permit allowing for the three parking spaces on the new parking design and the additional screening from adjacent residential areas as required. Mr. Seestrom also requested a variance to allow a sign on his property to exceed the 28 sq.ft. allowed in the PZ -M zone. Councilmembers felt that a sign for his business should meet the requirements; and a motion was made by Fran Fair, seconded by Blonigen, to require the sign advertising his business to be 28 sq.ft. maximum. Voting in favor was Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Arve Grimsmo, Dan Blonigen. Opposed was Maxwell. 12. Consideration of Granting a Variance to Allow the Use of Public Parking Lots in Lieu of Required Off -Street Parking. Applicant, Floyd Kruse. Mr. Floyd Kruse, owner of Dino's Deli building at the intersection of Walnut Street and Broadway, requested to be allowed to use the public parking lots for his parking requirements in lieu of providing on-site parking facilities for his proposed expansion of the building. Mr. Kruse is proposing to expand the building to include additional retail activities and two apartment dwellings on the upper level and noted that he would not have any additional area on his property to provide off-street parking without using the public parking lot. The proposed building plans indicate that the building would be located within 8 feet of the present alley, and it was recommended by the City staff that at least three on-site parking spaces be provided to accommodate cars for the three apartment dwelling units that would be within the structure, the reason being that if cars for apartment dwellings are allowed to use the public parking lots, it becomes a maintenance problem for the City crews when they are snowplowing, etc. According to the proposed expansion plans, Mr. Kruse would be required to provide an additional 20 parking spaces; and if three were required to be on-site for the apartments, 17 spaces would be utilized in the public parking lots. The City's current ordinances allow for the City to charge the developer a fee for using the public parking lots for their required parking spaces, and Mr. Kruse has indicated a willingness to pay an annual fee for this right but felt that Council Minutes - 5/27/86 in order to make the building a profitable venture, he would have to have all his 20 parking spaces in the parking lot and would not be willing to provide three on-site. It was the consensus of the Council that possibly there is currently enough room in the City parking lots to provide for expansion of businesses in the downtown area but that apartment dwelling units should have on-site parking and not be allowed to permanently use the public parking lot facilities. Motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Fran Fair, to grant a variance to Mr. Kruse allowing 17 sites required for his expansion to be used in the public parking lots adjacent to his property but requiring three on-site parking spaces for the apartment dwellings proposed. Voting in favor was Fran Fair, Bill Fair, Grimsmo. Opposed was Maxwell and Blonigen. Further discussion took place on setting of the annual fee to be charged for each space in the public parking lots; and it was the Council's directive to have the City Administrator set a fee based on maintenance cost per space and development and acquisition of additional spaces. The Administrator noted that currently the cost of maintaining one space is approximately $45.00 per year, and that the cost of acquiring and developing a new parking lot would be approximately $50.00 per year amortized over 25 years. 13. Consideration of Relocating the Band Shell to Ellison Park. As part of the new bridge project being planned for Highway 25, the State of Minnesota will be demolishing the band stand in Ellison Park for right-of-way purposes; and in order for MN/DOT and the federal government to reimburse the City for the cost of a new band shell, the City has to present accurate data reflecting the cost of building a new facility. Previously, the Council had discussed relocating a new band shell to Ellison Park, and the Public Works Director requested direction from the Council as to the exact siting of a new facility in Ellison Park. It was noted by the Public Works Director that the Department of Transportation and the federal government would not reimburse the City without having firm cost of building a new structure, and the Public Works Director noted that one way of obtaining this cost would be to prepare plans and specifications for the identical band shell and seek two or three bidders to get a firm cost. Council members discussed the relocation, and it was the consensus that although a new band shell would probably be built in Ellison Park, possibly the City should not be in too much of a hurry to immediately build another one but possibly seek another design or other alternatives for a structure. -7- Council Minutes - 5/27/86 As a result, motion was made by Bill Fair, seconded by Blonigen, and unanimously carried to authorize the Public Works Director to do whatever is necessary to get an accurate cost of replacing the existing band shell and to request the money from MN/DOT and the federal government for replacing the band shell but to hold off on building the identical structure at this time to receive citizen input as to design, etc. 14. Department Head Reports. The Council discussed with Department Heads, Karen Hanson of the Senior Citizen Center, Mike Melstad of the YMCA, Wright County Sheriff's Department Deputies, and other City staff members, quarterly reports that were presented. In addition, the quarterly financial statement for the Liquor Store was reviewed with Liquor Store Manager, Joe Hartman. Administrator Eidem discussed with the Council the progress of possibly establishing a tri -city airport between Monticello, Big Lake, and Becker. It was noted that the City of Becker has not recently participated in the process but may still be interested in the airport concept. It was recommended by the Administrator that approximately $1,300.00 be authorized for preparing an airport joint powers agreement and that this cost would be reduced if the City of Becker joins in the process. As a result, a Motion was made by Maxwell, seconded by Fran Fair, and unanimously carried to authorize the expenditure of approximately $1,300.00 for the preparation of an airport joint powers agreement. 15. Consideration of Bills for the Month of May. It was noted that check no. 22393 in the amount of $560.03 was incorrect, with the correct amount being $217.03. Motion was then made by Bill Fair, seconded by Maxwell, and unanimously carried to approve the bills for the month of May as presented. Rick Wolfsteler Assistant Ad inistrator we