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